Sans Authoritas wrote:
I was speaking about an oath to uphold "laws" such as, "It is illegal to smuggle slaves to Canada on the Underground Railroad." Laws against certain material substances, including prohibitions against certain firearm configurations, fall into this category. Because something has been legislated against (or for) does not make the enforcement of such laws moral. Nor does such legislation necessarily morally bind anyone. Do you deny this fact?
So
you are going to decide what's moral? Not for me you're not. The majority determines morality. And you don't make the laws. We elected representatives and empowered them to make those. If we don't like the laws then we go through the channels, no matter how difficult or painful to have them changed. Not trash the ones we pay to enforce the laws. And to answer your question, yes legistation does morally bind everyone since a majority determines morality and a majority, in one form or another enacts legislation, until a majority overturns that legistation its is morally binding!
I wouldn't have any morals if I, as an alleged peace officer, took an oath to do anything but protect the individual lives, liberty and property of individuals. I wouldn't have any morals if I arrested people for having a substance that is less dangerous than alcohol, or for having a firearm that didn't pass some politician's muster on "acceptable." I wouldn't have any morals if I upheld such "laws:" oath or no oath.
Then if it goes against your beliefs no one is asking you to take such an oath. But for society to survive we have to have laws and they have to be enforced. If you don't like them call them immoral, object to them, disobey them, whatever. The next time I hear that a NRT has raided a home and it happens to be Sans Authoritas home and I hear that poor old Sans Authoritas died for what he believed in, I'll say a prayer for you!
I'm not lord and master over anyone else, Grizzly Adams. Feel free to mock the ideas I propose. Feel free to ignore them. I won't hold a gun to your head to make you obey my will. But there are plenty of people who would think nothing of holding a gun to your head because you possessed a substance less dangerous than alcohol. There are plenty of people who would think nothing of holding a gun to your head for the "crime" of having a rifle with a barrel of 15.5'' long. Peopel who would think nothing of putting a gun to your head for carrying a firearm without a slip of paper saying the government is magnanimous enough to give you permission to defend your God-given life with the best means in existence. People who would think nothing of holding a gun to your head for anything, simply so long as it was classified as "illegal." Do you approve of such insane and irrational people? You seem to support them.
I don't have to worry about someone holding a gun to my head. I don't use drugs, all my guns are legal, I carry legally. In other words I obey the law. Do I agree with them? NO! Do I try to get them changed? YES!
Do something? Such as convince my fellow men not to give their support to arbitrary and foolish laws and those who enforce them? I'm on it.
How? By hijacking every new thread that's posted and posting the same tripe over and over?
I don't feel the police and government (or their criminal impostors) are "out to get me" in particular. That's like saying a 3-year old with a bulldozer is "out to get someone." He's not. He just doesn't have the maturity, logic and level of consciousness to see and comprehend the damage he's doing. Just because people don't see how damaging their actions are does not mean their actions are not damaging.
So now you're saying that the antis in congress and the Brady Bunch, etc are really out to take our guns away because they "don't have the maturity, logic and level of consciousness to see and comprehend the damage they're doing?" That's interesting. Now here all along I have been thinking that they just didn't like guns and didn't think anyone else should have any either. I'll have to readjust my thinking about that!
Sorry, but I have no respect for someone who would help throw a non-violent person in prison for 5 to 10 years for having a 15.5'' barrel on a firearm. Do you, Grizzly? Please answer that question. Does the mere fact that they are "following orders" cut it for you? That's not protecting anyone's life, liberty or property. (Real policework.) That's asinine law-worshipping. Laws should prohibit things that actually harm other people. Period. Anyone who uses violence or the threat of violence to enforce anything besides those laws has made himself a violent criminal.
You don't seem to get the fact that the LEO doesn't "throw" anyone in prison. And the law won't put anyone in prison either if they obeyed the law! And no, just following orders doesn't cut it for me. If I were a LEO and didn't like an order or an order was unlawful, I would resign rather than follow it. There are LAWFUL and UNLAWFUL orders and you are not obligated to follow unlawful orders!
Laws should prohibit things that actually harm other people. Period. Anyone who uses violence or the threat of violence to enforce anything besides those laws has made himself a violent criminal.
Interesting definition. Is that according to Blackstone or Sans Authoritas
