Most likely I would be giving them orders. My family came over on the Mayflower, I’ll be ok.
Zecarlo, do you believe the guy whose ancestors didn’t come over on the Mayflower would have the right, if he chose to bother and despite the futility of it, to retrieve that pistol from his jacket pocket and shoot one of his would be executioners?
Does a convicted murderer, on death row, have the right to kill his executioner?
No. But, I don’t equate the convicted murderer with a truly innocent man who is simply the victim of an evil government. Now, might I trouble you for a direct answer?
In b4 innocent is a matter of opinion.
I gave you a direct answer. If someone is sentenced to death by a government then that person does not have a right to kill his executioner since it’s the government that decides what is and isn’t a right. Note that you believe a convicted murderer doesn’t have that right but the convicted can still be innocent.
Zecarlo. Do YOU believe that man lined up against the wall, sentenced to death without a day in court, and no evidence of any actual evil done to any other human being, has a right (or not) to retrieve that pistol and fire it?
If we look at innocence and guilt with regard to the law then opinion doesn’t matter. One has either broken the law or he hasn’t.
1 Like
How was he sentenced if he didn’t go to court?
By the soldiers who discovered the hiding place in the attic of his would be saviors.
I agree but I think the question is, how far do we go to stop illegal immigration. Obviously what we are doing isn’t working. Do we ever go into a gray area to solve it? Also, what may be immoral to person A, may be moral to person B,(like abortion.) I don’t know who Erick Erickson is but I can agree with that. Morality is a tough cookie at times, though. People want results and are willing to go into that said gray area to get it. The hard part is finding the balance of not being too soft on immigration where people will just take advantage of it and being too tough on immigration and ripping kids away from parents.
A lot of this is for another thread so no need to go super in depth about immigration policies ha.
Well, I wouldn’t agree with a policy to put a minefield in place to begin with but if there is one in this hypothetical situation and people knowingly walk into it, that’s their choice to take that risk. I wouldn’t walk my kid through a minefield but the parent could try it and send money back to the family. .They could also try the legal way, right?
So YOU do not believe he has any right to retrieve that pistol, despite the futility, and fire that shot?
Did the soldiers have the right to pass sentence on him?
No. I do not believe those soldiers have that right. I believe they are morally obligated to disobey. They may be legally entitled to, under their own laws, as their government is creating the laws. But I do not believe that everything that is legal is just. Though it was legal to own a slave at one point, I do not believe those owners had the right to do so.
Could you answer scenario directly? The quips about not only the man not having the right, but you would be the one having him shot, surely that’s not your real answer?
The premise of this statement is incorrect–the “principle behind the 2nd” was never to facilitate armed rebellion on the part of a disgruntled citizenry. This is a fallacy of very recent vintage.
That’s easy. No. Illegal immigration is not the issue to ‘go gray’ on. OTOH: Engaging in torture immediately post-9/11, when you’re convinced another attack is imminent? I can see the argument. But again, no going gray for illegal immigration.
I think–I hope–we can all agree that separating babies from their mother for the purpose of scaring other people is immoral.
I’m confused–if (as you say) “that’s their choice to take that risk,” why would you object to a minefield policy to begin with? From your perspective, there’s nothing wrong with it–don’t try to enter illegally and you won’t get blown up. And even I will admit, a minefield policy would likely be a very effective deterrent.
I don’t mean rebellion against a domestic regime, specifically. I simply mean a tyrannical regime. Perhaps that is domestic, but it could just as well be foreign. Being necessary to the security of a FREE state.
Though, if Trumpclinton the XVth (trying to cover everyone’s ultimate bad guy) did declare he is the last elected President and will be installing himself as forever King…I mean, surely we could agree that’s a domestic threat to the Free State? Either way, I’m not even necessarily saying the hypothetical regime is of domestic origin.
Part of me thinks a minefield between us and Mexico except at standard border crossings would be amazing. Because if you don’t do it in secret, there’s really no logical reason to feel blame for people that knowingly walked into a minefield.
Plus Mexican immigration would come to an absolute halt, we’d get a jump start on our next recession, and we could force the supply to adjust to a new (lower) demand.
Then 5 years later we’d do the Homer “DOH!” and just dig em up and resell the mines to Kim Jong Un when he inevitably doesn’t get the global recognition he’s after.
Win Win
You made up the scenario so why say you believe they don’t have the right? Either they do or don’t.
S’all about location. Society is rooted in a need of tiers of jurisdiction. Only way it functions at our population level.