MiddleAgedKen
Member
Some things it don't pay to advertise.
Breakin'the Law, ever justified ?.
- Thread starter malo
- Start date
- Status
Zundfolge
Member
Justified or not, its NOT justified to talk about it on the internet 
If man's laws are out of alignment with natural law, then man's law is wrong and unjustified.
That said, something like this isn't a matter of moral acceptability, but legalistic, realistic, pragmatic acceptability. If it's against man's law, it'd be really stupid to break said law unless you had a very, very good reason. And then, expect to die and/or be locked up for a good long time.
Of course, that all depends on your local cultural restraints and expectations. If it's illegal, but every household has a bunch of guns anyway - including the local law enforcement - I'm guessing the law doesn't hold much weight, and local authority holds precedence over whatever it was that was projected from somewhere else.
Hope that makes sense.
That said, something like this isn't a matter of moral acceptability, but legalistic, realistic, pragmatic acceptability. If it's against man's law, it'd be really stupid to break said law unless you had a very, very good reason. And then, expect to die and/or be locked up for a good long time.
Of course, that all depends on your local cultural restraints and expectations. If it's illegal, but every household has a bunch of guns anyway - including the local law enforcement - I'm guessing the law doesn't hold much weight, and local authority holds precedence over whatever it was that was projected from somewhere else.
Hope that makes sense.
Wes Janson
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2006
- Messages
- 1,962
I'm reminded somehow of the book The Killing Star, which posits that the reason SETI hasn't found signs of life is that space-faring civilizations tend to aggressively eliminate each other via first strikes whenever discovered, in order to protect their own existence. In essence, being able to travel between stars gives one the default capability to wipe out another civilization upon first contact, so everybody shuts up and "makes like a hole in the water."
A quote from the book:
Somehow that whole thing reminds me of the direction these sorts of discussions always turn. Out of fear, all become silent. It turns the whole landscape into a sea of quiet stares...
A quote from the book:
Somehow that whole thing reminds me of the direction these sorts of discussions always turn. Out of fear, all become silent. It turns the whole landscape into a sea of quiet stares...
JerryM
Member
Hi Andrew,
[How about the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto?]
If we ever get to that point I'll help make the guns. One can always conjure up extreme example in such threads as this to justify law breaking.
I suspect that most questions such as this one are designed not to cover the Warsaw Ghetto, but to justify breaking laws with which they do not agree.
If we want to take the most extreme examples then such questions, in my view, are a waste of time.
I cannot think of any likely scenario in this nation where making guns to fight the government will happen. If it came to that I doubt one or a group would be able to make enough to do anything. It would take outside help as in WWII, and who might be a nation that we would trust and want to destroy our government and install theirs?
I think I'll leave it at that.
Regards,
Jerry
[How about the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto?]
If we ever get to that point I'll help make the guns. One can always conjure up extreme example in such threads as this to justify law breaking.
I suspect that most questions such as this one are designed not to cover the Warsaw Ghetto, but to justify breaking laws with which they do not agree.
If we want to take the most extreme examples then such questions, in my view, are a waste of time.
I cannot think of any likely scenario in this nation where making guns to fight the government will happen. If it came to that I doubt one or a group would be able to make enough to do anything. It would take outside help as in WWII, and who might be a nation that we would trust and want to destroy our government and install theirs?
I think I'll leave it at that.
Regards,
Jerry
thexrayboy
Member
From the perspective of the founding fathers any action that is taken as
a response to an immoral and unjustified act ( or law) perpetrated by those
in power is just and right. That theory was and is the basis by which they
chose to revolt against the crown. They broke countless laws in doing so.
In reality this is the basis of "civil disobediance". Sit at the wrong end of the bus if you don't have the right color skin and you are a hero. Exercise your
fundamental rights to own any and all arms that you personally choose to own
and you will be demonized, vilified and made an example of by the media and
the JBT minions of those in power.
Reality really sucks sometimes don't it.
a response to an immoral and unjustified act ( or law) perpetrated by those
in power is just and right. That theory was and is the basis by which they
chose to revolt against the crown. They broke countless laws in doing so.
In reality this is the basis of "civil disobediance". Sit at the wrong end of the bus if you don't have the right color skin and you are a hero. Exercise your
fundamental rights to own any and all arms that you personally choose to own
and you will be demonized, vilified and made an example of by the media and
the JBT minions of those in power.
Reality really sucks sometimes don't it.
ZombiesAhead
Member
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 460
I think this is a bad idea for a thread...
Average Guy
Member
What Caimlas said. And alexd, too.
I tend to ignore stupid laws. YMMV.
I tend to ignore stupid laws. YMMV.
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
Well, my study of Hungarian, German, and Russian history all tells me that the outrageous, totalitarian Hellscapes that universally horrify us were all perfectly legal.
In those circumstances, without a question, you would be justified in arming yourself by any means necessary or possible.
The interesting question, of course, is, "If those laws prohibiting arms aren't valid under those extreme circumstances, why are they valid under moderate, mundane circumstances such as ours?"
Hmm.........
(Hint...there is a valid answer as to why such laws should be given an amount of respect under moderate circumstances)
In those circumstances, without a question, you would be justified in arming yourself by any means necessary or possible.
The interesting question, of course, is, "If those laws prohibiting arms aren't valid under those extreme circumstances, why are they valid under moderate, mundane circumstances such as ours?"
Hmm.........
(Hint...there is a valid answer as to why such laws should be given an amount of respect under moderate circumstances)
ctdonath
Member
The question is:
Is obeying a bad law worse than not?
The term is "the doctrine of competing harms".
There are things that are wrong, like murder and theft. Breaking the laws against them is also doing something that is just plain wrong.
It may be morally wrong to obey a law that allows you to be a thief. And there are such laws. Is it okay to obey a law that allows you to go bankrupt when you can pay your voluntarily-acquired debts, but find it to be a less-costly strategy to simply forego paying?
OTOH, there are many laws which have no connection to morality whatsoever. For example, until a few weeks ago, it was legal to have a beer on the beach here. Recently, the city council implemented a "temporary, experimental booze ban" despite the fact that, when this was on the ballot, the city's voters voted against it, twice.
Do I have ANY moral obligation whatsoever, not to have a beer at the beach? HELL NO. There's nothing moral about it. For my own reasons, I may wish to avoid the hassle and the fine, so I might not have a beer at the beach, or I might conceal it better. But morality? What's that got to do with anything here? (I don't get "drunk and disorderly", start fights, endanger others, etc. -- those can be morally wrong, but of course they can also be prosecuted, and harshly, without banning beer for the 99% of beer-drinking people who are doing none of these things.)
Note that, when most of the laws we notice on a daily basis have no foundation in real "right and wrong", a general notion of respect for the law becomes not only less likely in the population, but nearly impossible for the thinking person. And when we follow these laws not because they correspond with a sense of morality, but rather just to avoid punishment, it becomes clear that we live under a petty tyranny.
It may be morally wrong to obey a law that allows you to be a thief. And there are such laws. Is it okay to obey a law that allows you to go bankrupt when you can pay your voluntarily-acquired debts, but find it to be a less-costly strategy to simply forego paying?
OTOH, there are many laws which have no connection to morality whatsoever. For example, until a few weeks ago, it was legal to have a beer on the beach here. Recently, the city council implemented a "temporary, experimental booze ban" despite the fact that, when this was on the ballot, the city's voters voted against it, twice.
Do I have ANY moral obligation whatsoever, not to have a beer at the beach? HELL NO. There's nothing moral about it. For my own reasons, I may wish to avoid the hassle and the fine, so I might not have a beer at the beach, or I might conceal it better. But morality? What's that got to do with anything here? (I don't get "drunk and disorderly", start fights, endanger others, etc. -- those can be morally wrong, but of course they can also be prosecuted, and harshly, without banning beer for the 99% of beer-drinking people who are doing none of these things.)
Note that, when most of the laws we notice on a daily basis have no foundation in real "right and wrong", a general notion of respect for the law becomes not only less likely in the population, but nearly impossible for the thinking person. And when we follow these laws not because they correspond with a sense of morality, but rather just to avoid punishment, it becomes clear that we live under a petty tyranny.
stevelyn
Member
Don't look to me to enforce it.
sacp81170a
Member
Think about the jurisdictions that are trying to pass laws against smoking in one's own home. How is such a law to be enforced without violating common law principles of privacy and control of one's own property? Did someone say "fascism" yet? George Carlin was exactly right. Fascism will not come to this country in the form of Brown Shirts and marches with flaming torches. It'll come with a smiley face and "we're doing this for your own good". It's for the children, you know...
(I don't smoke, by the way.)
yokel
Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,235
"Petty laws breed great crimes." (Ouida)
In Germany, lighting up became a cherished post-war mark of freedom and tolerance after a smoking crack down by Hitler's Nazi regime in the 1930s.
The single-minded National Socialists were attempting to achieve a perfect world like Disneyland's Main Street.
With remarkable ease, the net result was of course the gradual downward slide towards appalling authoritarianism and tyranny.
In Germany, lighting up became a cherished post-war mark of freedom and tolerance after a smoking crack down by Hitler's Nazi regime in the 1930s.
The single-minded National Socialists were attempting to achieve a perfect world like Disneyland's Main Street.
With remarkable ease, the net result was of course the gradual downward slide towards appalling authoritarianism and tyranny.
HankB
Member
Malo, you indicate that you're in Scotland.
I would have no compuction about breaking Scotland's firearm laws - discretely! - if my safety and/or that of my family depended on it.
I would have no compuction about breaking Scotland's firearm laws - discretely! - if my safety and/or that of my family depended on it.
Deavis
Member
Small laws train you for big laws later. Most people believe history started when they were born and forget that things haven't always been the way they are.
How 'bout this:
If you are bound by a law that you consider to be so immoral, unjust and just plain wrong that you feel compelled to proactively violate it...
Isn't it your moral duty as a citizen to either do everything you can to effect a change of that law, or failing that; to renounce your citizenship and emmigrate somewhere you feel to be fairly and justly governed?
Joe
If you are bound by a law that you consider to be so immoral, unjust and just plain wrong that you feel compelled to proactively violate it...
Isn't it your moral duty as a citizen to either do everything you can to effect a change of that law, or failing that; to renounce your citizenship and emmigrate somewhere you feel to be fairly and justly governed?
Joe
Kalashnikov
Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2005
- Messages
- 399
If you think it is worth the potential consequences then yes, by all mean, you have my support.
marsofold
Member
As a practical matter it is dangerous to go against the powers that be. Right and wrong are Biblical absolutes that once were literally written in stone. However, since local laws vary so widely all over the globe, it is obvious that any connection between morality and local law is purely mythological. Coincidence at best.
RoadkingLarry
Member
I was too small to remember it at the time but I have heard much over the years about a brave woman by the name of Rosa Parks.
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
1. This is the Legal forum; it's for legal questions and information only, please.
2. Nobody on THR is going to advocate illegal activity anyway.
2. Nobody on THR is going to advocate illegal activity anyway.
- Status