Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
Say I'm on the street and 4 armed men come in to rob and shootup the place in the hopes of killing a dozen people, so I pull out my illegal gun and get lucky enough to kill them before they can kill any innocent people, guess whos still breaking the law and going to jail?
|
If the gun is licensed to you, I would say you have a very strong chance of being judged as acting in self-defense. Another example, if you shot and killed 4 terrorists (bombs strapped across their waists) trying to enter a nightclub, you'd be hailed a hero, I would think.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
What you are suggesting is oxymoronic (and that's not me calling you a name). The security of which you speak hinders freedom (as due process is a universally understood freedom for Americans), thus the amount of freedom is antithetical to the amount of security. In other words, the relatrionship between freedom and security is diametrically oppositional. Anarchy is the purest form of freedom, and authoritarian or totalitarian rule is the purest form of security.
|
I have to admit I have no idea what you are trying to say here. To my mind, anarchy is self-enslavement masked as freedom. As political theories go, it is Fool's gold. Anarchy exists soley in the minds of individuals - it cannot possibly have a widespread, working model in the real world. How on earth are you going to construct any sort of functional, orderly society based upon the tenet of lawlessness? ALL societies, whether democratic, communist or dictatorial, are based upon obligation and responsibility; this obligation is upheld through law enforcement.
I would suggest the oxymoron lies in your court - or else I misunderstood you completely.