Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 5/18/2003 2:13:57 AM EDT
Ok, so we've discussed that the moral obligation to protect ones family outweighs the moral obligation to the government. That's faily well understood, I think. So, the next question: Laws, like the current AWB, don't really affect my ability to protect my family. I can still own an AR-15, but without a bayonet lug. I don't think that that is going to significantly put my family in more danger. So, is it immoral to to have a bayonet lug on my post-ban? I'm leaning toward yes, but I would like to hear the opinions of others. I understand that an unconstitutional law is unconstitutional from the time of it's establishment, even if a court has yet to rule on it. For the sake of this discussion, I would like to assume that the SCOTUS has ruled the current AWB constitutional.
Link Posted: 5/18/2003 2:18:17 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Johnphin: Ok, so we've discussed that the moral obligation to protect ones family outweighs the moral obligation to the government. That's faily well understood, I think. So, the next question:
View Quote
What do you mean by this? I mean I truly dont understand it, and why they are even at odds?
Link Posted: 5/18/2003 2:32:38 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Silence:
Originally Posted By Johnphin: Ok, so we've discussed that the moral obligation to protect ones family outweighs the moral obligation to the government. That's faily well understood, I think. So, the next question:
View Quote
What do you mean by this? I mean I truly dont understand it, and why they are even at odds?
View Quote
I don't know that they are at odds, yet. What I mean by it is: If ALL guns are outlawed, the government has effectively taken away our means of protecting our family against armed criminals. In this case, I would say that we have more of a moral obligation to protect our family's than we do to follow the laws of the land.
Link Posted: 5/18/2003 2:43:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Johnphin:
Originally Posted By Silence:
Originally Posted By Johnphin: Ok, so we've discussed that the moral obligation to protect ones family outweighs the moral obligation to the government. That's faily well understood, I think. So, the next question:
View Quote
What do you mean by this? I mean I truly dont understand it, and why they are even at odds?
View Quote
I don't know that they are at odds, yet. What I mean by it is: If ALL guns are outlawed, the government has effectively taken away our means of protecting our family against armed criminals. In this case, I would say that we have more of a moral obligation to protect our family's than we do to follow the laws of the land.
View Quote
Ahh, well then at that point, criminals will be the least of your worries. In the long run an armed citizenry is not about protecting your family from criminals, it is to protect you from government excesses. That is the point of the second amendment, and why the words 'shall not be infringed' are so important. If you dont think that the current AWB doesnt effect your ability to protect your family, you are incorrect. Think about what it does, and what it says. Once the government places itself at odds to society, and to the individuals within society, it time for government to change or be changed. And If you dont think that elements of the Government arent already at odds with you, you are incorrect in that also. And you already have moral obligation to protect the government from the government (confusing isnt it). You do this by usding the 'four boxes' of liberty. In case you dont know them, they are: The Soapbox, the Ballot Box, the Jury Box, and finally the Cartridge Box.
Link Posted: 5/18/2003 3:43:47 AM EDT
Johnphin, you have NO 'moral' obligation to any govt. You may incur ETHICAL obligations or responsibilities depending on citizenship/job choices. Since even ethical obligations to the state require reciprocity [it's a 2 way 'social contract'], certainly NO amerikan owes our current fascist mobocracy ANY consideration on those grounds. The state has abrogated our Constitutional Rights-literally ignore the BoR's- so we 'owe' them nothing. SCOTUS certainly doesn't qualify as an arbiter since they're a function of the state. There's a big difference in 'law', morals and ethics-NOT necessarily very closely related even. Sounds like you're looking for re-inforcement WITHIN statist apparatus for a personal view of morality that's misapplied. What part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand-that's all you 'should' bother about. The 20,000+ social control devices applied by some fascists have NOTHING to do with 'morality'. Only you can 'allow' them to control you-it isn't a 'mob' choice. Ghost
Link Posted: 5/18/2003 8:32:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Johnphin: Laws, like the current AWB, don't really affect my ability to protect my family. I can still own an AR-15, but without a bayonet lug. I don't think that that is going to significantly put my family in more danger. So, is it immoral to to have a bayonet lug on my post-ban?
View Quote
I don't think any law, or lack of law, is or can be immoral. You've heard that 'you can't legislate morality'? Although many people and laws try to dictate morality, they don't work that well as morality is determined by the individual. What may be moral to one, may not to another. Abortion is a perfect example. Anti's think it abortion is immoral, while pro-lifer's don't. A bayonet lug can't be moral or immoral. It can only be legal/illegal.
Link Posted: 5/18/2003 8:51:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By neilfj: I don't think any law, or lack of law, is or can be immoral. You've heard that [red]'you can't legislate morality'[/red]? Although many people and laws try to dictate morality, they don't work that well as morality is determined by the individual. [red]What may be moral to one, may not to another[/red]. Abortion is a perfect example. Anti's think it abortion is immoral, while pro-lifer's don't. A bayonet lug can't be moral or immoral. It can only be legal/illegal.
View Quote
YES!!!!! GIVE THE MAN A PRIZE. I owe you a beer.
Link Posted: 5/18/2003 8:56:22 AM EDT
Ahhhh the old axiom comes to mind: Tried by Twelve, or carried by Six.
Link Posted: 5/18/2003 9:00:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Belfry_Express: YES!!!!! GIVE THE MAN A PRIZE. I owe you a beer.
View Quote
Great! I'm on the way!
Link Posted: 5/18/2003 9:06:26 AM EDT
I understand that an unconstitutional law is unconstitutional from the time of it's establishment, even if a court has yet to rule on it.
View Quote
Sounds good. However it doesnt really make a difference since people will be prosecuted under the law while it is in effect.
Link Posted: 5/18/2003 11:15:33 AM EDT
I guess I should qualify my definition of immorality. I'm speaking from a Christian perspective, personally. So, I wonder how The Bible views us breaking laws that don't affect our ability to be Christians. The way I understand The Bible, one of the husband's primary responsibilities is to provide for his family. While I obviously think that laws make it impossible to do that should be ignored, I'm wondering about the other laws, such as the flash-hider one. I agree with the statement that the SCOTUS does not make a very good arbiter, due to them being a government agency. Where did the history of the SCOTUS ruling about constitutionality come from? Wasn't the constitution supposed to be written for the common man to understand, and shouldn't that mean that we don't need the SCOTUS to interpret it? Why do they only hear cases about constitutionality and not about murder and whatnot?
Top Top