• 0 Posts
  • 42 Comments
Joined 6 days ago
cake
Cake day: December 19th, 2024

help-circle








  • You said intentional.

    I’ll grant you that I could have phrased it more clearly, but I was speaking about the 2A for that section:

    If that were the case you’d be right. But as of right now, this is the only check on their power. And it is an intentional check. The 2A was put in place to fight tyrants if it came to it, and it is quickly coming to it.

    Perhaps, but if it’s ever used to support justice then it’s inevitable that it would also be used to undermine justice.

    Yes, which is why it cannot simply be labeled corruption in all cases. It’s dependent on the case it’s used in. It can be used to free somebody from stealing food for their star ijg family, it can be used to let lynchers get away with their horrid actions, and everything in-between.

    Why bother having laws if you can simply convene a jury of citizens to determine an appropriate punishment?

    Because the majority of the time it isn’t applicable, or used. It’s an edge case.







  • The difference is self defense. As stated elsewhere in this thread, we should all agree its morally acceptable to kill nazis. With them, it’s either kill or be killed. If we didn’t step up against them in WW2 it would have been disastrous. And with CEOs, billionaires, and other business execs it’s no different. They’re actively killing everyone they can as quickly as they can because it makes them a quick buck.

    So ultimately it boils down to self defense.

    A state however gets no self defense out of capital punishment. It instead becomes a way to silence political opponents, innocents routinely are executed, and so on. The state cannot be granted the power to kill because it will abuse it. The people eventually need to defend themselves from the state when it is granted this power.

    The violence of the oppressed is not the same as the violence of the oppressor.