The 2nd amendment was intended to keep people with a healthy fear of one another. The equation is clear - to take another's property means one must risk something even more valuable; one must risk their life. It's that inequality that preserves order and to try and rebalance the equation by cancelling out the ever-present constants and insist life is above both liberty and prosperity, then you are fundamentally altering the social construct in untenable ways.
So then why don't we just have the police shoot on sight for any suspected crime? Police get called to store theft, just shoot the suspect. Police get called to vandalism, shoot first.
The reason a prosecutor makes an example of someone is so that they serve as a deterrent to others. It's not because they desire to make an example of everyone.
The problem is that you disguise widely complicit violations of societal order by comparing them to single instances of pilfering. Looting doesn't justify deadly force, but a riotous and unlawful mob certainly can.
I don't follow the logic that a crime against property should become a capital crime just because it is down by a large(unorganised) group of people. Furthermore, the constitution guarantees a fair right to a jury trial, no matter how egregious, and police or the national guard shooting to kill looters goes against that.
Should drug smugglers be shot too? They are also going against societal order.
A rebellion is different, if you have to deploy the military because people have overpowered the police then it is no longer just a normal crime scene. Normally people would just disperse when that happens, but if they tried to attack the military in the same way they attack the police then what would you expect?
Wouldn't even matter if looting was a capital crime. We're talking summary execution without a trial. Judge dread territory here.
The 2nd amendment was intended to keep people with a healthy fear of one another. The equation is clear - to take another's property means one must risk something even more valuable; one must risk their life. It's that inequality that preserves order and to try and rebalance the equation by cancelling out the ever-present constants and insist life is above both liberty and prosperity, then you are fundamentally altering the social construct in untenable ways.
So then why don't we just have the police shoot on sight for any suspected crime? Police get called to store theft, just shoot the suspect. Police get called to vandalism, shoot first.
2 replies →
The reason a prosecutor makes an example of someone is so that they serve as a deterrent to others. It's not because they desire to make an example of everyone.
The problem is that you disguise widely complicit violations of societal order by comparing them to single instances of pilfering. Looting doesn't justify deadly force, but a riotous and unlawful mob certainly can.
A protest against a citizen who had his life taken without due process of law is getting out of hand.
Doing the same on a much larger scale is not going to improve any situation whatsoever. It will be the exact opposite of a deterrent to others.
I don't follow the logic that a crime against property should become a capital crime just because it is down by a large(unorganised) group of people. Furthermore, the constitution guarantees a fair right to a jury trial, no matter how egregious, and police or the national guard shooting to kill looters goes against that.
Should drug smugglers be shot too? They are also going against societal order.
A rebellion is different, if you have to deploy the military because people have overpowered the police then it is no longer just a normal crime scene. Normally people would just disperse when that happens, but if they tried to attack the military in the same way they attack the police then what would you expect?