Wyoming Lawmaker Proposes Firing Squads for Execution

[CaseyJones]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/01/14/Wyo-lawmaker-proposes-firing-squads-for-execution


A Wyoming lawmaker is pushing to allow use of the firing squad to execute condemned state inmates if constitutional problems or other issues ever prevented the state from using lethal injection.

Sen. Bruce Burns, R-Sheridan, said Monday that state law currently calls for using a gas chamber if lethal injection is unavailable.

"The state of Wyoming doesn't have a gas chamber currently, an operating gas chamber, so the procedure and expense to build one would be impractical to me," said Burns, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"I consider frankly the gas chamber to be cruel and unusual, so I went with firing squad because they also have it in Utah," Burns said. He's introduced the bill for consideration in the legislative session that starts Feb. 10 in Cheyenne.

[Dr.3D]

I would submit death by old age as an alternative. It's kind of hard to reverse the process of being shot when they finally find out they made a mistake and the person was innocent.

[nobody's_hero]

I think it should be voluntary. If you personally know you did it, and you prefer the death penalty because there's no way in hell you'll ever get out again, you should be able to choose what style of execution you prefer.

I'd choose death by flaming parachute.

[JK/SEA]

i don't know why, but this pisses me off for some reason....

must be my humanity getting in the way.


life in prison is my choice if i had to choose.

[Christian Liberty]

Doesn't bother me at all.

[JK/SEA]

Doesn't bother me at all.

an eye for an eye philosphy...

yeah...seems to work for 2 dimensional thinkers...

[Christian Liberty]

an eye for an eye philosphy...

yeah...seems to work for 2 dimensional thinkers...

The whole point of "eye for an eye" is to keep punishment proportional rather than seeking vengeance above and beyond what the other person did to you. People have twisted that into support for vengeance, which it isn't.

I get the concerns about innocent people being killed, but I don't see how the firing squad makes this aspect worse. At least its cheaper.

That said, I don't trust the State with power of life and death over individuals.

[asurfaholic]

I don't like it. Death is final, however, and I guess there is no real difference between death by gunshot or death by needle.

If someone is truly a menace to society, life in prison is acceptable.

I don't believe our justice system has the credibility to claim the right to execute a person.

[asurfaholic]

The whole point of "eye for an eye" is to keep punishment proportional rather than seeking vengeance above and beyond what the other person did to you. People have twisted that into support for vengeance, which it isn't.

I get the concerns about innocent people being killed, but I don't see how the firing squad makes this aspect worse. At least its cheaper.

That said, I don't trust the State with power of life and death over individuals.

Eye for an eye mentality is so Old Testament. We are living in the New Testament. You know, the part that starts in Matthew?

[JK/SEA]

The whole point of "eye for an eye" is to keep punishment proportional rather than seeking vengeance above and beyond what the other person did to you. People have twisted that into support for vengeance, which it isn't.

I get the concerns about innocent people being killed, but I don't see how the firing squad makes this aspect worse. At least its cheaper.

That said, I don't trust the State with power of life and death over individuals.


geez...you backed up so fast, i can smell the rubber burning through my monitor.

[coastie]

Doesn't bother me at all.

http://i39.tinypic.com/fblug8.gif

[Christian Liberty]

Here's the thing.

On principle, I think those who murder other people should die. In practice, as has been said, I don't think the government has any moral authority to do essentially anything since they are the biggest murderers and thieves on the planet. I don't support the way the death penalty is currently done because it is both more expensive than life imprisonment, and more likely to leave an innocent person unable to receive recourse (Which would be less likely to happen in a market-based court system, but is very likely in statist courts that have no market incentive.) So I guess the best way to put this is... in a free-market society I'd support the death penalty, but I don't support it right now.

That said, the change of METHOD doesn't bother me at all, and in fact, I think its better to do it via firing squad than lethal injection. Less painful, more efficient. Why anyone would actually have a problem with the change in METHOD is beyond me. Issues with the death penalty, that I get.

[Christian Liberty]

Eye for an eye mentality is so Old Testament. We are living in the New Testament. You know, the part that starts in Matthew?

I'm not a dispensationalist, and as such, I don't throw out the Old Testament. I believe both.

[Keith and stuff]

Met up with Sen. Bruce Burns when the Free State was considering Wyoming. He is a nice, no nonsense rancher. He is likely doing this because he thinks it is practical. What the old rancher doesn't understand is that sure, he has killed animals like this, but most folks in Cheyenne and Casper don't consider humans to be animals and aren't really into being practical. Though, he was 1 of the most powerful politicians in WY in 2004 so I hardly doubt this will cost him his seat.

Talk like this would freak the average person in San Fransisco out. It would be funny to see a reaction video ;)

[Philhelm]

I think it should be voluntary. If you personally know you did it, and you prefer the death penalty because there's no way in hell you'll ever get out again, you should be able to choose what style of execution you prefer.

I'd choose death by flaming parachute.

Sorry, we're all out of parachutes. Here, spin this wheel... Oh look! Your manner of execution is... *drumroll* ...bleeding out from your severed penis. Better luck next time!

[ObiRandKenobi]

I think it should be voluntary. If you personally know you did it, and you prefer the death penalty because there's no way in hell you'll ever get out again, you should be able to choose what style of execution you prefer.

I'd choose death by flaming parachute.

agreed on all counts

[phill4paul]

geez...you backed up so fast, i can smell the rubber burning through my monitor.

http://www.iruntheinternet.com/lulzdump/images/gifs/AustinPowers-parking-stuck-reversing-car-1334516571B.gif

[Dr.3D]

I'm not a dispensationalist, and as such, I don't throw out the Old Testament. I believe both.
So you keep all of the Levitical Laws?

[brushfire]

Can we burn politicians at the stake? What's he think about that law? How's his corruption record?

[Philhelm]

So you practice all of the Levitical Laws?

In light of states beginning to allow both gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana, people realized that the part of Leviticus which states that if a man lays with another man, he should be stoned, has been misinterpreted all of these years.

[otherone]

The jury that convicts should fire the rifles, immediately after the verdict is read. The state takes great care as it stands to separate itself from the savagery of it's "justice".

[Dr.3D]

In light of states beginning to allow both gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana, people realized that the part of Leviticus which states that if a man lays with another man, he should be stoned, has been misinterpreted all of these years.
Oh I thought it was because they didn't give a shit what is says in the Bible about that.
1 Corinthians 6:9

Edit:
Yes, the stoning part I understand. I don't however see anything about marijuana in there.

[Pericles]

In light of states beginning to allow both gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana, people realized that the part of Leviticus which states that if a man lays with another man, he should be stoned, has been misinterpreted all of these years.

+ rep

[HOLLYWOOD]

Wyoming Lawmaker Proposes Firing Squads for Execution



So, I presume this means the police are now authorized to shoot and kill with impunity, any mundane for any reason, anywhere within the state of Wyoming? Look for the state JUST-US system to procure many rubber stamps of "Justified Firing Squad".

[jmdrake]

Oh I thought it was because they didn't give a shit what is says in the Bible about that.
1 Corinthians 6:9

Edit:
Yes, the stoning part I understand. I don't however see anything about marijuana in there.

Because people who smoke weed are said to be stone... oh nevermind.

[jmdrake]

I'm not a dispensationalist, and as such, I don't throw out the Old Testament. I believe both.

It's not just a matter of "believing both." In some cases Jesus gave new instructions.

Matthew 5:
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Keyword in bold.

[GunnyFreedom]

So you keep all of the Levitical Laws?

You are aware that even at the time they were written, there was no person who was supposed to keep all of the Levitical laws, right? Some of the laws were for priests only. Some of the laws were for women only. Some of the laws were for men only. Some of the laws were for soldiers only. Indeed, any person who tried to keep all of the laws would in fact be violating the laws in much the way Saul did when he performed a sacrifice and filled the role of prophet, priest, and king -- making a pretence at himself being the Messiah.

The bottom line is that most of the folks complaining about those of us who observe the entire canon WRT the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, by and large so not actually have the first clue what it even means to keep Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Instead, they tend to look at the overwhelming errors of the scribes and the Pharisees, and assume that that is how one keeps Leviticus, when nothing could possibly be further from the truth.

[GunnyFreedom]

It's not just a matter of "believing both." In some cases Jesus gave new instructions.

Matthew 5:
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Keyword in bold.

Exodus 21 was describing the fact that concerning personal injuries, the concept of 'justice' requires equivalence in compensation for a legitimate injury. This concept was then to be put into civil law, which is has been, and remains with us until this very day. Matthew 5 speaks of situations outside of personal injury or civil law, rather interpersonal interaction where a refusal to take vengeance creates an even greater weight of punishment (in the eternal realm) upon the aggressor, as well as furthering the public case of the offended party.

One could say that Exodus 21:22-25 is a statement of law revealing the requirements of justice, while Matthew 5:38-39 is a statement of advice for personal prosperity in the Kingdom of God.

Do not forget that Matthew 5 also suggests that if your eye offends us we should pluck it out, and that we are all required to be as perfect as God Himself.

[Anti-Neocon]

I honestly for the life of me don't understand how anyone who claims to support liberty, even in the slightest sense, could support the idea of the state deciding life or death of its citizens, regardless of what they have done.

[FindLiberty]

I honestly for the life of me don't understand how anyone who claims to support liberty, even in the slightest sense, could support the idea of the state deciding life or death of its citizens, regardless of what they have done.

Oh, I thought it was the other side that was going to form a line and start shooting... My bad.

[Neil Desmond]

I honestly for the life of me don't understand how anyone who claims to support liberty, even in the slightest sense, could support the idea of the state deciding life or death of its citizens, regardless of what they have done.

When someone commits premeditated murder, they've forfeited their right to live. How can anyone who supports liberty have a problem with that? I don't think it's supportive of liberty for society to allow someone to get away with murdering people.

I'm not saying that anyone who murders needs to be executed, but if they want to live then maybe society shouldn't have to pay for keeping them in prison and feeding them. If they want to live, they ought to at least work to pay for the food and walls that surround them so society doesn't have to foot the bill.

[Dr.3D]

You are aware that even at the time they were written, there was no person who was supposed to keep all of the Levitical laws, right? Some of the laws were for priests only. Some of the laws were for women only. Some of the laws were for men only. Some of the laws were for soldiers only. Indeed, any person who tried to keep all of the laws would in fact be violating the laws in much the way Saul did when he performed a sacrifice and filled the role of prophet, priest, and king -- making a pretence at himself being the Messiah.

The bottom line is that most of the folks complaining about those of us who observe the entire canon WRT the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, by and large so not actually have the first clue what it even means to keep Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Instead, they tend to look at the overwhelming errors of the scribes and the Pharisees, and assume that that is how one keeps Leviticus, when nothing could possibly be further from the truth.

Yeah, in my experience, organized religion causes more harm than good. It has caused more death and destruction than anything on the planet.
For what it's worth, I'm done with it and perhaps these forums to boot.

Just when I start to believe I'm getting along with someone, I find I have offended them by saying something about theology they disagree with.

I can't even comment about pig blood without somebody taking offense about something they didn't even think about.

Perhaps it's best if I just read and forget about posting. Or perhaps that might be so difficult it would be better if I didn't read either.

I'll think about it for a few days and perhaps come do a decision as to what branch in the road to take.

I'm sorry if I offended anybody.

[GunnyFreedom]

Yeah, in my experience, organized religion causes more harm than good. It has caused more death and destruction than anything on the planet.
For what it's worth, I'm done with it and perhaps these forums to boot.

Just when I start to believe I'm getting along with someone, I find I have offended them by saying something about theology they disagree with.

I can't even comment about pig blood without somebody taking offense about something they didn't even think about.

Perhaps it's best if I just read and forget about posting. Or perhaps that might be so difficult it would be better if I didn't read either.

I'll think about it for a few days and perhaps come do a decision as to what branch in the road to take.

I'm sorry if I offended anybody.

Brother, you didn't offend me, not even a little bit, I promise. :) I was just clarifying a misconception that has been meticulously built over 1500 years.

ETA -- Seriously, I wasn't even a tiny bit offended, and I want to apologize if my post came across like I was. :(

[Dr.3D]

Brother, you didn't offend me, not even a little bit, I promise. :) I was just clarifying a misconception that has been meticulously built over 1500 years.

ETA -- Seriously, I wasn't even a tiny bit offended, and I want to apologize if my post came across like I was. :(
Well, I guess my skin might be a little thin. Probably because of the wonderful editing job the mods did on the "blood" thread.
It's my opinion, the religious beliefs a person has is pretty much between God and that person, unless those beliefs cause violence toward others.

I know I have been guilty of discussing theology and pointing fingers and I'm sorry about doing so. I've found it only causes strife and turmoil and turmoil is the one oil that doesn't lubricate.

[Demigod]

I always found it funny that in movies they would wipe the hand with alcohol before they administer the injection .Now I don't know if they do it in real executions but what is the point,are they afraid if he is going to get an infection ? Dying is dying whether they hang me ,shoot me or burn me I really find no difference.

As for the shooting squad good luck finding volunteers for that,they could hardly find soldiers who would do it during war let alone civilians during peace.


I honestly for the life of me don't understand how anyone who claims to support liberty, even in the slightest sense, could support the idea of the state deciding life or death of its citizens, regardless of what they have done.


It is not deciding who lives and who dies but it is a punishment for ones abuse of your liberties.By you reasoning the state should also not decide if someone is to be held against his will ( prisons ).

[TruckinMike]

Death by firing squad* is A-OK by me ---> but ONLY government employees or government contractors should be eligible.

[Henry Rogue]

I think it should be voluntary. If you personally know you did it, and you prefer the death penalty because there's no way in hell you'll ever get out again, you should be able to choose what style of execution you prefer.

I'd choose death by flaming parachute.
I'd except a firing squad, but only if it forms a circle and is blind folded.

[Philhelm]

I'd except a firing squad, but only if it forms a circle and is blind folded.

That sounds more like a circle jerk.

[eduardo89]

That sounds more like a circle jerk.

And that sounds like an accurate description of the Libertarian Party.

[Henry Rogue]

That sounds more like a circle jerk.
Gross.

[Anti Federalist]

When someone commits premeditated murder, they've forfeited their right to live. How can anyone who supports liberty have a problem with that? I don't think it's supportive of liberty for society to allow someone to get away with murdering people.

Because the state gets it wrong.

A lot.

[Neil Desmond]

Because the state gets it wrong.

A lot.

Yeah; that's where in practice I do have a problem with the death penalty.

[LibForestPaul]

When someone commits premeditated murder, they've forfeited their right to live. How can anyone who supports liberty have a problem with that? I don't think it's supportive of liberty for society to allow someone to get away with murdering people.

I'm not saying that anyone who murders needs to be executed, but if they want to live then maybe society shouldn't have to pay for keeping them in prison and feeding them. If they want to live, they ought to at least work to pay for the food and walls that surround them so society doesn't have to foot the bill.

What is your threshold for number of innocent citizens executed vs number of guilty citizens executed?

[Occam's Banana]

When someone commits premeditated murder, they've forfeited their right to live.

No, they haven't.

[eduardo89]

No, they haven't.

Yes, they have.

[Occam's Banana]

Yes, they have.

Nope.

[Christian Liberty]

No, they haven't.

I disagree with you, and I think this view logically leads to the prohibition of self-defense (Which is itself absurd.) But even if I agreed with you, I still don't see why changing the method of execution so its cheaper and less painful would be a bad thing.


It's not just a matter of "believing both." In some cases Jesus gave new instructions.

Matthew 5:
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Keyword in bold.

I don't think Jesus was talking about the same thing the OT commands, but the abuses of it. Basically, what Gunny said. The Pharisees turned what was intended to be for proportional punishment and turned it into an excuse for taking personal vengeance.


I honestly for the life of me don't understand how anyone who claims to support liberty, even in the slightest sense, could support the idea of the state deciding life or death of its citizens, regardless of what they have done.

I could honestly replace the comment with "freedom or imprisonment" and it would still hold. The statist justice system absolutely sucks. I don't trust it for crap. Sometimes you have to use it, but even if you do, it should hurt. We need a better system. No, it won't be perfect, but at least the market decentralizes power, and arbitrators that are known for giving wrong or lopsided results would not be used.

On the other hand, on PRINCIPLE I do believe that it is just for murderers to die.

For all the issues I have that I could die on, I choose not to do so on punishment theory, something which we have good libertarian minds on many sides of. That said, I do have the following articles that would explain, logically, why I take the position I do.

A short one by Walter Block: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2003/11/walter-e-block/the-death-penalty/

A longer one by Stephan Kinsella: http://mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_3.pdf

[Occam's Banana]

I disagree with you, and I think this view logically leads to the prohibition of self-defense (Which is itself absurd.)

You are wrong. It does no such thing.

I have addressed the non sequitur assertion that life-taking in self-defense is somehow prohibited if capital punishment is a violation of a right to life. I have done so multiple times - at least twice that I recall - in threads in which both you and Traditional Conservative made such claims. I have never received an adequate rebuttal to (or even acknowlegement of) my arguments in the matter.


But even if I agreed with you, I still don't see why changing the method of execution so its cheaper and less painful would be a bad thing.

*shrug* I've said nothing about this - whether you agree with me about the rest or not.

[Christian Liberty]

I have addressed the non sequitur assertion that life-taking in self-defense is somehow prohibited if capital punishment is a violation of a right to life. I have done so multiple times - at least twice that I recall - in threads in which both you and Traditional Conservative made such claims. I have never received an adequate rebuttal (or even acknowlegement) of my arguments in the matter.

Give me a link, and I'll address it.

That said, I'm a Christian presuppositionalist, so while I do argue in other ways for certain purposes, ultimately I believe the grounding for our rights is in the Bible. And I believe Genesis 9:6 specifically permits taking this right away from murderers. So I'd disagree with the presupposition that rights are absolutely inalienable.

[eduardo89]

Nope.

Yup.

[Christian Liberty]

@eduardo- I get that you're OK with the death penalty on principle (I am too, BTW) but do you really trust the government to carry it out? If so, why?

[eduardo89]

@eduardo- I get that you're OK with the death penalty on principle (I am too, BTW) but do you really trust the government to carry it out? If so, why?

Yes, I trust the government. People are inherently good and when we act together collectively in the form of a democratic government and strive for the common good over the individual wants then justice always prevails.

[Christian Liberty]

Yes, I trust the government. People are inherently good and when we act together collectively in the form of a democratic government and strive for the common good over the individual wants then justice always prevails.

Wow, that was a whopping theological AND political error all in one. Kudos.

Now, can you give me a serious answer? Or, in the off chance that that wasn't a joke (After all, I'm bad at reading sarcasm) you can substitute an answer to "Why are you here"? instead of answering the first question I asked you.

[Occam's Banana]

Give me a link, and I'll address it.

I'll quote the relevant posts here (in addition to providing links) so as to avoid the necessity of bumping necro-threads.

Thread #1 (to which you offered no rebuttal): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?409526-How-do-you-deal-with-child-molesters-in-a-freedom-utopia


So why is self-defense legitimate? The reality is that if you try to kill me, you lose your right to life.
No, I don't. Attempted murderers have a right to life every bit as much as their would-be victims do. (To claim otherwise is to deny any right to life at all. It becomes instead a "privilege of life" - and where there are privileges, there are privilege "grantors" and privilege "takers away.")

A would-be murderer is attempting to violate (i.e., deliberately abrogate) my right to life when he tries to kill me.

A would-be victim is NOT attempting to violate (i.e., deliberately abrogate) my right to life when he kills me in the course of my attempt to violate his right to life.

Suppose I am driving and I swerve my car to miss a kitten in the road. As a result, I hit & kill a pedestrian on the sidewalk by accident.

The pedestrain has a right to life. And I kill the pedestrian ...

But I cannot meaningfully be said to have "violated" the pedestrian's right to life (though I have abrogated it - and could conceivably even be tortiously liable for doing so).

A would-be murderer has a right to life. And I kill the would-be murderer during his attempt to kill me ...

But I cannot meaningfully be said to have "violated" the would-be murderer's right to life (though I have abrogated it - and could conceivably even be tortiously liable for doing so).

The would-be murderer's death is ancillary to my attempt to uphold & assert my right to life by acting to preserve it.


You haven't defended your self-defense exception.

Why should I have defended it? Defending the "self-defense exception" had nothing to do with my point (or the topic at hand, or the overall subject of this thread).

It was an entirely parenthetical qualification made in passing solely for the sake of acknowledging the (I hope) uncontrovesial point that not all "killing" is of the luridly & egregiously murderous variety that is so often found in the contrived hypotheticals typically employed in discussions such as this.


If the killers rights are truly inalienable, than to use self-defense is itself equivalent to murder!

No, it isn't. (See above.)

There are many forms of homicide. Murder is only one of them. There is also suicide, accident, self-defense, etc.

Calling "self-defense" equivalent to "murder" is a context-dropping conflation of (and equivocation on) terms.

Such context dropping obliterates critical distinctions. It is ipso facto invalid. (See below.)

You could just as well (which is to say, not well at all) call "suicide" or "accidental death" equivalent to "murder." Such would be a nonsensical claim.

By reduction ad absurdum, we can see that when we arrive at such absurd conclusions there must be something wrong with our premises ...


But then, you end up with an endless loop, as you cannot therefore hold me responsible for killing the would-be killer, and so the cycle goes on forever (Stephan Kinsella explains this concept far better than I can.)

There is no "endless loop" - not unless you adopt the insupportable assertion that every death involves a violation of the right to life. And I have done no such thing.

Actions have contexts - and each action must be judged in terms of its context. Simply saying "(all) killing is a violation of the right to life" ignores context and becomes ridiculously unsupportable dogma.

An example of the imporatance of context:
Lying in order to bilk a little old lady out of all her reitrement savings is despicable and immoral.
Lying in order to misdirect a kidnapper who wants to steal my child is neither despicable nor immoral.

Likewise:
Killing someone by deliberately and intentionally ending his or her life is despicable and immoral.
Killing someone who is actively attempting to kill me is neither despicable nor immoral.
Killing someone by accidentally swerving a car into him or her is horribly tragic, but it is neither despicable nor immoral.


I agree with you that you shouldn't act like a monster but I don't see how recognizing that a given heinous criminal has lost his right to live and acting accordingly is acting like a monster. I'm not advocating torture here.

A heinous criminal has NOT lost his right to life. (See above.)

If by "acting accordingly" you mean (for example) punishing a murderer by doing the very thing to him that he is being punished for doing to someone else (i.e. deliberate, intentional killing), then "acting accordingly" is both monstrous and hypocritical.

Thread #2 (to which TC offered no rebuttal): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?417828-Rand-Paul-Defends-Life-From-Conception-to-%93Last-Natural-Breath%94


Then under what you're saying, killing is always wrong, even in self defense. Everyone has the right to life, even if you threaten someone elses life or take someone elses life. That seems to be what you're saying, that in order to be consistent all killing must be illegal under all circumstances.

That is not the case. Under what I am saying, "violating" (i.e., deliberately abrogating) someone's right to life is always wrong. But not all killing involves the deliberate abrogation of someone's right to life. There are many kinds of killing (or homicide): murder, suicide, accident, self-defense, abortion, etc.

Suppose I am driving my car. A dog runs out into the road. I swerve to avoid it, and accidentally hit & kill a pedestrian on the sidewalk. I have killed the pedestrian. I may perhaps be said to have "abrogated" the pedestrian's right to life - and I may even be held tortiously liable for having done so. But I have NOT in any reasonable sense of the word "violated" (deliberately abrogated) the pedestrian's right to life.

Or suppose I try to kill you. You defend yourself in order to preserve your life (as you are entitled to do, since you have a right to life). In the process of doing so, you kill me. You may perhaps be said to have "abrogated" my right to life - and you may even be held tortiously liable for having done so. But you cannot in any reasonable sense of the word be said to have "violated" (deliberately abrogated) my right to life.

Now suppose that I try to murder you and that I succeed in doing so. I am caught, charged, tried, convicted and executed. My right to life has been deliberately abrogated - it has been violated. The fact that I myself was guilty of violating your right to life is entirely irrelevant to this conclusion.

Rights - if the concept is to have any meaning - are unconditional entitlements. If they are not unconditional, then they are not "rights" at all - they are (contingent) priveleges, to be granted or revoked depending on the situation. Thus, it is not possible to sensibly assert (1) that there is a "right to life" and (2) that the death penalty is moral and acceptable. You can have one or you can have the other - but you can't have both.

Note that this does not mean that you cannot consistently oppose abortion while also supporting the death penalty. It just means that if you do support the death penalty, then you cannot also oppose abortion on the basis that it is a violation of the "right to life" - so if you support the death penalty, you'll have to find some other justification for your opposition to abortion. Otherwise, you will be asserting a contradiction.

Thread #3 (to which TC offered no rebuttal): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?421947-What-is-your-position-on-abortion


Then perhaps the term "right to life" isn't a good term. Because that would imply that people have a "right" to their life under all circumstances. That would mean that if you break into someone's home and hold them at gunpoint, the owner of the home doesn't have the right to take your life in self defense since you have a "right to life" that can't be taken away by anyone.

No, it does NOT mean any such thing. I have already addressed this very issue with you in one of my posts in other another thread (a post to which you never responded or offered any rebuttal):


[See the quote from Thread #2 above.]

I also addressed the same general issue with FreedomFanatic in this post: [See the quote from Thread #1 above.]


So let's be more clear about what I support. I believe in protecting innocent life, protecting the lives of innocent people who have done no wrong and pose no threat to anyone else. I'm opposed to murder, not killing. Killing is justified in many situations. Murder is never justified.

Neither innocence nor guilt have anything to do with it. If there is a "right to life" then everyone has it - regardless of innocence or guilt.

Otherwise, the "right to life" is NOT a "right" at all - it is a privilege contingent upon some factor (such as "innocence" or whatever).

If there is such a thing as the "right to life" then the most bloody-handed murderer in all of human history has it every bit as much as any newborn babe.

[...]


That said, I'm a Christian presuppositionalist, so while I do argue in other ways for certain purposes, ultimately I believe the grounding for our rights is in the Bible. And I believe Genesis 9:6 specifically permits taking this right away from murderers. So I'd disagree with the presupposition that rights are absolutely inalienable.

Regardless of their ultimate source, if "rights" are not inalienable (or "unalienable," for those who prefer to split that hair), then they are not rights at all - they are contingent privileges, to be granted or revoked at the whims of limited & imperfect men. You may be content to repose such authority in the hands of your fellow men. I am not.

[nobody's_hero]

Sorry, we're all out of parachutes. Here, spin this wheel... Oh look! Your manner of execution is... *drumroll* ...bleeding out from your severed penis. Better luck next time!

You're supposed to get a last request, though. I want a flaming parachute so everyone in town can watch me hurtle to the earth in a ball of fire.

edit: guess I'd need a plane, though. That could get expensive. Maybe I could just be pushed off of the top of the courthouse and if I live I'd get to go free.

[Origanalist]

Yes, I trust the government. People are inherently good and when we act together collectively in the form of a democratic government and strive for the common good over the individual wants then justice always prevails.

Oh stop it. :rolleyes:

[Cap]

Scenario number one...Write and ensure new laws are enacted to make political discourse a treasonous offense.
Scenario number two...If unable to get law number one through the legislature, plant or frame desired dissident of a capital offense and voila....
You have the perfect way to rid patriots and discourage others from taking up the banner against the state. This needs to be quashed.