No, it doesn't compare in magnitude, I'm just speaking to the principle of choosing to enforce laws that are wrong. In the case of the guy in DC who was prosecuted for having a spent shotgun shell, everyone involved in the arrest and prosecution not only violated a Constitutional right, they violated the whole spirit of the law itself, that punishment fit the "crime," and plain old common sense. The people who participated in that travesty are all voluntary tyrants and unfit to be part of a supposedly democratic government, much less law enforcement.cb1000rider wrote:I'm speaking of India specifically in this case, although it would apply to Mexico too...VMI77 wrote: Now I'd have more sympathy for your position if you intend it only to apply in places like Mexico and India, that don't recognize natural law, and where people often have to choose between doing something wrong and survival. It's not an excuse, but understandable. If you voluntarily choose to enforce unconstitutional laws in THIS country you deserve whatever consequences befall you.
I'm not sure that comparing the illegalization of import on ammo/firearms compares to nazi atrocities, although certainly the precursor argument has been made many times. If you think along those lines, I suppose that Chicago PD can be similarly compared? Just a little too over the top for me, that's all..
And while the particular acts or laws don't compare in magnitude, the attitude necessary to enforce them is the same. You're kidding yourself if think that people who will ruin a man's life over an empty shotgun shell will repudiate their concept of obedient enforcement of all laws if the law or their orders require them to murder someone. People who are willing to kill you or ruin a life over your consumption of a plant will also murder you if the law allows or requires it, or they are ordered to do so under circumstances where the law condones it.