Originally Posted by locutus
It has always struck me as strange that the courts would impose the same sentence on a citizen for mere possession of
an illegal weapon that he never used, and the state cannot prove that he ever ntended to use. ,
, as the sentence imposed if he actually used that illegal weapon in the commission of a crime.
In my simple mind, owning a machine gun, or a switchblade, etc, is a totally different crime from actually injuring or killing someone with it.
What am I missing here?
Allow me to explain.
There are two different kinds of laws: "mala en se" and "mala prohibita".
Mala en se means basically "evil by its nature" or "evil in itself".
Mala en se laws are those laws that are pretty much natural,self explanatory ones: laws against rape,murder,robbery,etc.Laws in which the action can be called by definition "evil in and of themselves".The enforcement of mala en se laws usually is common in society and is also self evident in nature,in other words even if there are no police or courts or jails,if someone rapes your daughter your gonna enforce the law on him.
Mala prohibita,on the other hand,are man made political laws.Mala prohibita means "wrong because prohibited".These are the laws that make up the myriad and sundry BS that spews forth from congress every year so that they can prove to us that they are "doing their job" and thus somehow deserve 6 figure salaries,special benefits,and retroactive raises for making our lives more difficult.
In the context of this topic,a mala prohibitum law would be the one saying you cannot own a shotgun with a barrel less then a certain length without special permission.By violating this "law",you haven't actually violated the natural law.You have done no evil.You have not victimized anyone.
But in fact,it is questionable that by punishing you as severely as they would someone who may break mala en se law for this infraction of mala prohibita law,they are in fact victimizing you.
As well,when a society begins to churn out huge dearths and breadths of mala prohibitum,and begins to enforce these man made political laws as fervently -or even more so- then the violation of natural,mala en se law,then the question of just exactly how much power over the people do those who make the laws want can be rightfully asked.
When the powers that be in any society begin to adopt a policy that the laws they make are more important then natural law itself,we begin to see tyranny take hold,because these people believe their word and not natural law is more important,and conversely they begin to see themselves as the higher authority and not natural law or,in the case of our political system,We The People.
Soon,because they make the laws and do not see anything as being above them,they believe they are above the law.
Right now,in America,a man can refuse to pay "his fair share" in the socialist tax scheme and be jailed for 30 years without any parole because thats how the federal system works.
While a murderer can be paroled from a state that has that system after serving half of a 20 year sentence.
The reason people get severe treatment from this government for violating its bull**** mala prohibita is because it is not afraid of the repercussions of the blatant violation of natural law it commits when it deprives people of their freedom for committing "crimes" that have no victim.
Those who run government are the law.
They are above the natural law.
And so we are sunk in tyranny.............