Comment: I have heard arguments from

(See in situ)

I have heard arguments from

I have heard arguments from the left (under the breath) that we ought to protect the rights of robbers against crazy 2nd amendment people. Presumably the robber is poor and deserved to forcibly take money from someone richer in order to feed himself and his family. Only if a rape or murder occurs should we feel judgmental against the assailant. Therefore, the true victim is the robber and the true criminal is the girl with the gun. I guess I understand the reasoning behind taxation and wealth redistribution for some. Just goes to illustrate the ease with which ethics can be perverted and flipped completely upside down. In Robin Hood you have an outlaw redistributing wealth, which is more effective because he targeted the corrupt and greedy where government uses a broad brush stroke of taxation. In Les Miserables and man steals bread for his family, but only because of the oppression he was under and he needed to eat to live. These are romantic examples, of course. Do you think these are justified? What if the robber was like the man in Les Miserables? (I'm not trying to make the argument, just give you something to consider, perhaps.)