[leokun]

It's not good enough because taking an oath and breaking it does not automatically equate to the horrors of imprisoning people for long, live changing lengths which is a pretty fucking horrible thing to do to individuals and their families. Especially not if they had good intentions. And not only that I don't agree with the first claim regarding "rules of law" and "civilization". It sounds like some historian's quote from the 19th century completely unaware of a century's worth work in the social sciences.

[testitor]

when is ignorance of the law ever an excuse for citizens? yes officer I didn't know the speed limit.. does that work for you? or yes sir I didn't know you would object to fondling your ass! No harm no foul right?

[leokun]

At no point did I ever make any kind of argument about ignorance of the law. Do you see that in my post? Perhaps point it out, because you're reading something that isn't there.

[wavefunction]

>>good intentions

Prove it. I mean, how are you going to prove this? Exactly. Which is why "good intentions" doesn't mean anything to anyone with sense in their head, especially not a legal court.