Posted on 08/25/2008 9:29:40 PM PDT by goldstategop
So, the lefties view graffiti as a “victimless” crime? I have a couple of answers to THAT one:
1) Let’s set up a special tax on those who have this view, the proceeds of which will be used to clean up graffiti. Any leftovers will be used to educate poor, inner city youths as to the harm done by graffiti to property owners.
2) Gun ownership - in and of itself - is also victimless (and it damned sure isn’t a crime for the 99% of us who aren’t violent felons, drug addicts, etc.). Tell you what, liberals, I’ll trade you a free pass on graffiti if you’ll wipe all federal gun control laws off the books.
As usual, the lefties won’t agree to either of these propositions. Why? Because they are a bunch of self-righteous hypocrits.
The leftists have no respect of private property rights,”
I believe that more conservatives than liberals actually own property.
Therefore, liberals cannot understand our anger when someone defaces it.
Not a major gun person, but I thought you weren’t supposed to shoot EXCEPT to kill? Though I know bad kids used to get their butts filled with rocksalt from shotguns. A guy on my old commuter van had it happen to him; he said after his mom picked them all out she slopped on some antiseptic that made it REALLY sting. I suppose that’s illegal now too.
Never shoot to wound, that is a lawsuit waiting to happen. And don’t shoot to kill either. You shoot to stay alive.
That usually means shooting to stop... And that often means shooting to affect grievous traumatic damage to the central nervous system of a human... And that typically entails shooting center mass or head... And that is often followed by death. But the point is: never shoot to wound.
In Texas ya do not want to mess around on anyones property after dark.........it ain’t healthy at all !
Wasn't this nation started because of personal freedom involving property rights?
My property is what I draw my sustenance from; you try to destroy my property you are trying to destroy me personally. You had better believe that if I can you will die before I will...
In Texas ya do not want to mess around on anyones property after dark.........it ain’t healthy at all !
If enough taggers are found hanging from utility poles, I expect the numbers of *their assaults on civilization will decline* even MORE dramatically.
Still, turn about is better for fair play. Shooting taggers with paintball guns certainly seems fair, and offers a possibility of alternative technical protective measures when the homeowner isn't around.
Bawlimer?
“Bawlimer”
Nah...city o’ brotherly luv...
It pains me to see row homes in Camden and West Philly that would fetch millions of dollars if only they were located in Manhattan and Brooklyn, but are instead home to crackheads.
I think you and I have had this conversation before...
I loved growing up there; every third house had 3.5 kids in it (never figured out what happened to the other .5), the neighbors all knew each other and watched out for each other, and it was generally a great place to be a kid. All WWII and Korean war vets, working middle class, salt of the earth people.
Everything was within walking, bike, or bus distance, and there were corner variety stores where could you walk to and get the little things that made life worth living - Comic books, TastyKakes, Mountain Dew, and candy.
Those were good days - then it ended. Would NEVER consider living anywhere NEAR the city again. Mayor Thugnutter can keep it.
Shouldn't be too hard with a good rifle. Since .22LR tracers are readily available, having one as the #3 or so in the pipe might make for some fun.
If there were widespread signs warning "Graffiti taggers beware: Property owners may shoot you on sight", along with a public-relations effort making clear that tagging was, in fact, as dangerous as the warnings implied, the only people who would engage in such behaviors would be those who were suicidal, dangerous, or both.
While it may be unfortunate when some people who are suicidal get themselves killed rather than seeking help, I see no reason to blame the instrumentality of their demise. And if people who are dangerous get killed as a result of their behavior, I would generally see that as a good thing.
Crimes which demonstrate total contempt for the rights (including property) of other people should be dangerous. Those who commit such crimes should have no rights whatsoever unless or until they surrender themselves to the police for prosecution. While prudence would limit certain 'shoot on sight' policies (since, among other things, someone may be misidentified as a crook when he's acting legitimately) a tolerance for criminals will result in the proliferation thereof.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.