Posted on 06/01/2009 6:00:53 AM PDT by tcg
“Killing to defend property is never justified in my opinion.”
That sentence is loaded with bad logic, accompanied with deficient/insufficient American history.
Horse thieves were hung because loss a horse could cause the death or impoverishment of the horse owner.
Consider what happens when a car is stolen. If the owner can’t afford insurance, he is afoot. Loss of job follows rapidly, followed with homelessness.
All of the above because we forgot that the Founders knew - “When property is not considered semi-sacred, horrid mischief will ensure”.
May I suggest rereading writings of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Adams (both of them), etc.?
Private contracts are so 2008, just ask the car company bondholders. The rule of law is unlikely to last till 2010. As for what will happen, I am afraid that the points on my home page are rapidly becoming currently relevant.
LOL, do you really think that's how things are going to play out?
get real.
I saw that sentiment repeated yesterday on the live threads. If that is indeed the case - that the pro-life cause gets a huge setback because one wicked man killed a more wicked man; if that is the case and it plays out like that, well, it's all over anyway. If that many of the sheeple are that vacuous, there is absolutely no hope of saving even a small vestige of the Republic.
I am well aware that horse thieves were hung. Just because there was an historical precedent, doesn’t make it right. In my opinion, there is no moral justification to kill over property. Human life is more sacred than property....period!
I generally agree about ad hominium arguments, but occasionally referring to some ‘crat as a “goober’ in a gooberment agency does ad a bit of humor to a paragraph.
I am guessing, but there is a good chance knarf is referring to more of an “Enemies Foreign & Domestic” situation.Obama is far less interested in money than he is in social engineering. Obama (or his backers depending on what you believe) are more interested in *building* cultural institutions than buying them. Acorn etc... are a big part of that.Defense against a modern military is futile, destructive to the entire neighborhood, etc.
What biologists call “selective population reduction” is another thing.
Personally, I think America will manage this war between collectivists and American individualists in a not violent manner.
Never to be forgotten is Margaret Thatcher’s famous “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money”.
All socialists eventually founder on that rock. Obama will be no different.
Indeed.
Really?
I am not aware of any abortion protester killing anyone, at least not while in that guise.
Can you provide a citation?
I do believe you are arguing for something here but I’m not sure what. I’ll try to explain my confusion.
When I say that non-violent legal remedies were available you respond that it’s a “disingenuous notion that reasonable legal measures weren’t exhausted”
I look at the situation and see that a governor could have been removed from office. New legislation could have been passed. Elections could have been won instead of lost. These are all legal means - they have NOT been exhausted - and your response to that is that these are “extraordinary measures”.
OK - let’s say that it’s extraordinary that a governor should have to be removed from office. So what. To my view that doesn’t make that removal less of a legal remedy. What does calling it an extraordinary measure change? What difference does it make? Why bring it up at all if it isn’t meant to be something that changes the game? What are you attempting to argue and accomplish by suggesting that these are “extraordinary measures”.
And BTW - I don’t think removing a governor is extraordinary. It’s very ordinary - literally. There is an order to it. It’s in state constitutions about how to do it. Common and ordinary are not the same.
You’re kidding right?
Let’s use the Tiller killer as an example.
He was a member of Operation Rescue and had their number on a post-it on the dash of his car. He has probably donated money to them (we’ll see) but it has already been shown that he was a member of OR. Was this an officially approved OR action? Of course not - they have more sense than that. Was he an abortion protestor? Good luck finding a jury of people that won’t believe that he was an abortion protestor whether or not he was wearing that hat at the moment he pulled a trigger.
I suppose you could argue he wasn’t at a protest or waving a picket sign at the moment of the murder and therefor he wasn’t a protestor but that strains common usage of the English language quite a bit.
Most people will say “an abortion protestor killed an abortion doctor” (or something like that) and know what is meant.
I can only comment at this time regarding society.
(and I will personify .. ) Am I not a member of society, and as such have rights to protect the sociol structure I am a part?
I'm no lawyer, but I can see this to be larger than the OJ trial .. with more importance top the outcome.
I think the logic you are trying to use here limps a bit - but it’s far from being terrible. =)
I encourage you to strengthen the argument and make it more self-sufficient - it shouldn’t depend so much on Just War theories. I believe you are thinking about this the right way but this is a fully independent issue. It can stand on its own.
I would also strongly suggest you consider intentions are weighed and what the practical effects of these sorts of arguments might be if carried out in the real world.
> if that is the case and it plays out like that, well,
> it’s all over anyway. If that many of the sheeple are
> that vacuous, there is absolutely no hope of saving even
> a small vestige of the Republic.
Correct.
As Exhibit A, I present President Obama.
Historically speaking, Lenin provoked violent reactions on the part of the Russian farmers as a means of drawing their weapons out. Lenin used the Red Army as the tool to eliminate all firearms in the Soviet Union. A farmer could shoot the local party official, but he couldn’t fight an army. I believe Obama is deliberately upping the ante in order to disarm the public. Read The Black Book of Communism.
Absolutley; had the state done its job, then the issue of Tiller murdering babies would not have been an issue. He would have already been stopped, and/or punished. That doesn't release Tiller's killer from his responsibility, though. He should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
You can not turn your back on the fact that the state has a responsibility to protect those among society that can not protect themselves. There is just too much in foundational material of this country (both religious and secular) to think otherwise. The state has abdicated that position, because of liberal philosophy.
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.