ABORTION-SLAY REV EXECUTED

New York Post ^ | 9/04/03 | GERSH KUNTZMAN

[kattracks]

September 4, 2003 -- As a violent thunderstorm flickered and dimmed the lights in Florida's execution chamber, a former minister was put to death last night for murdering an abortion doctor.

Paul Hill used his last breaths to call upon right-to-lifers to continue the fight - by any means necessary.

[MEG33]

No sir,it does not.You have accused me without evidence. I resent it and reject it.You,sir, are no gentleman.

[Long Cut]

I would support all legal and legislative means to redress that unconstitutional action, and there would be many of them to choose from. Likewise, I would trust in the court system. I might have to wait a while for the outcome I want, and work towards it, but that is infinitely preferable to your solution.

You would gleefully grab a rifle while shouting "YEE-HAW! Let's git 'em, boys!" In fact, some on your side openly look forward to it.

I have no wish to attack or kill fellow Americans. Or to be a traitor to the Constitution.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

If congress were to completely abolish the 2nd Amendment without a 2/3 Constitutional Amendment, what would you do? Would you fight to retain that right? If not....then we would be on opposing sides.

As defined by you and your Constimatooshinalistas, I'm sure.

I can see you motorheads now, charging tanks in SUVs just like the Jihadis, screaming out meaningless paeans to possessing .50 calibers as you immolate yourselves.

No matter, it would be no great loss.

[Long Cut]

Somehow, I doubt that very many of them would actually take that course. Courage is always in large supply behind a keyboard.

[Godebert]

"I've learned to expect it. The True Believers hate dealing with facts which show them to be wrong. Thus, when they sense the discussion turning against them, they begin to dodge and weave. NEVER will they admit that they may be incorrect. I just regard the change of subject as a tacit surrender of the point.

I've noticed that when the liberals on this forum are called out with simple questions to identify their views, they resort to the tactics you've employed above. Instead of answering a question directly, they instead reply to one of their liberal allies on the thread commenting on their opponents unwillingness to debate.

[Long Cut]

You, sir, were first to change the subject. And I am no liberal, but nice try.

Face it: you were proven wrong. Redirecting the conversation will not change that.

[Godebert]

"I would support all legal and legislative means to redress that unconstitutional action, and there would be many of them to choose from. Likewise, I would trust in the court system. I might have to wait a while for the outcome I want, and work towards it, but that is infinitely preferable to your solution. You would gleefully grab a rifle while shouting "YEE-HAW! Let's git 'em, boys!" In fact, some on your side openly look forward to it. I have no wish to attack or kill fellow Americans. Or to be a traitor to the Constitution.

So you'd turn in your rifles and give up your freedoms. Just like I thought. At least you're honest about it. Somehow I doubt you'd have any rifles to turn in anyway. You're wrong though...I don't look forward to that day, but neither would I shrink from fighting against those who would take away our freedom.

[Godebert]

"You,sir, are no gentleman."

And you, madame, are no lady.

[TheDeacon]

"Perhaps some day people will remember Hill with the sort of moral ambivalence with which most now view
John Brown. Was John Brown a saint of a sinner? Was slavery such a moral abomination that it justified
the spilling of blood to resist? If so, then how does the moral outrage of African slavery compare with the
millions of abortions legally performed in America since 1973?"

The answers to these quetions are totally dependant on how the unborn is viewed. If the unborn is recognized as a human, then the next question is constitutional protection. Under those circumstances, The anti-abortion extremist will be viewed will be viewed in a much kinder light, perhaps 'ahead of their time'.

Notice how that the slave owner was completely within the law, yet today we cannot think of the slave owner is a postive light. Maybe future generations will feel the same about the abortionist.

It all depends on winning the battle for the hearts and minds of the public. Murder is not the way.

[Long Cut]

Actually, I have several weapons, pistols and long weapons both, and some edged weapons. ALL of which I'm quite good at using.

I would NOT give up my liberties...like I said, I would redress the unconstitutional action in the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself. If you would cast aspersions on that (I can hear the "sheeple" BS now...) that's your province. However, I am no terrorist or traitor.

But this discussion of the Second Amendment, which I do hold dear, as I do the REST of the Constitution, is yet another divergence on your part.

You're avoiding the main discussion.

[Godebert]

"You, sir, were first to change the subject. And I am no liberal, but nice try. Face it: you were proven wrong. Redirecting the conversation will not change that."

So far the only thing proven is that you would turn-in your rifles and give-up your freedom when told to do so. The rest is still under debate.

[MEG33]

You have accused me af rabidly supporting abortion with no evidence and you think I am in the wrong here?I reject your accusation.

[Long Cut]

Well, no, the Constitutional reasons why abortion is legal were presented. So, too was your lack of evidence to back up your "rabid" accusations. Further, evidence that Paul Hill (remember him?) was nothing short of a bloodthirsty terrorist who saved not one child was also forthcoming.

Your repeated changing of the subject was also noted, and accepted as admission of defeat.

You're free, however, to "declare victory and retreat" at any time.

[Godebert]

"I reject your accusation.

You said that already. I believe you to be pro-abortion and liberal based on your statements, and you refuse to answer my questions which might change that opinion. Save your false outrage for someone who gives a darn.

[Godebert]

" You're free, however, to "declare victory and retreat" at any time."

Did you even notice what you said in your earlier reply? Over at DU that might bolster your reputation, but this is a Conservative forum where gun-grabbers, abortionists and cowards are not held in high regard.

[MEG33]

Weak..very weak.What is about"I reject your accusation" don't you understand? Your opinion of me or mine of you is inconsequential..You made an accusation and there is no basis for it.I have told you I reject it.There is nothing more to say.

[MEG33]

Those who bear false witness aren't respected either..

[Long Cut]

Nor, sir, are those who would foment armed rebellion. Nonetheless, the personal attacks and nonsensical "DU" mention are also noted. As is your apparent inability to stay on subject.

However, let's be clear: Support for the laws and procedures contained in the Constitution, and disapproval of the short-circuiting of same, do not constitute support for abortion, "rabid" or otherwise. Nor does a willingness to operate within the boundaries set by the Constitution make one a "gun grabber", except to a fanatic.

Changing the subject also wins no debates, nor does it prove anything.

And finally, Paul Hill was still a terrorist murderer who gleefully reveled in his slaughter.

Have a nice day, y'all!

[MEG33]

Thanks..you ,too.Keep warm!