In my opinion, the whole reason we have the Second Amendment is that sometimes the King's Men need killing, and the people need to have the ability to do so.
Another tragic case of poor target aquisition.
www.fortunecity.com/victorian/mill/1189
Another tragic case of poor target aquisition.
www.fortunecity.com/victorian/mill/1189
~If~ [BIG if] he had a valid reason for killing, -- he killed the wrong men. The city officials forcing the issue were his enemies, not the workingmen.
Very true. But this is not one of those times.
Eminent domain is a power reserved by every sovereign government since the dawn of civilization. We are Constitutionally protected by the Takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, which requires the government to pay us fair value for land they require for public purposes.
However, we are not protected from eminent domain itself. This man was wrong. He had no right or standing to deprive these two men of their lives. He had no reason to leave their families widowed and fatherless.
Idiots like this do terrible damage to the Second Amendment rights we must preserve for the day of REAL injustice.
-ccm
--In my opinion, the whole reason we have the Second Amendment is that sometimes the King's Men need killing, and the people need to have the ability to do so.--
Statements like yours do nothing but help the anti-gunners.
Over a sewer easement!?
Lawyers trying to take house and land for some slimy developer I could understand,but this is a damm fool reason to kill somebody
Actually, that's not an opinion. That's a fact.
A refreshingly honest point of view. You are right. I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed, from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Carolyn
Re #3 I agree 11
He owned the property, all the while knowing that there was an easement. When the town decided to put a sewer line within easement, they notified him, as required by law. Those men had every right to be there, doing the work for the city, and since they were exercising the town's right to a sewer line on that easement, he had no right to shoot them.
I haven't read this whole thing but I have followed a few sub-threads in it and now make the following observations:
Some think he should have sued the city rather than shoot the workers. To them I say, how far do you think his suit would have gone considering he would have had to pay an attorney while all the time he was also paying the city's attorneys through his taxes.
Some others think he was "more or less" justified in protecting his property with lethal force. While the idea of using such force is certainly anti-social it does get the attention of the powers that be - - much more so than a lawsuit buried in a city attorney's office.
Some will say (if they haven't said it already, as I said, I haven't read this whole thing) that the way to effect change is through the ballot box. To them I say, get real! Trying to change the way a city does things with one vote would be akin to p!$$!ng in the ocean and expecting a tsunami!
After a period of mourning, finger-pointing and castigation there is a possibility that the city will do a better job of contacting those whose property they are about to dig up. The shooter chose a harsh but effective way to make change. How many of us have done anywhere near as much with a lawsuit, a ballot or an anonymous comment on a public forum?
Amen
Certainly not justified in this case.
You are kidding right? Advocating the execution of innocent American workers?