Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AdamSelene235
That truth, as far as I've been able to discern (and I do not claim to be an expert or have the inside line), is that in dying, we risk nothing. We lose nothing. All that we are, all that we've done, all that we love stays with us. When we kill, however, we negate the value of others and put our souls at risk.

Breathtaking stupidity, indeed! It is also incredibly selfish. I wonder if her kid would've been better off at age 9 months if he had witnessed Mommy being raped and killed, screaming the whole time. I wonder if he'd have been better off growing up without a mother. Maybe he'd have been so traumatized that he'd have ended up on drugs and killed someone by accident or to finance his habit? I wonder if the world is better off with those 2 scumbags still alive - if they've committed any crimes, especially violent ones, then the answer is certainly "no." Finally, using the infantile "reasoning" of this monumentally stupid woman, would the world be better off if she'd been raped and killed? Would the world be as well off without her (presumably decent) raising of a child (or several children), without any acts of charity that she's done, without the love and kindness that she's surely shown to her family and friends? And what if she had other kids after this incident - without the timely appearance of the police officers that saved her life, those kids and all of their descendants would never exist. All of their good deeds wouldn't ever take place. This woman clearly hasn't thought this through very much, despite having had 15 years to do so.

When we meet darkness with darkness, some of that darkness enters and stays inside us.

It may enter you, but it stays only at your sufferance. I would say that the contrary is true. I'd say that the soul of a good person who was challenged or tempted by evil, and who successfully resisted it, is better off than if the challenge or temptation had never occurred.

It doesn't explain why I never bought a gun.... That choice had to do with my children and my fear that they'd find the gun and become statistics.

Well, maybe she's right here. Someone so stupid as to not know how to lock up a gun probably shouldn't have one.

If someone tried to break into my house again, I'd probably still call the guys who pack heat for a living. I won't carry a gun. I let them carry one for me. Second Amendment supporters would say that makes me a hypocrite or even unpatriotic.

Well, patriotism has nothing to do with protecting yourself from criminals (except the 9/11 variety, but that's a different issue), so I wouldn't call her unpatriotic. I would call her a hypocrite, since that is exactly what she is. How is it OK for someone else to defend her, to place their life on the line, because she's chosen to be vulnerable? This is saying that she values their lives even less than her own.

This lady was extraordinarily lucky that the cops showed up in time, and probably won't be so lucky if a repeat of this incident occurs. If they'd been busy elsewhere when the call came, or if the perps had been smart enough to cut the phone line, then she and possibly her kid would be dead. She has taken this improbable gift and learned nothing from it. The central thing that she hasn't learned, and perhaps never will, is that evil triumphs if good people do nothing. Killing someone who has so few morals that they would rape and probably kill an innocent woman with a child is not something that loses you your soul - rather, it is a good deed that enhances the soul. This is not to say that one should go out and look to do this, but it is certainly an applicable principle if this choice is thrust upon you.

She's a hypocrite in another way, as well. She claims not to oppose the right of others to carry concealed or to use deadly force to defend themselves. However, her publishing of this article couldn't possibly have been intended to aid the cause of armed self defense in Colorado.

45 posted on 08/22/2002 2:26:37 PM PDT by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Ancesthntr
I would call her a hypocrite, since that is exactly what she is. How is it OK for someone else to defend her, to place their life on the line, because she's chosen to be vulnerable? This is saying that she values their lives even less than her own.

Oh, it's *much* worse than that.

This woman says that she won't defend herself because to do so would COST HER SOUL, and that "when we meet darkness with darkness, some of that darkness enters and stays inside us."

She doesn't just value the cops' *lives* less than hers, she values their *SOULS* less than hers. She would call them and let them "lose their souls", and for the "darkness" to enter them, JUST TO KEEP HER OWN SOUL CLEAN.

This isn't pacifism, this... I'm not sure there's even a word for something so selfishly vile as this.

101 posted on 08/22/2002 5:41:35 PM PDT by Dan Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson