Another gun massacre in the States (merged)

[Lucky13]

Re: Another gun massacre in the States.

No one wants to address my first question?
Why does the old man have the right to further endanger the lives of the other customers? What if the gun had been loaded and a shoot out had occurred? It's very possible that he would have only ignited the situation resulting in a very tragic outcome.

Do you have the right to use violence to protect your property?[/quote]

In the case of the armed robbers who terrorised/threatened people with a gun , yes they deserved to be shot at.

And yes you should have the right to use violence to protect your property.

 

[scenecreamer]

Re: Another gun massacre in the States.

No one wants to address my first question?
Why does the old man have the right to further endanger the lives of the other customers? What if the gun had been loaded and a shoot out had occurred? It's very possible that he would have only ignited the situation resulting in a very tragic outcome.

Do you have the right to use violence to protect your property?

In the case of the armed robbers who terrorised/threatened people with a gun , yes they deserved to be shot at.

And yes you should have the right to use violence to protect your property.

The first question is a bit more difficult, isn't it?


If you have the right to use violence to protect your property, then you are empowering an individual to use violence to take your property. The inability to control coercive violence leads to a failed State. Property ownership is a privilege granted to you by the State. A nation state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force/violence. That's political science 101.

The lessening of that monopoly contributes to the failure of the State.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.ndu.edu/press/monopoly.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.ndu.edu/press/monopoly.html</a>

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewQl-qAtNwQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/youtube]

 

[SWP's back]

Re: Another gun massacre in the States.

In the case of the armed robbers who terrorised/threatened people with a gun , yes they deserved to be shot at.

And yes you should have the right to use violence to protect your property.

Another loon who thinks capital punishment should be the way forward for robbers.

Should one be able to use violence just because, let's say, we dislike a smarky ****? Or is it only if your property is in danger?

 

[Lucky13]

Re: Another gun massacre in the States.

No one wants to address my first question?
Why does the old man have the right to further endanger the lives of the other customers? What if the gun had been loaded and a shoot out had occurred? It's very possible that he would have only ignited the situation resulting in a very tragic outcome.

Do you have the right to use violence to protect your property?

In the case of the armed robbers who terrorised/threatened people with a gun , yes they deserved to be shot at.

And yes you should have the right to use violence to protect your property.

The first question is a bit more difficult, isn't it?


If you have the right to use violence to protect your property, then you are granting the right to individuals to use violence to take your property. Property ownership is a privilege granted to you by the State. A nation state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force/violence. That's political science 101.

The lessening of that monopoly contributes to the failure of the State.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.ndu.edu/press/monopoly.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.ndu.edu/press/monopoly.html</a>

Not difficult at all, for what they did they deserved it.

Privilege? your having a laugh , the serf system is long gone ,as far as i'm concerned and there's a slim chance of it happening , if you catch someone in your house trying to steal your property they are fair game.<br /><br />-- Sun Jul 22, 2012 7:01 pm --<br /><br />

In the case of the armed robbers who terrorised/threatened people with a gun , yes they deserved to be shot at.

And yes you should have the right to use violence to protect your property.

Another loon who thinks capital punishment should be the way forward for robbers.

Should one be able to use violence just because, let's say, we dislike a smarky ****? Or is it only if your property is in danger?

Who'd have thought you'd quote me, almost stalker like.

 

[SWP's back]

Re: Another gun massacre in the States.

Who'd have thought you'd quote me, almost stalker like.

I'll ask again then, do you think robbery should be a capital offence?

 

[scenecreamer]

Re: Another gun massacre in the States.

No one wants to address my first question?
Why does the old man have the right to further endanger the lives of the other customers? What if the gun had been loaded and a shoot out had occurred? It's very possible that he would have only ignited the situation resulting in a very tragic outcome.

Do you have the right to use violence to protect your property?

In the case of the armed robbers who terrorised/threatened people with a gun , yes they deserved to be shot at.

And yes you should have the right to use violence to protect your property.

The first question is a bit more difficult, isn't it?


If you have the right to use violence to protect your property, then you are granting the right to individuals to use violence to take your property. Property ownership is a privilege granted to you by the State. A nation state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force/violence. That's political science 101.

The lessening of that monopoly contributes to the failure of the State.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.ndu.edu/press/monopoly.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.ndu.edu/press/monopoly.html</a>

Not difficult at all, for what they did they deserved it.

Privilege? your having a laugh , the serf system is long gone ,as far as i'm concerned and there's a slim chance of it happening , if you catch someone in your house trying to steal your property they are fair game.

You still haven't answered the first question. It's in bold above so you can't miss it.

Without the State how would you legitimize your "right" to own property?

Do you value your possessions over another individuals life?

 

[Lucky13]

Re: Another gun massacre in the States.

Who'd have thought you'd quote me, almost stalker like.

I'll ask again then, do you think robbery should be a capital offence?

Stalking should be.

 

[SWP's back]

Re: Another gun massacre in the States.

Who'd have thought you'd quote me, almost stalker like.

I'll ask again then, do you think robbery should be a capital offence?

Stalking should be.

Do you think robbery should be a capital offence? And I am hardly stalking you, you posted in a thread I was active in so don't flatter yourself.

 

[Feed-The-Goat]

Re: Another gun massacre in the States.

I'll ask again then, do you think robbery should be a capital offence?

Stalking should be.

Do you think robbery should be a capital offence? And I am hardly stalking you, you posted in a thread I was active in so don't flatter yourself.

Bwahahaha!

SWP's Bluemoons biggest stalker.

 

[Lucky13]

Re: Another gun massacre in the States.

I'll ask again then, do you think robbery should be a capital offence?

Stalking should be.

Do you think robbery should be a capital offence? And I am hardly stalking you, you posted in a thread I was active in so don't flatter yourself.

A bloke following me around on the internet is hardly flattering.

Armed robbery , shots fired by the robbers , yes.

Armed robbery , no shots by the robbers , 25yrs min.