Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Congress woman Gabby Giifords has been shot.

Despite your normally articulate posts Barak, you probably could've worded your thoughts better on this one, my man. You're out on a limb here...

In other words you are saying it is more justifiable to shoot a congress person or a judge than a bystander?

Out on a limb in what way?

Out on a limb in what way?

Yahoo is now saying they are searching for a second guy.

Out on a limb in what way?

I believe he meant that it is less reprehensible and more understandable (not justifiable), from his radical anarchist perspective. From a standard libertarian perspective, one might say rather that most politicians are of a sort that it would be more understandable why certain folks would be pissed off enough to blow their tops and try and eliminate them, but understandable is not justification. Justification for shooting someone is only in actual imminent self-defense. You must understand the difference between someone saying X was justified and X's actions were understandable. The latter simply means that it was predictable based on available facts.

If the Godfather sends out his goons to all the local businesses threatening to break people's legs if they don't pay for their "protection" services and garbage pickup, it's predictable that lots of folks would be angry, and some angry enough to seek out the Godfather to do him in, even though that would not be justified morally or criminally (Although, shooting the goons in self-defense would be, should they actually attempt to carry out their threat).

Not all politicians, however, are like the Godfather, since some of them are actually working to place government back into its constitutional chains. At least that's the standard libertarian view, but the radical anarchist view would be that ALL politicians are equal to the Godfather, and therefore it is equally understandable (though still not justifiable) that one of their victims might to seek to do them physical harm at some point. It would also be less reprehensible for said victim to do harm to the Godfather than to do harm to an innocent bystander, which is also what Barak said.

Barak is a radical anarchist of the anarcho-capitalist bent.

Who is going to define "nuts"?--The government?

I mean, given some of the suggestive rhetoric here at the 'fire directed towards Demos/liberals/Obama/Pelosi/Reid......there would be a fair number of 'fire denziens who could be "diagnosed" with a politically driven definition of nuts........

Not one person at that rally packing heat apparently......



Casey

I can tell you there are very good reasons for not packing at a political event. I certainly wouldn't. Good way to get Oswalded.

There are plenty of crazoids running loose nowadays and if one of them decides to shoot a politician, I don't wanna even be near a gun lest some pusssy liberal screech that I did it. I can easily let the government be responsible for security at such an event and if I feel like I just gotta go, I will take my chances unarmed.

� Not all politicians, however, are like the Godfather, since some of them are actually working to place government back into its constitutional chains. �

Not to get too far off point on this tragedy, but if if plenty of folks were armed in everyday fashion, being armed at a political event would not be so unusual.........

And I adamantly believe there are FAR more good Americans out there than bad/kooky ones.

Casey

Most folks would say that in a situation involving a child, a single mother, and an armed robber escaped from prison, the most important thing is that the child and the mother survive. It'd be better if the armed robber survives too, but if it works out that he doesn't, it's less loss than it would be if the mother or child hadn't made it.

I'm only saying the same thing. To me, a politician is a peg or two lower on the scale than an armed robber.

I perfectly understood what you said, Barak. Lots of folks are looking to spin it into something you didn't say.