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

LOL you are a funny man when you aren't defending people with moronic tendencies.

Barak keeps insisting that the government is extorting from the taxpayers even when the bible mentions to pay taxes and listen to the government. It doesn't say we can pick and choose.

Okay, look. I have a presentation to prepare, and I can't spend all day here. But let me take one more shot at this.

Enrique: in first-century Palestine, it was perfectly legal for a Roman soldier to grab a random Jew, who was just going about his business and hurting nobody, and force him to carry the soldier's load--in whatever direction the soldier happened to be going and for as long as he felt like--under threat of violence.

Okay? In our world today, that's kidnapping and involuntary servitude. Felonies. Prison.

So what did Jesus say about that? He said that if a soldier demands that you carry his burden a mile, you should carry it two miles instead.

Now did Jesus mean by this that when a soldier forces his burden on you, it's not kidnapping or involuntary servitude?

No, of course not. It's still kidnapping and involuntary servitude. Jesus is just saying that you shouldn't resist it. (Why not is a whole other lesson. No time now. Later, maybe.)

So...by analogy, when he says you shouldn't resist taxation, he is not saying that taxation isn't extortion. Of course it's extortion: it fits every single definition of extortion there is, other than ones that make a clear exception for the State. (No, he didn't say "extortion." The word "extortion" didn't exist. The entire English language didn't exist. If he had said "extortion" nobody would have known what he meant.)

It's not a crime to give a robber what he demands; but it's still a crime for him to rob you, whether or not he gets what he demands.

Well said. Sort of what I was trying to say earlier.

Actually, it was a natural-law argument.

We know she has voted--and done so where it counts--to have the State take resources away from people in group A and give them instead to people in group B. It's reasonable to argue--heck, lots of people here made this very argument--that without those resources, people on the margins in group A will die. It is not clear--again, lots of people here made this argument--that those resources will save anyone in group B; as a matter of fact, it's more likely that as a result of the nationalization of health care, more people in both group A and group B will die.

We know that she voted to use federal tax money, extorted from people who are passionately opposed to abortion, to pay for abortions.

We know that she voted to greatly expand the powers of the FDA, which will significantly raise the price of food, putting it further out of the reach of people on the margin and undoubtedly killing some of them.

We know that she voted to have the State extort more money from responsible, successful people and use it to bail out irresponsible, unsuccessful people.

We know that she voted for an expansion of the definition of employer discrimination, trampling the property rights of small business owners.

There's much, much more. She's been a federal politician for four years.

She is not innocent. She has used the coercive power of the state to hurt many, many people, undoubtedly killing some of them; and her legacy will live on after her, hurting and killing more.

As for John Roll, it's anybody's guess--which means I don't feel like doing the research--how many people he's sent to prison over his lifetime for actions that didn't hurt anybody but of which the State disapproved. 63 is a decent-sized lifetime. My guess is that there were at least hundreds. If he hadn't been a minion of the State, every single one of those would count as a felony kidnapping. He's not innocent either.

The thing that makes politicians and other criminals different from regular folks in my mind is that they deliberately pursue a compulsion to coercively control other people rather than minding their own business.

But yes, for all those keeping score, even though Giffords and Roll were politicians, it was not OK for some guy to walk up and shoot them.

TRH and Barak can defend the azzclown that killed and injured all those people all they want.

Enrique

It is what it is. He's already shown he can't actually face his own "convictions".

I meet plenty of "them" in "real life". The actions of a few on the 'net give me nothing but humor.

Talk....

George

Ending World War Two was worthy of global applause.

Assassinating Hitler to do it, however justifiiable or necessary that may have been, would not have been worthy of the same applause.

Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved tens of millions more lives than it took � thunderous applause and woeful tragedy, not an either-or matter at all. Neither one alone nor the other alone.

BTW not speack false witness sir. Its true and the proof is in the thread with all both of you have said.


Anyone have a prayer that can be posted for a time and situation like this?