It doesn't matter if you don't like leftists.

[HappyDaze]

Obviously when you become a NPC.......

In the real world, us/them divisions are rarely precise or helpful.

[oggsmash]

There is also the view that America can/will destroy itself by abandoning its own principles in the fight against those that have none. If you fight monsters with monstrous methods to sustain yourself, when do you become the monster?

     Do you believe killing a person is justified if they break into your home?

[HappyDaze]

Do you believe killing a person is justified if they break into your home?

Am I present when they break in and myself or thise i care for are in imminent danger? If both of those are "yes" then I consider it an option I may be forced to take, but it is not the one I default to. Before I was a nurse, I was a corrections officer (6 years) and a probation officer (1 year). I am not unfamiliar with using force, nor am i comfortable with it. However, if it can be avoided, I'd rather not seriously injure or kill anyone.

[RandyB]

Am I present when they break in and myself or thise i care for are in imminent danger? If both of those are "yes" then I consider it an option I may be forced to take, but it is not the one I default to. Before I was a nurse, I was a corrections officer (6 years) and a probation officer (1 year). I am not unfamiliar with using force, nor am i comfortable with it. However, if it can be avoided, I'd rather not seriously injure or kill anyone.

Don't muzzle the sheepdogs who protect you from the wolves.

[oggsmash]

Am I present when they break in and myself or thise i care for are in imminent danger? If both of those are "yes" then I consider it an option I may be forced to take, but it is not the one I default to. Before I was a nurse, I was a corrections officer (6 years) and a probation officer (1 year). I am not unfamiliar with using force, nor am i comfortable with it. However, if it can be avoided, I'd rather not seriously injure or kill anyone.

   So the answer is yes.  Period.  Justified.  No one wants to kill someone, at least they might think they do till they do it, but it is better to do something monstrous in that instant than make a miscalculation on your ability to deal with a threat and your wife and kids pay that price.     I do not disagree with your answer, but you know, and I know, doing something horrible and violent is sometimes required of some people to ensure the safety of themselves and more importantly IMO, their family.   This is how it has always been, and barring some breakthroughs in awareness of the human condition, how it will always be.

[SHARK]

Marxists are in the process of destroying this country because Conservatives "followed the Constitution" and didn't physically remove them from society. The infiltrated academia and the media and proceeded to use their position to indoctrinate impressionable young people into their poisonous creed. And the conservatives complained about it but did nothing because a judge said that it was their "constitutional right" to do so.

Then the Marxists and their newly created disciples focused on "educating" kids at younger and younger ages into Cultural Marxist ideology. And at most Conservatives pulled their kids out and put them in private schools leaving the rest of the kids to learn that homosexuality is ok and maybe you should try it and some boys are really girls and should take life altering hormones and be castrated, because then you'd be very brave and special (you do want to be brave and special don't you?). And the Conservatives quit even complaining about it because judges and TV people said it's Civil Rights and that's what the Constitution really meant all along.

Now those indoctrinated kids grew up to be crazed Marxists determined to destroy a country and civilization they were taught is inherently racist, and not one single Conservative political leader does anything to stop them from burning down the country and terrorizing respectable citizens.

Conservatives use their "dedication to Constitutional principles" as an excuse to do nothing when Cultural Marxists progressively destroy one facet of American life after another. And when the neo-Bolsheviks decide to formally scrap the Constitution that had been long since defunct, the Conservatives will moan about the injustice of it all while enjoying a sense of self-righteousness knowing that they lost (everything) while sticking to their values and that Antifa were the real fascists all along.

The End

Greetings!

Very true, Mjollnir! So many Conservatives have been weak, passive, and far too nice and polite. While the country gets steadily corrupted, and destroyed.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[SHARK]

So the answer is yes.  Period.  Justified.  No one wants to kill someone, at least they might think they do till they do it, but it is better to do something monstrous in that instant than make a miscalculation on your ability to deal with a threat and your wife and kids pay that price.     I do not disagree with your answer, but you know, and I know, doing something horrible and violent is sometimes required of some people to ensure the safety of themselves and more importantly IMO, their family.   This is how it has always been, and barring some breakthroughs in awareness of the human condition, how it will always be.

Greetings!

I am comfortable with embracing violence. The 2nd Amendment is real, and I am well prepared. I do not have any moral compunctions about doing that which is right. Some men you just can't reach! If some men cannot be reasoned with, then a Glock 45 in their mouth will have them seeing my point of view very quickly.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[SHARK]

So the answer is yes.  Period.  Justified.  No one wants to kill someone, at least they might think they do till they do it, but it is better to do something monstrous in that instant than make a miscalculation on your ability to deal with a threat and your wife and kids pay that price.     I do not disagree with your answer, but you know, and I know, doing something horrible and violent is sometimes required of some people to ensure the safety of themselves and more importantly IMO, their family.   This is how it has always been, and barring some breakthroughs in awareness of the human condition, how it will always be.

Greetings!

That's right, Ogg!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[Crawford Tillinghast]

In what way are they not following the constitution?

I'm a huge crank about "Bill of Attainder."  Look it up, it's in the same sentence in the Constitution as "Habeas Corpus," and is a similar concept.  What it means is that no one - let me emphasize that - no one - is beyond the protection of the law.  Back in the day, if someone was embarrassing someone in power, said person could make an arrangement and the embarrassing person would be collected by police in plain clothes, pushed into an unmarked carriage, and disappear.  That's right, Disappearing was legal until the 18th century.  Does anonymous people dragging other people into unmarked vehicles sound familiar?

But Bill of Attainder has been forgotten about.  When people think "outlaw" they mean fugitive from justice, not the older meaning of beyond the protection of the law.

[RandyB]

I'm a huge crank about "Bill of Attainder."  Look it up, it's in the same sentence in the Constitution as "Habeas Corpus," and is a similar concept.  What it means is that no one - let me emphasize that - no one - is beyond the protection of the law.  Back in the day, if someone was embarrassing someone in power, said person could make an arrangement and the embarrassing person would be collected by police in plain clothes, pushed into an unmarked carriage, and disappear.  That's right, Disappearing was legal until the 18th century.  Does anonymous people dragging other people into unmarked vehicles sound familiar?

But Bill of Attainder has been forgotten about.  When people think "outlaw" they mean fugitive from justice, not the older meaning of beyond the protection of the law.

Like Lincoln did to the Maryland and Kentucky legislatures. He had them arrested to prevent them from voting on bills of secession. They hadn't committed any crimes at the time of their arrest. They were arrested to prevent them from doing so.

[SHARK]

Like Lincoln did to the Maryland and Kentucky legislatures. He had them arrested to prevent them from voting on bills of secession. They hadn't committed any crimes at the time of their arrest. They were arrested to prevent them from doing so.

Greetings!

That's right, RandyB! President Lincoln declared he would do anything in his power to preserve the Union. President Lincoln believed he had an oath registered in Heaven before Almighty God to preserve the Union, and protect the Republic.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[oggsmash]

I'm a huge crank about "Bill of Attainder."  Look it up, it's in the same sentence in the Constitution as "Habeas Corpus," and is a similar concept.  What it means is that no one - let me emphasize that - no one - is beyond the protection of the law.  Back in the day, if someone was embarrassing someone in power, said person could make an arrangement and the embarrassing person would be collected by police in plain clothes, pushed into an unmarked carriage, and disappear.  That's right, Disappearing was legal until the 18th century.  Does anonymous people dragging other people into unmarked vehicles sound familiar?

But Bill of Attainder has been forgotten about.  When people think "outlaw" they mean fugitive from justice, not the older meaning of beyond the protection of the law.

  Well I do not like people with masks being taken away by people in masks in unmarked vehicles. Seems like endorsing people to be out "peacefully protesting with masks" is having some unintended consequences.

[RandyB]

Greetings!

That's right, RandyB! President Lincoln declared he would do anything in his power to preserve the Union. President Lincoln believed he had an oath registered in Heaven before Almighty God to preserve the Union, and protect the Republic.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Hey, SHARK!

What is happening now is far less than what Lincoln did. Making claims against the Constitution to complain about what Trump is doing absolutely villifies what Lincoln did. To condemn the lesser is to condemn the greater.

"Losing with my principles intact" is just another way to submit to slavery - and to be guilty of the destruction of everything and everyone you claim to be protecting and upholding.

[Crawford Tillinghast]

Like Lincoln did to the Maryland and Kentucky legislatures. He had them arrested to prevent them from voting on bills of secession. They hadn't committed any crimes at the time of their arrest. They were arrested to prevent them from doing so.

Oh, I'm not saying it never happens, US History is full of unconstitutional acts: cf Andrew "Lets see them enforce it" Jackson.  I'm saying it's a bigger deal than say, a married man (under oath) committing perjury by denying a fling with an office temp.

Well I do not like people with masks being taken away by people in masks in unmarked vehicles.

Me neither.  And that was my point - it isn't just wrong, it is truly unconstitutional.

Seems like endorsing people to be out "peacefully protesting with masks" is having some unintended consequences.

I live near Charlottesville, and considered going there for the pro statue rally.  (I think there is a world of difference between someone dying in custody and an old hunk of zinc standing around somewhere).  I have to admit I was confused that the open faced people carrying torches were the bad guys; and the people in masks, with bicycle chains, were the heroes.

[shuddemell]

I'm a huge crank about "Bill of Attainder."  Look it up, it's in the same sentence in the Constitution as "Habeas Corpus," and is a similar concept.  What it means is that no one - let me emphasize that - no one - is beyond the protection of the law.  Back in the day, if someone was embarrassing someone in power, said person could make an arrangement and the embarrassing person would be collected by police in plain clothes, pushed into an unmarked carriage, and disappear.  That's right, Disappearing was legal until the 18th century.  Does anonymous people dragging other people into unmarked vehicles sound familiar?

But Bill of Attainder has been forgotten about.  When people think "outlaw" they mean fugitive from justice, not the older meaning of beyond the protection of the law.

You realize of course, that none of these people have been disappeared? The Bill of Attainder refers to being punished for a crime that you were not convicted of. So far as I am aware, being detained is not considered punishment and if done in pursuant with filing of charges, that it is part of due process. That the federal and local authorities can legally detain you upon suspicion of a crime for up to 72 hours without arraignment? They are acting like these people haven't been afforded due process even though most were released within 2 hours. The police are not required to identify themselves (though it is generally policy to do so), it would make undercover operations impossible if it were. So while the tactics may seem strange, have any of them been denied due process? If so, then I have a problem with it, if not then it is pretty normal procedure. While I don't really like it, it is neither unconstitutional or even illegal.