Originally Posted by CMANN

I cannot think of a reason but I will not judge. Others may have a good reason and they should answer to God, not man.

Who will you appoint to make the rules? The Christian, the Muslim, the Jew, the atheist? Who?

I'm pretty sure all your examples detest murder, if they're good people to begin with.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

I'm pretty sure all your examples detest murder, if they're good people to begin with.

All detest murder but all embrace killing.

If life is eternal and the body is just the vessel for the soul, is it murder to burn down the house?

We can really get deep into this.

Originally Posted by CMANN

All detest murder but all embrace killing.

If life is eternal and the body is just the vessel for the soul, is it murder to burn down the house?

We can really get deep into this.

Deep? or just plain ridiculous???????

also...apparently you never were selected for jury duty. Someone has to make judgments on crimes that are committed. Without judgments, we are without parameters and consequences for actions that are taken that harm others. Pretty sure these are historically part of a civilized society.

Originally Posted by KatzPajamas

Deep? or just plain ridiculous???????

So, what you believe is truth but what others believe is "just plain rediculars?"

Perhaps your true colors are showing?

Hardly...you posted that all detest murder and all embrace killing...what does that even mean? I don't see that as deep, I think it is a ridiculous statement.
Has nothing to do with my true colors, which is also a ridiculous statement. In fact, it is a very judgmental statement to come from one who claims that he/she will not judge.

Originally Posted by KatzPajamas

Hardly...you posted that all detest murder and all embrace killing...what does that even mean? I don't see that as deep, I think it is a ridiculous statement.
Has nothing to do with my true colors, which is also a ridiculous statement. In fact, it is a very judgmental statement to come from one who claims that he/she will not judge.

They all have used war to settle disputes. Capital punishment has been and is justified by all. All gave killed in the name of thier God.

I misunderstood which part of my post you found resiculous.

How far would you go to defend your family and home and property?
How far to defend the life of your neighbor?

Originally Posted by KatzPajamas

How far would you go to defend your family and home and property?
How far to defend the life of your neighbor?

As far as required. Killing if required.

You?

Originally Posted by CMANN

As far as required. Killing if required.

You?

I would do the same! I detest murder, but this does not mean that I "embrace" killing?

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Cut it out DJ. Mostly we have abortions in America because people are selfish. (and don't give me horror stories, because the cases are so infinitesimal to be almost non-existant)

Define "selfish".

Now, I certainly would NOT argue that there aren't any of what you would call 'convenience' abortions. It happens. However, the vast majority of abortion happen in the first few weeks - this is why the 'viability' argument gets tossed around. And although I don't have the numbers, finances plays a HUGE role in it. One broken condom or a woman who gets sick and doesn't realize that antibiotics will nullify effects of The Pill for a time and you suddenly have someone going "I'm WHAT?"

But there's a discussion that doesn't seem to happen beyond the initial "'fer it, or a'gin it" shouting.

Let's say abortion is banned - and for the sake of argument let's ignore for a moment the resulting illegal aboritons that would happen. Let's also ignore the whole rape/incest/mother's-life argument for a moment.

So now you're forcing these pregnancies to term by rule of law.

The fact is a lot of people can't afford to properly care for these children (abortions are also disproportionate among minorities). What do you do at that point? If you're one of the conservatives who might have a "Can't Feed 'Em? Don't Breed 'Em!" bumper sticker on their car - what do you do at that point?

Do you provide public aid? Do you think adoption will solve the problem? If so, there are over 5,000 kids in the Greater Boston area that would disagree with you as they're waiting (they're just not the kind of babies that most adoptive parents want).

Do you take the kid away? If so, doesn't that go against the Conservative mantra of less government?

Again, abortion is the symptom - the 'disease' is unwanted pregnancies.

So, as I understand it, Katz and CMANN would kill someone to protect a valuable piece of property even if their life was not threatened. An unarmed burglar breaks into your home and takes Grandma's diamond ring she brought to the US in 1919. The burglar makes noise on the way out of the house; you hear him and grab the .44 Magnum pistol; spot the open jewelry box; see the burglar outside the house going to his car; you raise the .44 Magnum and cap a few rounds into him as he is entering his car.

Right or wrong?

Originally Posted by buggyone

So, as I understand it, Katz and CMANN would kill someone to protect a valuable piece of property even if their life was not threatened. An unarmed burglar breaks into your home and takes Grandma's diamond ring she brought to the US in 1919. The burglar makes noise on the way out of the house; you hear him and grab the .44 Magnum pistol; spot the open jewelry box; see the burglar outside the house going to his car; you raise the .44 Magnum and cap a few rounds into him as he is entering his car.

Right or wrong?

Buzzer goes off, you do not pass go, you do not collect $200, go directly to jail. Your life is not in danger therefore you have no right to take his life.

Now if he turns and points something at you, points whatever, and you think it is a firearm and you shoot him in the chest, pat on the back, community service ribbon, hero of the day award.

There is a thing called the "reasonable man rule." To be PC it should be called the "rreasonable person rule" so that we cover the ladies also. Now if you catch him coming into your house, after breaking a window or door down and cap "he's butt" then you most likely are in the clear, as again in the "reasonable man rule" you really didn't have any idea what his intentions were or are and he most certainly is not an invited guest.

Do some research on the 10 Commandments and the one that states:

"Thou shall not kill" is an incorrect translation of the Hebrew. The actual translation is:

"Thou shall not murder."

Really a big difference in meaning. It is a God given right to protect your life and those of your loved ones or neighbors from getting maimed or murdered. Therefore, if your life or your loved ones are not in danger and you "cap his a**" have fun living on the state dime for a few years.

Originally Posted by buggyone

So, as I understand it, Katz and CMANN would kill someone to protect a valuable piece of property even if their life was not threatened. An unarmed burglar breaks into your home and takes Grandma's diamond ring she brought to the US in 1919. The burglar makes noise on the way out of the house; you hear him and grab the .44 Magnum pistol; spot the open jewelry box; see the burglar outside the house going to his car; you raise the .44 Magnum and cap a few rounds into him as he is entering his car.

Right or wrong?

Now I'm beginning to understand the problem within the GOP. They let the extremes dictate to the majority. I'm liking it! The Progressives try to do the same thing to the Dems, but occasionally common sense is victorious.

To my fringe GOP friends - stick to your ideals. Don't for a second think about compromise. Be right. You are all right. Right? Go down in flames.

Xavier

Glad you got the right answer, Figmo. See, all that government paid training paid off for you, didn't it?

are you forgetting it takes two to tango? or not!!

btk