# Why looting was slow in Texas



## crhoades (Oct 6, 2005)




----------



## Arch2k (Oct 6, 2005)




----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 6, 2005)

Um, people...This isn't a joke. This is exactly how it ought to be. This is the model of a free and just social order. A thousand times Amen!


----------



## crhoades (Oct 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Um, people...This isn't a joke. This is exactly how it ought to be. This is the model of a free and just social order. A thousand times Amen!


Well...maybe not the "drunks" part...


----------



## Richard King (Oct 6, 2005)

ahhhh that looks like all my gunshow buddies. You have no idea how much. In fact my kids say I am living Hank Hill's life from the cartoon King of the Hill.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Richard King_
> ahhhh that looks like all my gunshow buddies. You have no idea how much. In fact my kids say I am living Hank Hill's life from the cartoon King of the Hill.



I just had a whole bunch of Dale Gribbel quotes come to mind!


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Oct 6, 2005)

With some glasses, a cigarette and a SKOAL hat..... you might be a dead ringer


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Um, people...This isn't a joke. This is exactly how it ought to be. This is the model of a free and just social order. A thousand times Amen!


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> > Um, people...This isn't a joke. This is exactly how it ought to be. This is the model of a free and just social order. A thousand times Amen!



Are you guys _serious_?

Those of you who've read my posts know that I can be pretty militant and that there is a big part of me that likes the tough guy mentality of shooting looters.

However... How can it possibly be conceived of as just to kill someone for taking a possession? Thievery does not warrant capital punishment. 

This isn't a "model of a free and just social order." On the contrary, it is nothing other than a model of vigilanteism, which is itself lawlessness.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 6, 2005)

Ben might be right.

It is lawful to shoot an intruder that is threatening you or your family with deadly force in the middle of the night, but a thief carrying off your tv is a tresspasser. It is ok to threaten him to put down the property and leave, but unless he pulls out a gun or leaps at you with a knife, I really do not think it would justify blowing him away.

What do you think Jacob and Scott?

Keep in mind, I love firearms. Everyone should have plenty to pass out to their neighbors when the time comes.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



If someone comes into your neighborhood to with the intent of destroying/stealing your private property/family, is it vigilantism to use whatever force necessary to repel them? 

Apply the same ethical behaviours that were seen inside the Superdome and put them on your street (piles of dead babies in restrooms, young teenage girls raped to death, lawlessness and anarchy, british men being forced to have their backs in a ciricle to protect the women); now tell me: is self-defense wrong?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Ben might be right.
> 
> It is lawful to shoot an intruder that is threatening you or your family with deadly force in the middle of the night, but a thief carrying off your tv is a tresspasser. It is ok to threaten him to put down the property and leave, but unless he pulls out a gun or leaps at you with a knife, I really do not think it would justify blowing him away.
> ...



Depends on the context. If I saw a thief I would presume the worst. How do I know that he "only wants to help himself to what belongs to me?" For all I know, he could then be after my woman and kids.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 6, 2005)

You are operating under the assumption that all they want to do is pick up a few loaves of bread otherwise they will starve. I am operating under the biblical assumption that they have come to terrorize and harm my people/property and seek the destruction of a godly and stable social order.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 6, 2005)

Jacob, by your words I trust your heart is noble. But in any given situation you an the Lord must make that call. Like I said, I would tell them to leave with the buisiness end of my escopetas squared at their chest. 

I am not saying, hey buddy, lets sit down on my couch and talk about why you are stealing that dvd player ok ?

But at the same time, unless they are threatening you with deadly force, you gotta make a judgment call, and there are many factors involved, like does he have a friend outside waiting with weapons ? Are your wife and kids safe ? (In my house he has more of a chance if I find him than if my wife or kids do)


----------



## wsw201 (Oct 6, 2005)

Actually in Texas you have the right to use deadly force to protect you life as well as your property.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Jacob, by your words I trust your heart is noble. But in any given situation you an the Lord must make that call. Like I said, I would tell them to leave with the buisiness end of my escopetas squared at their chest.
> 
> I am not saying, hey buddy, lets sit down on my couch and talk about why you are stealing that dvd player ok ?
> ...



I have thought about all that. You are closer to my position on this one. I am not a trigger-happy kill-joy. I would rather not kill and pray I never do. Both of us are importing other scenarios into this one. I have in mind the sicknening events that happened in the Superdome. I do not have in mind a 15 year old wanting to permanently borrow my stereo. As a theonomist, I maintain that the punishment must fit the crime (including the personal level). At the same time, when I see dangerous characters who are probably armed and moving in packs, I will take a safe guess that they are after more than my stereo or my rims and act accordingly (ie, saw off the shotgun).

Listen: I am not saying
Kill first, assume you were right, and move on with no remorse.

Ditto to Wayne!


----------



## sastark (Oct 6, 2005)

Brothers, 

Scripture speaks clearly on this subject.

*Exodus 22:2-3* - "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed."


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by sastark_
> Brothers,
> 
> Scripture speaks clearly on this subject.
> ...



Bahnsen used that in his debate with Atwood on Gun Control. 

Let's flesh this statement out a little:

What if it is after sunrise and his actions are clearly beyond those of thievery (threatening to rape wife, kill kids, etc)? Is lethal force warranted?

What if you saw him doing that to your neighbors in daylight? Or dusk? or Dawn?

Thanks for the reference, Seth.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Richard King_
> ...



An unnamed and unfortunate as of late colleague of mine brought this reference to light:


"I do not recognize the authority of a court that hangs the gold-fringed
flag. A flag with gilded edges is the flag of an admirality court. An
admirality court signifies a naval court-martial. I cannot be
court-martialled twice. That is all."
-Dale Gribbel


----------



## crhoades (Oct 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by sastark_
> Brothers,
> 
> Scripture speaks clearly on this subject.
> ...



Judicial law is expired. That was just for God's chosen nation.

Anyone care to take a crack at the general equity of that one?


----------



## sastark (Oct 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by sastark_
> ...







> Anyone care to take a crack at the general equity of that one?



Yeah: If a thief breaks into your house at night, you have the right to use lethal force to defend yourself and your property. If it is day light, you don't have the right to use lethal force if he is *only* stealing.


----------



## pastorway (Oct 6, 2005)

"be bo bum, be by be, be by bickey bi, bickey by bo......."



_brought to you by DaleTek_

[Edited on 10-6-05 by pastorway]


----------



## Saiph (Oct 6, 2005)

> Judicial law is expired. That was just for God's chosen nation.



Antinomian rubbish.


What do you presume we use for civil governance then ? ?


Matthew 5:17-20 (New International Version)

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Oct 6, 2005)

Yep.

Shoot his hands off or shoot him in the knees. 

Therefore, you're not killing him, but you ARE disabling him for trespassing.


----------



## crhoades (Oct 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> > Judicial law is expired. That was just for God's chosen nation.
> ...



 Please see my signature...


----------



## pastorway (Oct 6, 2005)

What is the fastest way to make a man involved in an unholy activity holy?

Pull the trigger!

Remember: Gun Control is Hitting Your Target!

"That boy just ain't right."

"Hoh- Yeah!"

:bigsmile::bigsmile::bigsmile:


----------



## crhoades (Oct 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> What is the fastest way to make a man involved in an unholy activity holy?
> 
> Pull the trigger!
> ...



Yer killin' me


----------



## Saiph (Oct 6, 2005)

Should have read it. I skip over signatures often.


----------



## crhoades (Oct 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> Should have read it. I skip over signatures often.



Yeah, I was just tossing it out there to stir up a little discussion. I have no problem holding WCF 19.4 if other people don't have problems upholding the general equity of scripture such as that one or other ones with the penalties in there.


----------



## pastorway (Oct 6, 2005)

Looting control in Texas, Col. Cotton Hill style:

"I kilt fity men."

"A natzi I was guttin complained less than you."

"What'sa matter, boy? You skirred?"

"Hello Hank and Hank's wife. Where's my breakfast?"








[Edited on 10-6-05 by pastorway]


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Oct 6, 2005)

Those guys in that picture seem to want a thief to attempt theft, so that they can shot them. 

This is why I am not wholly opposed to gun control. Those vigilantees in the above photo don't seem to grasp the gravity and the sombreness of the undertaking. They look like if they would rejoice, and get some orgasmic experience from using firearms on another human, with simply the "theft" being the excuse.

Those guys seem to be eagerly looking for some action. This is what is scary.


----------



## pastorway (Oct 6, 2005)

I am so glad this is in the entertainment forum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



[Edited on 10-6-05 by pastorway]


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Slippery_
> Those guys in that picture seem to want a thief to attempt theft, so that they can shot them.
> 
> This is why I am not wholly opposed to gun control. Those vigilantees in the above photo don't seem to grasp the gravity and the sombreness of the undertaking. They look like if they would rejoice, and get some orgasmic experience from using firearms on another human, with simply the "theft" being the excuse.
> ...



Self-Defense is not vigilantism. The above post is a perfect deterrent to thievery. Its message, unlike that of the law courts, is perfectly clear: the way of the transgressor is hard.


----------



## Saiph (Oct 6, 2005)

> Those guys seem to be eagerly looking for some action. This is what is scary.



How ironic, from a member with an avater from gladiator, and a bruce lee pic in his signature.


----------



## pastorway (Oct 6, 2005)

yep - gladiators sure were godly men......they were pacifists were they not???


----------



## crhoades (Oct 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> I am so glad this is in the entertainment forum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> ...



Wait a sec...PastorWay is from Texas...What...yeah...I think I see it....








Disclaimer: Lest I be accused of slander...I don't mean this to be taken as calling a pastor a drunk...

[Edited on 10-6-2005 by crhoades]


----------



## pastorway (Oct 6, 2005)

DRUNK IN THE SPIRIT BABY!!!! YEAH!!!!

Now that is funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> You are operating under the assumption that all they want to do is pick up a few loaves of bread otherwise they will starve. I am operating under the biblical assumption that they have come to terrorize and harm my people/property and seek the destruction of a godly and stable social order.



Since when do you (we) live in a godly and stable social order?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



I was speaking prescriptively on the decentralized, local level. In other words, following the masterful work _Heiland_, when the humanists move to the cities and the freedom-loving Agrarians take the countryside, then we begin to reconstruct on the local level. 

Originally, I had in mind the county militia. I have yet to post a report on my views on county law enforcement and civil resistance.

In answer to your question: We don't at the moment have a godly (nor stable) social order. I do believe in the future we shall.

My point was: if we allow the above to happen (raping, looting, random killing of civilians) we will never have a godly (and stable) social order.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Oct 6, 2005)

That spoofed up pic of pastorway is a bit on the creepy side. (a drunk baptist pastor???) 

On the shoot them in the knees part...can you change the law so they can't sue first?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> That spoofed up pic of pastorway is a bit on the creepy side. (a drunk baptist pastor???)
> 
> On the shoot them in the knees part...can you change the law so they can't sue first?



She has a point. If someone breaks in your house and in biblical, godly self-defense you wound them critically but not kill them, they can legitimately sue you for everything you own.

I hate to sound grim and say, "Shoot to kill," but....Again, a lot of this is scenario-sensitive.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Oct 6, 2005)

Once a year my stepdad would bring out the rifles and the revolver for cleaning and training. We sat there and he would clean them as he went over the rules for their usage, then we went out back and shot at the cans. We were told that if we shot at a break in, then it had better be a shoot to kill situation.


----------



## turmeric (Oct 7, 2005)

Whoa, whoa, whoa!

Jacob, you said you would shoot someone (you didn't at first say whether lethally or not) for looting, which most of us take to mean, thievery. Then when people objected, you upped the ante to rape & murder. The Scripture verse reference is only addressing thievery. At night, when it's not clear what the trespasser is after, he's fair game. In daylight when you can see all he wants is the TV, you can't kill him. If he seems to want more, i.e. your wife or daughter's honor or anyone's life, that particular Scripture verse doesn't address that, but others do; you are justified in that case in using whatever force is necessary. Can we stop referring to each other's opinions as "antinomian rubbish"? That doesn't seem calculated to edify. Just my opinion, so shoot me!


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 7, 2005)

Jacob doesn't have the guts to shoot someone.


----------



## pastorway (Oct 7, 2005)

[align=center]*THE SANCTIFIER*
_if this can't make you holy, you can't be made holy!_






*THE DISCIPLER*
_Guaranteed to bring him to his knees_






*THE EP HANDGUN*
_SIG = Shooting to Impart Grace_
_P245 = Psalm 24:5_

When you shoot to impart grace, you can say with assurance: "He shall receive blessing from the LORD, And righteousness from the God of his salvation."




[/align]





[Edited on 10-7-05 by pastorway]


----------



## LawrenceU (Oct 7, 2005)

> Yep.
> 
> Shoot his hands off or shoot him in the knees.
> 
> Therefore, you're not killing him, but you ARE disabling him for trespassing.



Do this and you will go to jail and he will sue you and win. . . in every state. If you can wound a perp in an obvious non threat to life manner the cours sees it as a situation in which you could have avoided the encounter. Same thing with the old 'I'll fire a warning shot first.' If you have time to fire that shot you have time to flee. (Aside from the fact that both are tactically stupid moves.)

Bottom line: if you must use deadly force whether it be a firearm, knife, or hands it better be deadly in its outcome.


----------



## crhoades (Oct 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> 
> 
> > Yep.
> ...



Not to mention shooting a hand or a knee is much harder than hitting center mass. Maybe not for some of you expert marksman here...


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Oct 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Saiph_
> 
> 
> How ironic, from a member with an avater from gladiator, and a bruce lee pic in his signature.


Ad Hominems. 

ps. If one is to watch Gladiator and Return of the Dragon, they would consider it very good movies.

When a money grubing amoral slave owner and gladiator businessman says the following line

"Ultimately, we are all dead men. Sadly, we cannot change that. But we can decide how to end so we are remembered as men"

You know that movie is worth watching.

[Edited on 10-7-2005 by Slippery]


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Oct 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> yep - gladiators sure were godly men......they were pacifists were they not???


  Maximus perfectly codified, "Preemptive defense"


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Oct 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> Jacob doesn't have the guts to shoot someone.


yeah, I think he is too much of an intellectual. Maybe a politician, but he ain't no John Braddock a la Chuck Norris in Missing in Action  More like Cicero, but a Christian Reformed version 

[Edited on 10-7-2005 by Slippery]


----------



## Saiph (Oct 7, 2005)

Meg:



> Can we stop referring to each other's opinions as "antinomian rubbish"? That doesn't seem calculated to edify.



Not trying to offend or be condescending at all.
If Chesterton or Lewis were to use the phrase "antinomian rubbish"? we would think it to be an exhortation mingled with jest. My intent is not to mock the individual, but the idea. I certainly doubt anyone would hesitate to criticize Arminianism or Pelagianism with much harsher verbage. The assault on Gods holy, perfect law is no less dangerous. After all, as believers, it is the very law He has said to write onto our hearts.


Keon:

I love Gladiator. Just giving you a hard time.

[Edited on 10-7-2005 by Saiph]


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> Whoa, whoa, whoa!
> 
> Jacob, you said you would shoot someone (you didn't at first say whether lethally or not) for looting, which most of us take to mean, thievery. Then when people objected, you upped the ante to rape & murder. The Scripture verse reference is only addressing thievery. At night, when it's not clear what the trespasser is after, he's fair game. In daylight when you can see all he wants is the TV, you can't kill him. If he seems to want more, i.e. your wife or daughter's honor or anyone's life, that particular Scripture verse doesn't address that, but others do; you are justified in that case in using whatever force is necessary. Can we stop referring to each other's opinions as "antinomian rubbish"? That doesn't seem calculated to edify. Just my opinion, so shoot me!



Find where I said "antinomian rubbish".
I upped the ante for a reason. The "looting" that happened around the Superdome was in the context of killing and raping. In short, the looters (or that mentality) did not stop at looting.

Furthermore, I will keep playing my trump card (Exodus 22).


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Slippery_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Romans922_
> ...



If you (generic you) break into my house I will assume the worst and will shoot to kill. I do not know that you only intend to help yourself to my property. I will assume that you are going for blood and I will respond accordingly.


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Oct 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> If you (generic you) break into my house I will assume the worst and will shoot to kill. I do not know that you only intend to help yourself to my property. I will assume that you are going for blood and I will respond accordingly.



Dude, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just pulling your leg. I am fully for the protection of one's domain. The very physiological processes that occur in the body when danger is around (adrenaline etc), shows that self defence and self preservation is valid, and it is morely so valid when one has to protect their family.

But as I said on a previous thread, gun control is not synonymous with gun prohibition. I just don't want the purchase of a gun to be easy as the purchasing of a bigmac, niether do I want AK 47s and other high powered firearms around the place. That's overkill to me.


----------



## gwine (Oct 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Slippery_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Saiph_
> ...



I was going to note the ad hominem argument but you beat me to it. You have to admit, though, that the avatar and signature line you have chosen says something about your mindset.

And perhaps the movies are worth watching, I don't know. All I know is that my (24 year old) son watches a lot of movies, many of them with a violent nature, and it is pretty easy to see his thinking influenced by what he watches.

The whole world is watching us closely to see how we behave and how we react to what it throws at us.


----------



## Peter (Oct 7, 2005)

An armed citizenry is the best deterrent to a despotic government. When congress enacts gun control laws on the police and the military is when I will feel safe with gun conrol laws on the people.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 7, 2005)

People,
Look at the picture closely. It can't by definition be vigilantism. Vigilantism (and there are much worse things in the world) goes OUT to look for bad guys on arbitrary and usually trumped up charges. These people are staying IN on the DEFENSIVE against internal terrorists. 
So for now on, I just ignore vigilante charges.


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 7, 2005)

I know you personally! The gun means nothing.


----------



## Peter (Oct 7, 2005)

The US government is the biggest vigilante of all. The magistrate is to use the sword as the servant of God, if he fails to he uses the sword in vain.


----------



## Average Joey (Oct 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Slippery_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Saiph_
> ...



I thought Gladiator was pretty good.I still didn`t get how it won best actor or picture.I thought Patriot was a much better movie and Mel Gibson did better acting than even Braveheart.Alas,politics held it down.I don`t think they nominated it for anything.

Let me say again.It was a good movie.I just thought it didn`t deserve the academy awards.

[Edited on 10-7-2005 by Average Joey]

[Edited on 10-7-2005 by Average Joey]


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> I know you personally! The gun means nothing.



Bring it, hoss!


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 7, 2005)

Hey, I got my gun on campus, where's yours?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> Hey, I got my gun on campus, where's yours?



You'll need it.

I made a conscious decision not to bring my gun. I don't have a sidearm (which would be more ideal for the situation). I am debating on bringing my shotgun back.

[Edited on 10--7-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Oct 7, 2005)

Guys, cut this skirmish out.


----------



## Augusta (Oct 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> [align=center]*THE SANCTIFIER*
> _if this can't make you holy, you can't be made holy!_
> 
> ...




If a left-wingnut stumbled onto this page they would have a conniption fit!!


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> People,
> Look at the picture closely. It can't by definition be vigilantism. Vigilantism (and there are much worse things in the world) goes OUT to look for bad guys on arbitrary and usually trumped up charges. These people are staying IN on the DEFENSIVE against internal terrorists.
> So for now on, I just ignore vigilante charges.



I will illustrate by way of poetry (ie, Charlie Daniels)

Ya know what's wrong with the world today?
People done gone from the Bible's way
They livin by the law of the jungle not the law of the land.
THe Good Book says it so I know its the truth,
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
You better watch where you're going,
Remember where you been.
That's the way I see it I'm a simple man.

Now I;m the kind of guy that wouldn't harm a mouse
But if I catch somebody breaking in my house 
I got a 12 guage shotgun waiting on the other side
Now don't go pushing me against my will
I don't want to fiht you but I darn sure will
If you don't want trouble then you better just pass me on by


{Repeat chorus}

Boy, Charlie Daniels didn't have a schizophrenic worldview with respect to law and public policy

The above is self-defense.

This is vigilantism:

"I Got Rights" By Hank Williams Jr
I went down to the Mary Cater Paint Store
I said, give me one of them Smith & Wesson Magnum .44s
Cause there's a man that the law let loose and justice was not done
This man he killed my wife and my only little son

I'll never forget the way he looked all through the trial
He had a big name lawyer and he had that smirky smile
Oh yeah, he got you off on a technicality
But you'd have to grow wings and fly to ever get away from me

Cause I got rights
I got rights too
And this time there won't be no d*** lawyers and systems to protect you
But I'm gonna read you - I'm gonna read you your rights
You got the right to know that you're gonna go to h*** one of these black nights

And when the trial was over he had the nerve to say that's the way it goes
I said, well hoss you better get you some corks cause your gonna have to plug up a few holes
I guess he thought I was talkin' just to pass away time
But he kinda looks different now on his knees beggin' for his life

Hey, I got rights
I got some rights too
And this time there won't be no d*** lawyers and systems to protect you
But I'm gonna read you - I'm gonna read you your rights
Cause I want you to know that your gonna go to h*** one of these black nights

Yeah, and this time there aint no d*** lawyers and systems to save you .

No, I don't support vigilantism but in cases like this (murder and rape) I don't lose much sleep over it. 

Its a chilling song, granted. I mean, who doesn't fear and rage when the courts let murderers go scot free?

[Edited on 10--7-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## turmeric (Oct 7, 2005)

For the record, I had NO idea this thread was about gun control. I don't believe in that.

Pastor Way, that post is hilarious. That first one will make you holey alright!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Slippery_
> ...


----------

