Why looting was slow in Texas

Status
Not open for further replies.

crhoades

Puritan Board Graduate
texanscopy9wx.jpg
 
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!
 
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...:lol:
 
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.
 
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!
 
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!

:ditto:
 
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!

:ditto:

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.
 
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.
 
Originally posted by SolaScriptura
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!

:ditto:

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.

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?
 
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.

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.

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

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)

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!
 
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."
 
Originally posted by sastark
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."

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.
 
Originally posted by Draught Horse
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!

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
 
Originally posted by sastark
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."

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

Anyone care to take a crack at the general equity of that one?:book2:
 
Originally posted by crhoades
Originally posted by sastark
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."

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

:worms:

Anyone care to take a crack at the general equity of that one?:book2:

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

:p

brought to you by DaleTek

[Edited on 10-6-05 by pastorway]
 
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.
 
Yep.

Shoot his hands off or shoot him in the knees.

Therefore, you're not killing him, but you ARE disabling him for trespassing.
 
Originally posted by Saiph
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.

:lol: Please see my signature...;)
 
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!"

:D:bigsmile::D:bigsmile::D:bigsmile::D
 
Originally posted by pastorway
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!"

:D:bigsmile::D:bigsmile::D:bigsmile::D

Yer killin' me:lol:
 
Originally posted by Saiph
Should have read it. I skip over signatures often.

:up:

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.
 
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?"

:banana:

hill.jpg


[Edited on 10-6-05 by pastorway]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top