Why looting was slow in Texas

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.

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

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

How ironic, from a member with an avater from gladiator, and a bruce lee pic in his signature.
 
Originally posted by pastorway
I am so glad this is in the entertainment forum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:lol:

[Edited on 10-6-05 by pastorway]
Click to expand...

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


texanscopy29hu.jpg


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]
 
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.
Click to expand...

Since when do you (we) live in a godly and stable social order?
 
Originally posted by Romans922
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.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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.
 
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.
 
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!:judge:
 
[align=center]THE SANCTIFIER
if this can't make you holy, you can't be made holy!

IZHMASH_SAIGA_308_1.jpg


THE DISCIPLER
Guaranteed to bring him to his knees

0250411.gif


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."

p245-small.jpg
[/align]



:lol:

[Edited on 10-7-05 by pastorway]
 
Yep.

Shoot his hands off or shoot him in the knees.

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

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.
 
Originally posted by LawrenceU
Yep.

Shoot his hands off or shoot him in the knees.

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

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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Originally posted by Saiph


How ironic, from a member with an avater from gladiator, and a bruce lee pic in his signature.
Click to expand...
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]
 
Originally posted by Romans922
Jacob doesn't have the guts to shoot someone.
Click to expand...
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 :D More like Cicero, but a Christian Reformed version :D

[Edited on 10-7-2005 by Slippery]
 
Meg:

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

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]
 
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!:judge:
Click to expand...

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).
 
Originally posted by Slippery
Originally posted by Romans922
Jacob doesn't have the guts to shoot someone.
Click to expand...
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 :D More like Cicero, but a Christian Reformed version :D

[Edited on 10-7-2005 by Slippery]
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Originally posted by Slippery
Originally posted by Saiph


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

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Originally posted by Slippery
Originally posted by Saiph


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

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]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

ReformedWretch
  • Locked
he was wondering..why did it get so quiet in here
Replies
9
Views
2K
panta dokimazete
panta dokimazete
Rich Koster
  • Locked
Texas Law
Replies
2
Views
2K
Berean
Berean
Pilgrim
  • Locked
Texas Ditch Surfing
Replies
2
Views
1K
Richard King
Richard King
V
  • Locked
Black Gold! Texas Tea!
Replies
0
Views
1K
VirginiaHuguenot
V
Backwoods Presbyterian
  • Locked
Was R.J. Rushdoony in Star Wars?
Replies
11
Views
3K
Marrow Man
Marrow Man
Back
Top