Duane, by his use of the word "pistol", I would guess that he doesn't have a
gun section if he has a Wally-World at all.

Tina


"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
FDR wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
FDR wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
FDR wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
FDR wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
FDR wrote:


...

Which is more important? A saving a tv, or saving somebody
trapped
in
a
flood?

Keeping order so the latter can be done w/o additional loss
of
life
and
preventing the other widespread violence is equivalently
important
as
the former gets in the way of the latter and endangers the
would-be
resucers safety as well as that of the others.

The TV itself if of no consequence, order is.

I don't recall hearing of looters causing violence. I think
their
priority
was getting the loot home.

Included in the loot were large numbers of handguns and other
weapons...

Aren't those things supposed to be locked up?

Weren't the TVs locked up in the store, too?

Well, I can see how a tv and a pistol can be considered equal. I
mean,
those looters stole tvs so they could throw them at the police from a
block
away. I bet that tv flew a whole three feet before hitting the
ground
and
the police laughed.

So tell me again about tvs and pistols.....

I don't give a hoot about any of the property, per se...the issue is
keeping civil order. You brought up violence. I mentioned the
weapons--seem to go together to me. You asked about locks. I
mentioned
the stores were locked, too. You repeated yourelf yet again.

And you're insinuation was that a lock is a lock. I would hope/think
that a
pistol shop has better ways to lock up pistols, much better ways, than a
WalMart locks it's tvs.

Have you not walked through the sporting goods area of your local
Wally-World?

Nor would I suspect that the folks under discussion were much concerned
about a little extra effort...

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 19:20:46 GMT, FDR
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Excellent. Progress. So. If the "thug shooter" threatening the
survivors by making the situation worse should have been shot, how then
do you justify in your mind that the looter, threatening what little
order remains, is any different? It's a criminal act which is
endangering the honest people who are victims.

Because a looter, if unarmed, is not a danger like a thug with a gun.

And what makes you think that the looter isn't likely to be armed?

Why is he likely to be armed? Does he need to be armed to steal a tv from a
Walmart?


We
don't kill robbers, so why is it suddenly ok to do so in that situation?

Because their activities are interfering with rescue efforts. Do try to
keep up.

So are those stealing food. Go arrest them too and tell them to wait for
the MRE's.

"FDR" wrote in message

Robbery wastes resources. The thief gains less than the victim loses,
yielding a net loss of assets in the population and increasing the number
of people who need rescue.

Whatever happened to this thing called insurance?

Insurance is an excellent example of how robbery reduces total assets in
the economy. The total amount paid in is less than the total amount paid
out. This should be immediately obvious to anyone who can add up how
much he has paid for all types of insurance and how much the insurance
companies have paid out over the years.

C'mon, Dave. People in the NRA are probably LESS likely to be vigilantes.
Same as most people in Alcoholics Anonymous don't ever drink. OUTLAWS are
vigilantes.

NRA is mostly law abiding gun owners like myself. Would I kill to protect
me or mine? Yes. I also do a little martial arts. I'm a dyed in the wool
Pacifist from the 60s. Grew up near UC Berkeley. Way too liberal for most
groups like this (do well in women's groups and arty groups). I believe in
force if it lessen violence. And other people as left leaning as I also are
NRA card-carrying members.

Stop being insulting, or the good message you have will be lost!

Tina


"Dave Jefford" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 01:52:45 GMT, "FDR"

wrote:

What if the guy is walking near his home? The vigilante thinks the guy
is
bringing the loot home to the guys house. Or thinks he looted his
neighbors
house. Shoots him. Does that make Mr. Vigilante Guy happy?

These trigger happy card carrying NRA vigilante are out to shoot anything
that
move. I guess they can't shoot straight and find reasons for target
practices.

OK, my testosterone laden friends. What the FDR is saying is that if it's
OK to shoot the (life threatening) guy preventing repairs being done, it
follows that it's OK to shoot the (life threatening) guy who kills him.
And without a doubt the logic holds as far as it goes. And I'm sure you
could all be convinced to duke it out in defense of your positions.

This is as silly as arguing whether "turquoise" is blue or green.

Tina


"FDR" wrote in message
news

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 14:50:44 GMT, FDR
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

My, but you're a tiresome fellow to deal with. A criminal who is
causing civil disorder _during_ a natural disaster adds to the
problems.
Killing said criminal, _improves_ the situation. Yes, the flood is
bad.
A flood with anarchy is worse. This isn't really a complicated
concept.

Hey, why don't you kill them all?

If they're making the situation worse, I'm for that. The guy who shot
at the rescue helecopters? I hope to hell that the people he caused not
to be rescued killed him. He delayed rescue and relief operations by
more than a day by his actions; caused untold deaths and human
suffering, because he thought he should shoot at a rescue helecopter.

I couldn't agree more. Shooting at the rescue unit was sickening to hear,
and I jsut don't get it. So I would have no problem with the thug
shooters
being killed..


Specific question time again: In the example of the person who shot at
the rescue helecopter, do you support that person being killed for that
action? If not, please justify how this human life is worth more than
the human lives that his actions directly ended. Show your work.

Hang on. This is where you're supposed to say, ".. and I will defend to the
death your right to disagree".

Tina


"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 11:25:37 -0700, G Henslee wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

Yeah, I know. If your point is that you don't want to see my responses
to him, there's an easy fix for you.

My point was what it was. Take it anyway you like. No filtering here.
Killfiles are for pussys.

Fair enough, it's just that you made that same point to me an hour or
two earlier as well. And killfiles are a great way of improving
signal:noise ratio - it's not an act of "wow, I can't compete with
that", it's a statement of "Wow, that's not even worth my time to read".
Try 'em, you'll like 'em.

"Offbreed" wrote in message
news
FDR wrote:
"Offbreed" wrote in message
...

This reminds me of a baseball game I played in, IIRC 4th grade. I struck
out with bases loaded, ending the game. One of the other players blamed
me for losing the game, but shut up pretty quick when I pointed out that
I was the third out and he was the second. Bases were loaded for him,
too. What I did would not have mattered had he cleaned the bases instead
of striking out as well.


Yeah, but he didn't and neither did you.

Did you get the point of the story at all?

His failure made what I did relevant.

The failures by Nagin, Blanco, and their predecessors made what Bush,
Brown, etc relevant.

Isn't that a good thing? Now we know what to expect, or not expect, when
the next terrorist attack happens.

"Offbreed" wrote in message
news
FDR wrote:

I knok that a token force of 1200 soldiers was sent in Monday or Tuesday.
The real force didn't arrive until 5+ days after the fact. But you knew
that.

Why didn't Blanco send them in earlier? The National Guard is under State
control for this sort of task.

And FEMA is also capable of asserting control if it wants to ever since
9/11.

"Christina Peterson" wrote in message
...
Duane, by his use of the word "pistol", I would guess that he doesn't have
a
gun section if he has a Wally-World at all.

Gun is the slang and improper term.


Tina


"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
FDR wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
FDR wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
FDR wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
FDR wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
FDR wrote:


...

Which is more important? A saving a tv, or saving somebody
trapped
in
a
flood?

Keeping order so the latter can be done w/o additional loss
of
life
and
preventing the other widespread violence is equivalently
important
as
the former gets in the way of the latter and endangers the
would-be
resucers safety as well as that of the others.

The TV itself if of no consequence, order is.

I don't recall hearing of looters causing violence. I think
their
priority
was getting the loot home.

Included in the loot were large numbers of handguns and other
weapons...

Aren't those things supposed to be locked up?

Weren't the TVs locked up in the store, too?

Well, I can see how a tv and a pistol can be considered equal. I
mean,
those looters stole tvs so they could throw them at the police from
a
block
away. I bet that tv flew a whole three feet before hitting the
ground
and
the police laughed.

So tell me again about tvs and pistols.....

I don't give a hoot about any of the property, per se...the issue is
keeping civil order. You brought up violence. I mentioned the
weapons--seem to go together to me. You asked about locks. I
mentioned
the stores were locked, too. You repeated yourelf yet again.

And you're insinuation was that a lock is a lock. I would hope/think
that a
pistol shop has better ways to lock up pistols, much better ways, than
a
WalMart locks it's tvs.

Have you not walked through the sporting goods area of your local
Wally-World?

Nor would I suspect that the folks under discussion were much concerned
about a little extra effort...

"G Henslee" wrote in message
...
Farting Directly Right at us wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message


No, I have direct personal experience being a firefighter and EMT for a
dozen years. I can't imagine how you possibly could have read what I
wrote and deduced that I'm responding in NOLA for this event.


Then how could you possibly know how to rescue people given the
circumstances and lack of manpower?



Are you like in the 6th grade or something?

No, I'm not in your classroom.

"G Henslee" wrotet...
FDR's a trained idiot who wouldn't pick up a rubber band gun to save his
or anyone elses ass.

Don't count on it. I disagree with shooting looters. I disagree that the
job of cops is force and intimidation (or that it's the job of the US). I
think his statements are immoderate, just like yours. I am a very
accommodating person. I would not shoot anyone with a rubber band gun. If
I shoot an animal or human it would not be with a toy or with intention to
cause an owwee.

Tina

Was martial law ever declared? Were there enough officers to enforce it?


Martial law does not needs to be enforced.
Martial isn't created by
the declaration, it is recognized.

What the declaration does is free the people
who would normally be constrained by normal rules of
engagement to use ROE appropriate to a situation
where civilization has (temporarily) collapsed.

"Goedjn" wrote in message
...

Was martial law ever declared? Were there enough officers to enforce it?


Martial law does not needs to be enforced.
Martial isn't created by
the declaration, it is recognized.

What the declaration does is free the people
who would normally be constrained by normal rules of
engagement to use ROE appropriate to a situation
where civilization has (temporarily) collapsed.


So you don't know the answer.

Christina Peterson wrote:
Hang on. This is where you're supposed to say, ".. and I will defend to the
death your right to disagree".

Tina



But, we won't defend to the death your right to top-post. You have
none. Get your **** together.

Christina Peterson wrote:
"G Henslee" wrotet...

FDR's a trained idiot who wouldn't pick up a rubber band gun to save his
or anyone elses ass.


Don't count on it. I disagree with shooting looters. I disagree that the
job of cops is force and intimidation (or that it's the job of the US). I
think his statements are immoderate, just like yours. I am a very
accommodating person. I would not shoot anyone with a rubber band gun. If
I shoot an animal or human it would not be with a toy or with intention to
cause an owwee.

Tina




I think I love you...

FDR wrote:
"G Henslee" wrote in message

Are you like in the 6th grade or something?


No, I'm not in your classroom.



No. I would've sent you to the principal's office days ago you loud
mouth fool.

Christina Peterson wrote:
C'mon, Dave. People in the NRA are probably LESS likely to be vigilantes.
Same as most people in Alcoholics Anonymous don't ever drink. OUTLAWS are
vigilantes.

NRA is mostly law abiding gun owners like myself. Would I kill to protect
me or mine? Yes. I also do a little martial arts. I'm a dyed in the wool
Pacifist from the 60s. Grew up near UC Berkeley. Way too liberal for most
groups like this (do well in women's groups and arty groups). I believe in
force if it lessen violence. And other people as left leaning as I also are
NRA card-carrying members.

Stop being insulting, or the good message you have will be lost!

Tina



Now I know for a fact I love you. Hey baby. I'm across the bay from ya
in San B. Wanna hookup for drinks and elicit sex? huh?

Christina Peterson wrote:
OK, my testosterone laden friends.

I'm your firend Tina panting profusely

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 19:53:31 GMT, FDR wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

No, I have direct personal experience being a firefighter and EMT for a
dozen years. I can't imagine how you possibly could have read what I
wrote and deduced that I'm responding in NOLA for this event.

Then how could you possibly know how to rescue people given the
circumstances and lack of manpower?

You're not actually for real, are you.

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 20:07:52 GMT, FDR wrote:
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

Now the idiot is posting in MIME?

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message =
...

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 19:17:14 GMT, FDR =
wrote:

There's no scorecard that says who's good and who's bad. =20

Bull****. Absolute, complete, unmitigated bull****. A person decides
if they want to be a criminal or not. Good people don't decide to be
criminals.

So a criminal is a criminal before he commits a crime. Is that what you =
are trying to say?

Pardon, but you're barely qualified, apparently, to speak for
_yourself_. You're clearly not qualified to speak for me.

And you will never ever ever do anything bad, =
because you're a good guy. You'll neve resort to let's say murdering =
your wife if you caught her in bed with your best friend. You can be =
absolutely sure huh?

That has nothing to do with what I said.

Cops can be bad guys too. There were some looting if you recall.
At this point, I'm sure that I can't trust any of your claims. But,
oh, go ahead, please provide a cite.

Well, I can't wade through 10 days and thousands of Katrina stories. =

In other words, you're talking out your ass and when challenged, you
backpedal.

And, his actions are diverting efforts from rescue to law enforcement.
Therefore he is a hazard to life and needs to be responded to
appropriately.

Only if you allow your efforts to be diverted.

So you blame the cop rather than the criminal. I guess my question of
"whose side are you on" has been adequately answered.

Hey, there were j walkers too. J walking leads to more lawlessness =
and you=20
gotta nip it in the bud, right? Were they ticketing j walkers?

Nice red herring there. Are you contending now that j-walking laws =
were
being inforced, which detracted from the rescue efforts? Please =
provide
a cite for such a claim.

No they weren't being enforced. Adn that's exactly it. If we follow =
the logic of nipping it in the bud, then geez, jwalking is a crime, and =
stealing food is a crime too. If stealing food is a crime, then those =
who did it might get the idea they can taken anything else they wanted. =
So go and arrest those stealers too. Nip it in the bud.

There you go again.

This is the first time you've stipulated that these were abandoned
stores. Gosh, imagine that, your point shifts _yet again_.

Uhm no. Go back and read what I said.

Uhm no. It's not worth reading once, yet alone again.

Somehow I don't think you're actually the sort who would defend =
yourself
effectively from an intruder. You strike me as the sort who, instead,
would "give the nice man what he wants and maybe he won't hurt us".
A victim, in other words.

You wouldn't have the balls to find out.

I'm not a criminal, I would have no need to find out.

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 20:09:14 GMT, FDR wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 19:20:46 GMT, FDR
wrote:

Because a looter, if unarmed, is not a danger like a thug with a gun.

And what makes you think that the looter isn't likely to be armed?

Why is he likely to be armed? Does he need to be armed to steal a tv from a
Walmart?

You really _are_ naiive, aren't you. Criminals aren't stupid, they're
immoral. They KNOW people don't like them and will want to shoot them.
If you think they haven't planned that one through, you're an idiot.

Because their activities are interfering with rescue efforts. Do try to
keep up.

So are those stealing food. Go arrest them too and tell them to wait for
the MRE's.

There you go again. The distinction is clear between looting and taking
survival supplies. Unless you claim you need a TV to survive.

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 20:43:12 GMT, FDR wrote:

"Christina Peterson" wrote in message
...
Duane, by his use of the word "pistol", I would guess that he doesn't have
a
gun section if he has a Wally-World at all.

Gun is the slang and improper term.

I see you also don't understand the first thing about firearms.

Offbreed wrote:
Dave Jefford wrote:

Maybe we should recruite card carrying NRA nationwide and hunt these
criminals
down and hang them like the wild, wild West?


Nope. The NRA members are usually a bunch of pussy target shooters.

Swing by the Sheehan protest and see if you can get David Duke to give
you a hand. Or, maybe Senator Byrd can get some of his KKK buddies to
join up.

Ted Nugent may be up for a hunt.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 20:43:12 GMT, FDR
wrote:

"Christina Peterson" wrote in message
...
Duane, by his use of the word "pistol", I would guess that he doesn't
have
a
gun section if he has a Wally-World at all.

Gun is the slang and improper term.

I see you also don't understand the first thing about firearms.


Go tell that to the Army.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 00:18:41 GMT, FDR wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 20:43:12 GMT, FDR
wrote:

Gun is the slang and improper term.

I see you also don't understand the first thing about firearms.

Go tell that to the Army.

So, because the army has a slang definition of the word "gun", you
deduce that that's the defining factor? I see you also don't understand
the first thing about firearms, language, or the army.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 00:18:41 GMT, FDR
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 20:43:12 GMT, FDR
wrote:

Gun is the slang and improper term.

I see you also don't understand the first thing about firearms.

Go tell that to the Army.

So, because the army has a slang definition of the word "gun", you
deduce that that's the defining factor? I see you also don't understand
the first thing about firearms, language, or the army.

in the Army, a "gun" is an artillery piece.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 20:09:14 GMT, FDR
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 19:20:46 GMT, FDR
wrote:

Because a looter, if unarmed, is not a danger like a thug with a gun.

And what makes you think that the looter isn't likely to be armed?

Why is he likely to be armed? Does he need to be armed to steal a tv
from a
Walmart?

You really _are_ naiive, aren't you. Criminals aren't stupid, they're
immoral. They KNOW people don't like them and will want to shoot them.
If you think they haven't planned that one through, you're an idiot.

Because their activities are interfering with rescue efforts. Do try to
keep up.

So are those stealing food. Go arrest them too and tell them to wait for
the MRE's.

There you go again. The distinction is clear between looting and taking
survival supplies. Unless you claim you need a TV to survive.

It's still stealing. You know, stealing means you are taking what isn't
yours. It isn't that hard to make the next step and start taking things you
don't need for survival.

People do go to jail for stealing remember? That's against the law. You
don't want criminal behavior happening during a disaster. It just takes
away from the effort to save people. I don't care if they starve to death,
just as long as the government doesn't have to have their resources diverted
from saving people.

Survival supplies should have been bought legally before the storm hit.
Doing so afterwards is stealing if money isn't being exchanged or if the
stuff isn't said to be free. You don't think that stuff didn't cost the
shopowner money? I don't care about the insurance, there must be law and
order damnit!

See, I learned exactly what you all said. Now I know how to tell the good
guys from the bad guys. Cause bad guys break the law by stealing. And good
guys don't. So if I'm ever in a disaster situation I'll make sure I kill
all those who steal, even if it's somebody taking a bottole of water. Well,
I won't if he has a receipt.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 00:18:41 GMT, FDR
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 20:43:12 GMT, FDR
wrote:

Gun is the slang and improper term.

I see you also don't understand the first thing about firearms.

Go tell that to the Army.

So, because the army has a slang definition of the word "gun", you
deduce that that's the defining factor? I see you also don't understand
the first thing about firearms, language, or the army.

The Army refers to it's weapons as pistol or rifle. Gun is considered slang
and not much appreciated.

"123go" wrote in message
...

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 00:18:41 GMT, FDR
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 20:43:12 GMT, FDR
wrote:

Gun is the slang and improper term.

I see you also don't understand the first thing about firearms.

Go tell that to the Army.

So, because the army has a slang definition of the word "gun", you
deduce that that's the defining factor? I see you also don't understand
the first thing about firearms, language, or the army.

in the Army, a "gun" is an artillery piece.

No no no! David knows everything about everything. Take back what you said
before you feel his wrath.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 00:45:29 GMT, FDR wrote:

"123go" wrote in message
...

in the Army, a "gun" is an artillery piece.

No no no! David knows everything about everything. Take back what you said
before you feel his wrath.

Even this you can't get right.

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 00:43:59 GMT, FDR wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

So, because the army has a slang definition of the word "gun", you
deduce that that's the defining factor? I see you also don't understand
the first thing about firearms, language, or the army.

The Army refers to it's weapons as pistol or rifle. Gun is considered slang
and not much appreciated.

The army has more weapons than just pistols and rifles. Did you have a
point with this little aside, or are you just wasting (more) bits?

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 00:31:04 GMT, FDR wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

You really _are_ naiive, aren't you. Criminals aren't stupid, they're
immoral. They KNOW people don't like them and will want to shoot them.

Absence of responce noted, and notable.

There you go again. The distinction is clear between looting and taking
survival supplies. Unless you claim you need a TV to survive.

It's still stealing. You know, stealing means you are taking what isn't
yours. It isn't that hard to make the next step and start taking things you
don't need for survival.

See, I learned exactly what you all said. Now I know how to tell the good
guys from the bad guys. Cause bad guys break the law by stealing. And good
guys don't. So if I'm ever in a disaster situation I'll make sure I kill
all those who steal, even if it's somebody taking a bottole of water. Well,
I won't if he has a receipt.

Yeah, OK, so now seems like as good a time as any.
plonk

Go ahead and crow about how you accomplished something, when in reality
all you did is prove that you're not even worth a few seconds of effort
to ignore manually. Enjoy your fantasy-world; when you're in a crisis
situation, you'll be another of the thousands of bloated corpses, while
those of us with a realistic approach will survive. Buh-bye.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 00:43:59 GMT, FDR
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

So, because the army has a slang definition of the word "gun", you
deduce that that's the defining factor? I see you also don't understand
the first thing about firearms, language, or the army.

The Army refers to it's weapons as pistol or rifle. Gun is considered
slang
and not much appreciated.

The army has more weapons than just pistols and rifles. Did you have a
point with this little aside, or are you just wasting (more) bits?

Yes they do, but guns are not a pistol.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 00:31:04 GMT, FDR
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

You really _are_ naiive, aren't you. Criminals aren't stupid, they're
immoral. They KNOW people don't like them and will want to shoot them.

Absence of responce noted, and notable.

There you go again. The distinction is clear between looting and taking
survival supplies. Unless you claim you need a TV to survive.

It's still stealing. You know, stealing means you are taking what isn't
yours. It isn't that hard to make the next step and start taking things
you
don't need for survival.

See, I learned exactly what you all said. Now I know how to tell the
good
guys from the bad guys. Cause bad guys break the law by stealing. And
good
guys don't. So if I'm ever in a disaster situation I'll make sure I kill
all those who steal, even if it's somebody taking a bottole of water.
Well,
I won't if he has a receipt.

Yeah, OK, so now seems like as good a time as any.
plonk

Go ahead and crow about how you accomplished something, when in reality
all you did is prove that you're not even worth a few seconds of effort
to ignore manually. Enjoy your fantasy-world; when you're in a crisis
situation, you'll be another of the thousands of bloated corpses, while
those of us with a realistic approach will survive. Buh-bye.

Wait, does this mean I shouldn't shoot looters? You keep flip-flopping.

On 7-Sep-2005, "Larry Caldwell" wrote:

You don't shoot looters because they are
stealing stuff, you shoot looters because they are interfering with
rescue efforts and the restoration of civil order. Society has a right
to defend itself, collectively just as much as individually.

If you shoot people without any semblance of justice, you don't have
a society.

Mike

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 05:06:52 GMT, Michael Daly wrote:

On 7-Sep-2005, "Larry Caldwell" wrote:

You don't shoot looters because they are
stealing stuff, you shoot looters because they are interfering with
rescue efforts and the restoration of civil order. Society has a right
to defend itself, collectively just as much as individually.

If you shoot people without any semblance of justice, you don't have
a society.

Mike, shooting a looter _is_ justice.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 05:06:52 GMT, Michael Daly wrote:

On 7-Sep-2005, "Larry Caldwell" wrote:

You don't shoot looters because they are
stealing stuff, you shoot looters because they are interfering with
rescue efforts and the restoration of civil order. Society has a right
to defend itself, collectively just as much as individually.

If you shoot people without any semblance of justice, you don't have
a society.

Mike, shooting a looter _is_ justice.

Oh heck, let's just get rid of the courts and play wild west.

Dave Jefford wrote:



...and what's wrong being a liberal?


Look in the mirror.

Dave Jefford wrote:

I just don't understand how anyone
could enjoy killing that rare and beautify animal?

They ran out of looters.

"Red Cloud©" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:32:35 GMT, "FDR"
wrote:


"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 05:06:52 GMT, Michael Daly
wrote:

On 7-Sep-2005, "Larry Caldwell" wrote:

You don't shoot looters because they are
stealing stuff, you shoot looters because they are interfering with
rescue efforts and the restoration of civil order. Society has a
right
to defend itself, collectively just as much as individually.

If you shoot people without any semblance of justice, you don't have
a society.

Mike, shooting a looter _is_ justice.

Oh heck, let's just get rid of the courts and play wild west.


There was a Doctor on Larry King last night who, with the help of a
New Orleans police officer, broke into and looted a pharmacy. They
both filled garbage bags with medical supplies, and then went to the
SuperDome to help as many people as they could with the looted
supplies.

That's anarchy I tell ya!!


rusty redcloud