She was the leader of the Minutemen American Defense Group, and as such felt well within her rights to murder illegals in cold blood. The country's better off, right?
Do you notice the similarity between the Minuteman attitude towards illegal aliens and the gun-owner attitude towards criminals as demonstrated by Jay G.? In both cases the targets of their animosity are sub-humans who are completely disposable.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
This is the one who lead armed militia members in killing a little girl and her father during a home invasion, and trying to kill the mother, too, right, because they were Mexican, then robbed them?
ReplyDeleteYep. Vigilante justice and armed paramilitary militias. Not a good idea.
@Baldr,
ReplyDeleteVigilante justice is wrong, no matter what is involved.
Armed paramilitary militias, as much as you may not like them, are in themselves not a threat any more than any other lawful gun owner.
...Orygunner...
Orygunner, I would disagree with you about paramilitary militias. There is no legitimate reason for their existence, and I am not aware of any which espouse non-violence; their very premise for existing is antithetical to non-violence.
ReplyDeleteWhen our founding fathers enacted the 2nd Amendment, the concept of political change through non-violence, the kind we saw in the past couple of weeks in Egypt and Tunisia, did not exist. If it had existed, and if it had proven effective as the civil rights movement was in the U.S., and as political movements have been in other countries post-Gandhi, I doubt we would have it, or that we continue to need it to fulfill the original purpose.
We have a perfectly effective standing army, which we did not at the time of the founding fathers. The premise of a potentially necessary violent overthrow of an existing government has been superceded by non-violent politcal revolution. The technological changes in warfare and equipment make the potential for an armed insurrection with hand guns and hunting rifles, or even the occaisonal assault weapon moot. It could no longer succeed, only result in a bloody mess, including the death or injury of a lot of innocent civilians who may or may NOT support such an incidence of sedition or insurrection. It is obsolete.
Baldr, what you left out was that this militia believed they were going to steal drug money from this family, and use it to support their militant activities.
I'm sure the people who shot an unarmed 9 year old girl at point blank range in the face will make a point of calling themselves patriots.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't mean they have a clue as to the real meaning of the word, but like references to nazis and Hitler, socialists, fascists, and other buzz words they don't really understand, they will abuse it and apply it incorrectly and inacurately.
"and the gun-owner attitude towards criminals as demonstrated by Jay G.?"
ReplyDeleteI think that's an inaccurate characterization. A human who threatens you with imminent, grave harm is still a human. Exercising your natural right to self defense doesn't change that.
@Dog Gone, where is our country and our liberty going to when we HAVE to come up with a "legitimate reason" for things to exist?
ReplyDeleteThere's no legitimate reason to have cars and motorcycles that exceed 75mph, and travelling at those speeds has been known to be responsible for tragic and fatal accidents, shall we do away with those because of their lack of "legitimate reasons" to exist in the hands of the public?
Sure some peaceful revolutions and changes have happened. Right offhand I can think of exactly three. India, The Civil Rights movement in the US, and now Egypt (still in progress). How many more have there been?
Even more important, how many have been tried and FAILED?
How many failed BECAUSE the government saw fit to disarm the people's means of resistance with gun control first?
Peaceful change is almost everyone's desire, but if you take away a people's last line of defense against tyranny, the right to keep and bear arms adequate for the purpose, you are dooming them to slavery should tyranny become reality.
...Orygunner...
"There's no legitimate reason to have cars and motorcycles that exceed 75mph, ...shall we do away with those ...? "
ReplyDeleteNo, because they don't look scary.
From the CBS article of this morning:
ReplyDeleteChris Simcox, founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, previously told The Associated Press that his group kicked Forde out in 2007 amid allegations of lying and pretending to be a senior leader, and that Forde began her own group, bragging that it would be going after drug cartels. That claim made him worry about the safety of other Minutemen, he said.
"We knew that Shawna Forde was not just an unsavory character but pretty unbalanced, as well," Simcox said.
This woman is a psychotic, deranged killer. I don't think it's fair to compare her to Jay G. even if he is a wacky, right-wing noodlehead. He seems happy enough. And he probably never killed anybody. Nor do the Minutemen run around picking off border crossers like they were East German guards, as much as I do hate those bastards.
This is like saying all vegans want to blow up power lines and shoot hunters.
ReplyDeleteShe no more represents any ideals I stand for than you do.
She was a known whackjob. The people who kicked her out warned authorities about her.
Orygunner wrote
ReplyDelete"There's no legitimate reason to have cars and motorcycles that exceed 75mph, and travelling at those speeds has been known to be responsible for tragic and fatal accidents, shall we do away with those because of their lack of "legitimate reasons" to exist in the hands of the public?"
Do away with them? No. Strictly limit them, yes. But this is a poor analogy; driving is a privilege, not a right.
I'm suggesting there is no longer a need for a 2nd Amendment right.
In just the past couple of weeks, you seem to have forgotten tunisia; but there are others.
@Dog Gone: You can suggest there's no need to exercise the right to keep and bear arms, and I can find, literally millions of examples to disprove you.
ReplyDeleteJust because some people abuse a right is no reason to make the responsible and acceptable exercise of the right illegal.
Just because people don't think we will never be invaded by a foreign nation (or will enslaved by a government turned tyrannical) doesn't mean it won't ever happen.
Just because some believe that the defense of our country and our freedom rests absolutely and solely in the hands of the military doesn't make it true.
As far as vehicles, driving them on PUBLIC ROADS is a privilege. You can drive 120 MPH drunk with no seat belt on if it's private property not open to the public and there's no law to stop you. The point being, We don't HAVE to justify a reason for ownership of anything we choose to possess if this is a free country, YOU have to come up with a good reason why we can't that justifies infringement on the right.
So far, nobody has, as far as I'm concerned.
...Orygunner...
MAgunowner, Thanks for clarifying that business of once a human always a human. But why do you sell a different idea on your own blog? What you do over there, by referring to criminals as "goblins" is quite at odds with the lofty sentiment that they're still human. And you back up that "goblin" bullshit with plenty of other tough-guy remarks always inferring how superior and more righteous you are.
ReplyDelete