Agree 100%.

I'm not confused at all. They are all "just things". I said I wouldn't do any lasting damage. So just sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride!

I know what the difference in the scenarios are. However, that still doesn't change the fact that they are just things. If things are not worth killing or resisting over ( since they can be replaced ) then your physical presence at the scene should not make a difference in how you react.

" But you said you would slap me around" Yeah, but I also said I'd do no lasting damage. Your pride is only a concept, it really doesn't exist. Your bruises are easily treated with ice and motrin. Nothing to resist over, or kill about, right? Besides, insurance will cover 30% of your medical bills, then find a reason to drop you.

" You said you'd roll my girl " Yep, once again, she is just another possession. Her welfare is her concern, in your view. Besides, I'd just do to her what women were created for, nothing more. And once again, no lasting damage would be done. Once again, nothing to resist over. And don't forget, insurance will cover 30% of her bills, then find a reason to drop her.

As far as the rest of your possessions? Don't worry about all the time you spent working to acquire them. Insurance will cover ten percent of the cost to replace them. Then, you can work more hours to pay your insurance since they will raise your rates. Again, nothing to resist over.

If they were in the neighbor's house?

Then would it have been justified? (With his neighbors also possibly being in the house or like a scenario SM put forward).

If there is a possibility someone is in the house, yes.

However, Horn knew the house was empty, and it was his pre-stated intent to go out and kill the men.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

I read this story when it appeared on some news feed I follow.. I think the AP feed. I remember thinking... what does the fact that they were "illegal immigrants" have to do with the story? Hm... then I realized. It was a really great commingling of two great republican hot buttons. 1) the freedom to own guns and shoot people 2) hatred of illegal immigrants.

So... we must assume that the space in the article that was used to point out that they were "illegal immigrants" is important, since, news space is at a premium, and an editor would eliminate words that were not relevant before running the story. So... the message the story appears to want to send is that it is OK to shoot people you feel are breaking the laws... (NOTE) as long as they are illegal aliens. This seems to be a very important part of the story.

I bet the story would have turned out different if you replace "illegal immigrants" with "a young blond woman that was trying to escape from someone that was perusing her".

Cheers! Ricco

If you're wanting to argue against yourself, why bother directing your comments at me?

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Sorry Matt, you're wrong on this. He was prepared to kill them but it was not a "premeditated killing" no matter what the supporters of those pieces of shit wants to call it.

Stop paying attention to the bleeding heart side of the debate and accept a fact - two walking, talking pieces of shit were removed from the gene pool that day, and the State of Texas is grateful to Mr. Horn for his actions.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

When you said that property should not be defended. The logical extension of this is that people can simply take whatever they wish from another.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Clearly that's not my position. You sound like another poster here, taking things to the level of absurdity.

If you'd care to return to rationality, I'll be waiting.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

I disagree - I've listened to the tape, and Horn clearly tells the 911 operator he is going to kill them.

I don't support the burglars at all. But I also don't support shooting unarmed men in the back as they run away.

One does not have to support one side or the other here.

I'm not paying attention to any specific side in the debate. I've formulated my opinion based on Mr. Horn's words and actions.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Of course it would have turned out different! Lets see, in reality, it was two illegal immigrants who were robbing a man's house. These were people who had repeatedly demonstrated a refusal to follow the rules of society, and as they had previously been deported and came BACK, had also demonstrated they had no intentions of respecting the laws of our nation.

A "young blonde woman attempting to escape from someone pursuing her" is a completely different situation. That would be an innocent individual attempting to escape someone obviously intending to do her harm. In this case, I have no doubt that Horn would have shot the pursuer, not the pursued.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Clearly that IS your position. You have REPEATEDLY stated that property is not worth a criminal's life.

If you do not support defending private property, then you should have no logical problem with any of us merely walking into your home and taking whatever we wish.

I have asked you repeatedly to explain why you believe we should NOT defend property. You have refused to answer this question. Why is that?

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

If a neighbor I didn't know came onto my property to shoot someone, even if that someone were burglarizing my home, I would be extremely pissed. My place is already being violated, having to clean up blood and gore and having my house be roped off as the site of a potential homicide would most certainly not make my life any better. And, if I were in the home and had a gun, I'd probably shoot the vigilante first, since he was armed and thus more of a threat.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Funny, I've defended myself plenty of times without taking life.

Maybe that's what you're not understanding?

And, there is a huge difference between defending one's own home from an intruder and deliberately walking outside with the stated goal of killing someone else.

Why is it that you are not able to accept that?

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Doc, what if the burglar was armed and attacked you?

If it was a neighbor you knew you'd rather still he didn't help?