|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Should Someone Use Deadly Force to Protect Property?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 3 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The use of guns against property violations is highly moral, since a person’s life and his property are intertwined.
Now, what we mean by property is of utmost importance. An anarcho-capitalist with a Rothbardian approach would say that property is the natural right of a person, by virtue of being a person. In other words, property rights are not a function of private property alone, but an extension of the life of the person. That is why Murray Rothbard stipulates that property rights are human rights, as an absolute principle. |
| Comment by:
xqqme
(1/29/2015)
|
The acquisition of property by legal methods necessarily requires the exchange of a portion of a person's lifetime for that property. After all, how many hours must one work at even $40 per hour to acquire a late model vehicle costing forty or fifty thousand dollars, especially after the taxman cometh and taketh away a large percentage?
It is that time... that portion of a man's life that he protects when he protects his property. Time spent to acquire property can not be returned. It's as if the thief has murdered... has actually stolen that portion of his victim's life.
Of course, force should be legal to use in protecting one's property, and many of the State Constitutions include that provision the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. |
| Comment by:
teebonicus
(1/29/2015)
|
| Short answer: Yes. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
