can't say that, pacman. otherwise, we wouldn't have the death penalty. killing is killing, sometime's it's justified.
I believe you see the difference between the legal system making a judgment and individuals making them on their own.
i do, but i also believe that assassination, murder, and execution all amount to the same ends and are therefore equal. some are justified, some aren't, but they are all killings and ruling out one entirely rules out the other, in my opinion. one man's murderous guerrilla usurper is another's revolutionary christ-figure. one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. no values or morals are universal, so universal actions can't not be ruled on universally. universal is a fun word to type.
I agree very much with auslanders last post, mainly cause its kinda true, as far as the other kids post, statement about Bushies assasination, be a little carefull cause statements like that can be touchy with some people even though I agree with him or her. What I think would have been a better statement is, if somebody had the balls, give him a trial, find him guilty which should be easy, give him the death penalty, bring the Guillotine back, than off with his head.
Anyone inclined to be a thug will have already made the choice to be one and acquired a hot gun long before being given one
the guillotine is more effective and humane than the chair, and less expensive than lethal injection or the gas chamber. i'm all for it. and amen, brother neph.
we could have an elected Angel of Death...someone as another member of the Presidential Cabinet, maybe. give him names, addresses, and free reign to do whatever he deems necessary to those on the list.
Richard Kuklinski would be perfect for the rapists and molesters if he was still alive. If you've read the book you know exactly what he did to a guy who raped 14 year old girl.
"The Iceman". It's a fascinating read if you've a strong stomach for some parts. http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9780312349288&itm=2 After reading it and seeing interviews with him I've no doubt he took care of Hoffa.
Nephilim, I think I remember this guy, if I'm not mistaken he was a huge man, bald headed, I think I saw him on 60 min or dateline one of those anyway, definatly gonna get this book, thanks.
I forgot to mention, I did hear talk about a possible movie on this guy if its the same person were talking about.
Guys, we definetely do not need to be talking about the assasination of a world leader (even in passing), and those kind of remarks will not be tolerated. I know many of you may feel a certain way, but it does not need to be written on this site. That one quote up there was edited by me as it was reported a few times by members.
Laws are the reflection of a society's mores. In a republic or democracy laws reflect the choices of the majority. Except in situations where decisions are forced on the individual, self defense or justifiable defense of another, justice is the responsibility of the legal system. When delivering punishment, even death, when done by an individual or a small private group it is vigilantism or the act of a dictatorship. Preaching individual rights over all others in a relatively free society is promoting anarchy. Such ramblings sound more the cause of problems than the cure. All I'm saying is that we're subject to law. The alternative is anarchy and that doesn't look like a very good alternative. The only time anarchy becomes a justifiable alternative is when government becomes so oppressive that government is no longer for the people, but for perpetuation of a regime in place to control the people. I'm all for individual rights, as long as those rights don't infringe on those of another. I believe in having the right to defend myself. That's part of what gun ownership is about. I don't believe I have the right to carry a weapon in order to intimidate and coerce others so I can have my way. Because I have a gun, I don't have the right to be judge and jury in a situation where I have control. Just because I want to blow a scumbag away doesn't mean I have the right to. Being human, if the law fails in the eyes of society, I won't say I wouldn't turn a blind eye to certain cases of vigalantism (in cases of rape, child molestation, and similar heinous crimes). But be damned sure the guilty are guilty. Remember the cases of Tawana Brawley and Crystal Mangum when taking up for victims. Unless you see a situation with your own eyes you can't be sure and even then things can be deceiving.
Let the punishment fit the crime literally. The condemned should be put to death as close as can be done with the way his victim(s) died. And sell tickets on PPV on TV and help defray costs of those who remain in the prisons. Merely "going to sleep forever" is not much of a "fear factor" for executions. JM2C.
If that's majority choice and dictate of the legal system, who am I to say it's wrong? Though in our rich history we have seen the Salem witch trials.
my point, pacman, was that everything was relative. political assassins have worked for our government and been seen as heros; to other nations, they're a scourge. i'm not saying some acts, with equal ends, are not more heinous than others, i'm saying nothing can be ruled out completely along the lines of justifiable actions, as justification itself is relative. and dammit, neph, i'm steering this off topic again. my apologies.
