In article ,
says...

On 10/17/2011 4:46 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 17/10/2011 12:23 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:35:40 -0400, X `
wrote:

On 10/17/11 12:57 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:03:32 -0400, wrote:

On 10/17/2011 6:30 AM, X ` Man wrote:
In 1358, according to historian and author Barbara Tuchman, a peasant
revolution started in the Oise valley of France. The peasants
attacked
and looted a manor house, killed the knight who lived there and
roasted
him on a spit while his wife and children watched. A dozen of the
serfs
raped the lady of the manor while the children watched, and then they
forced her to eat the cooked flesh of her husband. Then they
killed her.

Now that is serious class warfare.

Discussing whether the top one percent of the wealthy in this country
should pay a higher tax rate is not, though I think the "French"
treatment of a few dozen Wall Street chiefs and industrial chiefs
would
provide quicker results.

Lets hope a similar fate doesn't come to your doorstep.

Harry is well armed and prepared to shoot any serf who comes to get
his stuff because he has more than they do, ;-)


Since I am fairly well-known "in these here parts" as a liberal and as a
supporter of trade unionism, I doubt the Wall Street protestors will be
breaking down my door.

I'm only armed and dangerous when little twerps with ponytails try to
break in...

That sounds like the people I see on CNN from the OWS crowd.

CNN is a dripping wet liberal-socialism farce propaganda machine.

Not nearly as bad as MSNBC, or PBS. CNN lies by omission, the other two
just make it up as they go along...

And Fox is fair and balanced and would never "lie by omission"....right?

In article m,
says...

On 10/17/2011 11:50 PM, George C. Boater wrote:
Krausie wrote: Since I am fairly well-known "in these here parts"
as ....

___________

Is that a fact, Krausie?

I'll bet you're also known in them there parts as a lying, psychotic,
free loading gas bag.


I wonder what "these here parts" he's referring to.

His head.

On 10/18/11 8:38 AM, Drifter wrote:
On 10/18/2011 7:53 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/18/11 6:54 AM, Tim wrote:
On Oct 17, 7:52 am, X ` wrote:
On 10/17/11 8:41 AM, Tim wrote:









On Oct 17, 7:30 am, X ` wrote:
On 10/17/11 8:22 AM, Tim wrote:

On Oct 17, 5:30 am, X ` wrote:
In 1358, according to historian and author Barbara Tuchman, a
peasant
revolution started in the Oise valley of France. The peasants
attacked
and looted a manor house, killed the knight who lived there and
roasted
him on a spit while his wife and children watched. A dozen of the
serfs
raped the lady of the manor while the children watched, and then
they
forced her to eat the cooked flesh of her husband. Then they
killed her.

Now that is serious class warfare.

Discussing whether the top one percent of the wealthy in this
country
should pay a higher tax rate is not, though I think the "French"
treatment of a few dozen Wall Street chiefs and industrial chiefs
would
provide quicker results.

Wiki gives credit of the story to one Jean La Bel, but I thought
this
line was interesting:

"The peasants involved in the rebellion seem to have lacked any real
organization, instead rising up locally as an unstructured mass.
It is
speculated by Jean le Bel that evil governors and tax collectors
spread the word of rebellion from village to village to inspire the
peasants to rebel against the nobility. When asked as to the
cause of
their discontent they apparently replied that they were just doing
what they had witnessed others doing. Additionally it seems that the
rebellion contained some idea that it was possible to rid the
world of
nobles. Froissart's account portrays the rebels as mindless thugs
bent
on destruction, which they wreaked on over 150 noble houses and
castles, murdering the families in horrendous ways."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquerie#The_uprising

In the 14th Century, the serfs had every reason to murder nobles.
They
still do.

Harry, nobody has the right to 'murder' anyone...

In the 14th Century, the nobility murdered just about anyone it
pleased,
and with impunity. Since the serfs had no justice whatsoever available
to them, turnabout was seen as fair play.

Even in this country and in this century, we have official murder. Some
may say that those killed in wars or by the executioner are not
murdered, but "the state" will say anything to justify its actions.

Harry,. who do you have the right to murder, and who has the right to
murder you?


Murder simply defined is *illegal* homicide. The country and many states
engage in homicide and justify it by saying it was *legal*.
The state of course can make anything it likes legal, but that doesn't
make it justified. Executions may be legal, but they are not justified.
Killing of non-combatants in a war is murder.

The situation is different in a case of self-defense. I don't have the
right to murder anyone, but I do have the legal and I think moral right
to defend myself or my wife from intruders who break into the house and
intend bodily harm. If that means shooting the intruders, so be it.

It's not the same as execution. The state has a choice. It can warehouse
violent offenders until they die of old age. There are no such
alternative when dealing with a home invader.

You should know that all intruders are not murderers and rapists. You
better make sure you are targeted for bodily harm before you pull the
trigger. Your paranoia will work against you in defense of a shooting.
Think about that, big boy.


I'm more than a little familiar with gun safety and the "rules of
engagement" in this state. I take a couple of firearms courses every
year, and in every course, safety is stressed.

If it is the middle of the night and someone breaks in and that someone
is an ugly, squat little guy with a ponytail, I'll simply assume he
intends bodily harm and act accordingly. :) Maybe I'll have the
ponytail mounted on a wood base and hang it in the garage.

The reality is these days that a significant percentage of home burglars
are drug addicts looking for "merch" to steal so they have something to
pawn for cash.

I'm not in the least bit paranoid. I caught a burglar once, one who
started to come at me with a tire iron. He's probably just now getting
out of the slammer, since he drew a 20-year sentence. He was a big-time
burglar in NE Florida.

"X ` Man" wrote in message ...

On 10/18/11 4:03 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message
...


Since I am fairly well-known "in these here parts" as a liberal and as a
supporter of trade unionism, I doubt the Wall Street protestors will be
breaking down my door.

-----------------------------------------------

That's an interesting comment Harry.

Does that mean that a conservative minded individual of similar personal
economic/financial status, but *not* a strong supporter
of trade unionism may be subject to Wall Street protestors at their door?

I know many "Social Democrats" who are very tight and protective of
their personal wealth, whatever it may be. I also know of
hard core Conservatives who routinely share what extra they may have
without hesitation to help others. I don't think that political
ideology dictates one's sense of responsibility to their fellow man,
despite the current myriad attempts to convince otherwise.

It's a personal, morality based choice .... not a politically derived
directive.

Eisboch


I don't read or see much of "hard core Conservatives" engaging in
discussions or activities aimed at fulfilling "one's sense of
responsibility to their fellow man." I won't disagree that in times gone
by, pre-Reagan, many Republicans were involved in activities to help the
less fortunate. Nowadays, not so much.

---------------------------------------------------

Well, "there you go again" .... :-)
making social responsibility issues a politically derived directive.

There's a myth that exists that being "liberal" means you are more sensitive
and proactive in assuming financial responsibility for
your fellow man. The facts simply don't support that. Those who identify
themselves as Republicans give more out of
their own pocket than those who identify themselves as Democrats. There
are several studies available on the 'net that provide the supporting
data.

There *is* on major difference. Republicans tend to give from their own
pockets. Democrats tend to give from other people's
pockets.

On 10/18/2011 8:47 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/18/11 8:38 AM, Drifter wrote:
On 10/18/2011 7:53 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/18/11 6:54 AM, Tim wrote:
On Oct 17, 7:52 am, X ` wrote:
On 10/17/11 8:41 AM, Tim wrote:









On Oct 17, 7:30 am, X ` wrote:
On 10/17/11 8:22 AM, Tim wrote:

On Oct 17, 5:30 am, X ` wrote:
In 1358, according to historian and author Barbara Tuchman, a
peasant
revolution started in the Oise valley of France. The peasants
attacked
and looted a manor house, killed the knight who lived there and
roasted
him on a spit while his wife and children watched. A dozen of the
serfs
raped the lady of the manor while the children watched, and then
they
forced her to eat the cooked flesh of her husband. Then they
killed her.

Now that is serious class warfare.

Discussing whether the top one percent of the wealthy in this
country
should pay a higher tax rate is not, though I think the "French"
treatment of a few dozen Wall Street chiefs and industrial chiefs
would
provide quicker results.

Wiki gives credit of the story to one Jean La Bel, but I thought
this
line was interesting:

"The peasants involved in the rebellion seem to have lacked any
real
organization, instead rising up locally as an unstructured mass.
It is
speculated by Jean le Bel that evil governors and tax collectors
spread the word of rebellion from village to village to inspire the
peasants to rebel against the nobility. When asked as to the
cause of
their discontent they apparently replied that they were just doing
what they had witnessed others doing. Additionally it seems that
the
rebellion contained some idea that it was possible to rid the
world of
nobles. Froissart's account portrays the rebels as mindless thugs
bent
on destruction, which they wreaked on over 150 noble houses and
castles, murdering the families in horrendous ways."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquerie#The_uprising

In the 14th Century, the serfs had every reason to murder nobles.
They
still do.

Harry, nobody has the right to 'murder' anyone...

In the 14th Century, the nobility murdered just about anyone it
pleased,
and with impunity. Since the serfs had no justice whatsoever available
to them, turnabout was seen as fair play.

Even in this country and in this century, we have official murder.
Some
may say that those killed in wars or by the executioner are not
murdered, but "the state" will say anything to justify its actions.

Harry,. who do you have the right to murder, and who has the right to
murder you?


Murder simply defined is *illegal* homicide. The country and many states
engage in homicide and justify it by saying it was *legal*.
The state of course can make anything it likes legal, but that doesn't
make it justified. Executions may be legal, but they are not justified.
Killing of non-combatants in a war is murder.

The situation is different in a case of self-defense. I don't have the
right to murder anyone, but I do have the legal and I think moral right
to defend myself or my wife from intruders who break into the house and
intend bodily harm. If that means shooting the intruders, so be it.

It's not the same as execution. The state has a choice. It can warehouse
violent offenders until they die of old age. There are no such
alternative when dealing with a home invader.

You should know that all intruders are not murderers and rapists. You
better make sure you are targeted for bodily harm before you pull the
trigger. Your paranoia will work against you in defense of a shooting.
Think about that, big boy.


I'm more than a little familiar with gun safety and the "rules of
engagement" in this state. I take a couple of firearms courses every
year, and in every course, safety is stressed.

If it is the middle of the night and someone breaks in and that someone
is an ugly, squat little guy with a ponytail, I'll simply assume he
intends bodily harm and act accordingly. :) Maybe I'll have the
ponytail mounted on a wood base and hang it in the garage.

The reality is these days that a significant percentage of home burglars
are drug addicts looking for "merch" to steal so they have something to
pawn for cash.

I'm not in the least bit paranoid. I caught a burglar once, one who
started to come at me with a tire iron. He's probably just now getting
out of the slammer, since he drew a 20-year sentence. He was a big-time
burglar in NE Florida.

ahhhh haaaa, is that the one who stood directly in the middle of the
garage, against the wall, so you could sneak up on him with your Toyota
Tundra and pin him perfectly against the wall till the cops got there?
LOL, harry, nobody believes you, good Harrytale though...

On 10/18/2011 9:04 AM, Eisboch wrote:


There *is* on major difference. Republicans tend to give from their own
pockets. Democrats tend to give from other people's
pockets.



You've found your NG rhythm.

On 10/18/11 9:04 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message ...

On 10/18/11 4:03 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"X ` Man" wrote in message
...


Since I am fairly well-known "in these here parts" as a liberal and as a
supporter of trade unionism, I doubt the Wall Street protestors will be
breaking down my door.

-----------------------------------------------

That's an interesting comment Harry.

Does that mean that a conservative minded individual of similar personal
economic/financial status, but *not* a strong supporter
of trade unionism may be subject to Wall Street protestors at their door?

I know many "Social Democrats" who are very tight and protective of
their personal wealth, whatever it may be. I also know of
hard core Conservatives who routinely share what extra they may have
without hesitation to help others. I don't think that political
ideology dictates one's sense of responsibility to their fellow man,
despite the current myriad attempts to convince otherwise.

It's a personal, morality based choice .... not a politically derived
directive.

Eisboch


I don't read or see much of "hard core Conservatives" engaging in
discussions or activities aimed at fulfilling "one's sense of
responsibility to their fellow man." I won't disagree that in times gone
by, pre-Reagan, many Republicans were involved in activities to help the
less fortunate. Nowadays, not so much.

---------------------------------------------------

Well, "there you go again" .... :-)
making social responsibility issues a politically derived directive.

There's a myth that exists that being "liberal" means you are more
sensitive and proactive in assuming financial responsibility for
your fellow man. The facts simply don't support that. Those who identify
themselves as Republicans give more out of
their own pocket than those who identify themselves as Democrats. There
are several studies available on the 'net that provide the supporting
data.

There *is* on major difference. Republicans tend to give from their own
pockets. Democrats tend to give from other people's
pockets.


Republicans tend to give their charity to their church, which may or may
not use that money for charitable purposes. There actually was a study
done about this some years ago.

This is only anecdotal, but about a dozen years ago I was attending a
holiday gathering. There were several couples there who were Republicans
and evangelical Christians and they passed around a flyer whose purpose
was to raise funds for a "mission" their church was engaged in in
Central America. Purpose of the mission? To "spread the word of Jesus"
to indigenous peoples who already were Roman Catholic.

I started laughing, and I was asked why I was. "You want money to
convert Christians to Christianity!"

"Oh no," I was told "Catholics aren't Christians."

I think my response was, "You people are crazy."

It turns out that one of those couples is now home-schooling their
children because they don't want the kids *exposed* to "non-Christian"
kids. One can only imagine what sort of mindless automatons those kids
will turn out to be.

What's the point? There is charitable giving and there is charitable
giving. To me, a charitable gift should go to help people with their
needs for food, shelter, clothing, medical care, et cetera. I don't
believe money donated to charity should be used to gain converts or to
build buildings. If it is, it shouldn't be. Further, as religious
donations are deductible, I think donations used to proselytize
shouldn't be deductible.

On 10/18/11 9:13 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/18/2011 8:47 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/18/11 8:38 AM, Drifter wrote:
On 10/18/2011 7:53 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/18/11 6:54 AM, Tim wrote:
On Oct 17, 7:52 am, X ` wrote:
On 10/17/11 8:41 AM, Tim wrote:









On Oct 17, 7:30 am, X ` wrote:
On 10/17/11 8:22 AM, Tim wrote:

On Oct 17, 5:30 am, X ` wrote:
In 1358, according to historian and author Barbara Tuchman, a
peasant
revolution started in the Oise valley of France. The peasants
attacked
and looted a manor house, killed the knight who lived there and
roasted
him on a spit while his wife and children watched. A dozen of the
serfs
raped the lady of the manor while the children watched, and then
they
forced her to eat the cooked flesh of her husband. Then they
killed her.

Now that is serious class warfare.

Discussing whether the top one percent of the wealthy in this
country
should pay a higher tax rate is not, though I think the "French"
treatment of a few dozen Wall Street chiefs and industrial chiefs
would
provide quicker results.

Wiki gives credit of the story to one Jean La Bel, but I thought
this
line was interesting:

"The peasants involved in the rebellion seem to have lacked any
real
organization, instead rising up locally as an unstructured mass.
It is
speculated by Jean le Bel that evil governors and tax collectors
spread the word of rebellion from village to village to inspire
the
peasants to rebel against the nobility. When asked as to the
cause of
their discontent they apparently replied that they were just doing
what they had witnessed others doing. Additionally it seems that
the
rebellion contained some idea that it was possible to rid the
world of
nobles. Froissart's account portrays the rebels as mindless thugs
bent
on destruction, which they wreaked on over 150 noble houses and
castles, murdering the families in horrendous ways."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquerie#The_uprising

In the 14th Century, the serfs had every reason to murder nobles.
They
still do.

Harry, nobody has the right to 'murder' anyone...

In the 14th Century, the nobility murdered just about anyone it
pleased,
and with impunity. Since the serfs had no justice whatsoever
available
to them, turnabout was seen as fair play.

Even in this country and in this century, we have official murder.
Some
may say that those killed in wars or by the executioner are not
murdered, but "the state" will say anything to justify its actions.

Harry,. who do you have the right to murder, and who has the right to
murder you?


Murder simply defined is *illegal* homicide. The country and many
states
engage in homicide and justify it by saying it was *legal*.
The state of course can make anything it likes legal, but that doesn't
make it justified. Executions may be legal, but they are not justified.
Killing of non-combatants in a war is murder.

The situation is different in a case of self-defense. I don't have the
right to murder anyone, but I do have the legal and I think moral right
to defend myself or my wife from intruders who break into the house and
intend bodily harm. If that means shooting the intruders, so be it.

It's not the same as execution. The state has a choice. It can
warehouse
violent offenders until they die of old age. There are no such
alternative when dealing with a home invader.

You should know that all intruders are not murderers and rapists. You
better make sure you are targeted for bodily harm before you pull the
trigger. Your paranoia will work against you in defense of a shooting.
Think about that, big boy.


I'm more than a little familiar with gun safety and the "rules of
engagement" in this state. I take a couple of firearms courses every
year, and in every course, safety is stressed.

If it is the middle of the night and someone breaks in and that someone
is an ugly, squat little guy with a ponytail, I'll simply assume he
intends bodily harm and act accordingly. :) Maybe I'll have the
ponytail mounted on a wood base and hang it in the garage.

The reality is these days that a significant percentage of home burglars
are drug addicts looking for "merch" to steal so they have something to
pawn for cash.

I'm not in the least bit paranoid. I caught a burglar once, one who
started to come at me with a tire iron. He's probably just now getting
out of the slammer, since he drew a 20-year sentence. He was a big-time
burglar in NE Florida.

ahhhh haaaa, is that the one who stood directly in the middle of the
garage, against the wall, so you could sneak up on him with your Toyota
Tundra and pin him perfectly against the wall till the cops got there?
LOL, harry, nobody believes you, good Harrytale though...


No, **** for brains, I pinned him between the bumper of his car, which
was in my garage, and my *FORD* truck's bumper. It's too bad you don't
ever get anything right.

On 10/18/2011 9:25 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/18/11 9:13 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/18/2011 8:47 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/18/11 8:38 AM, Drifter wrote:
On 10/18/2011 7:53 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/18/11 6:54 AM, Tim wrote:
On Oct 17, 7:52 am, X ` wrote:
On 10/17/11 8:41 AM, Tim wrote:









On Oct 17, 7:30 am, X ` wrote:
On 10/17/11 8:22 AM, Tim wrote:

On Oct 17, 5:30 am, X ` wrote:
In 1358, according to historian and author Barbara Tuchman, a
peasant
revolution started in the Oise valley of France. The peasants
attacked
and looted a manor house, killed the knight who lived there and
roasted
him on a spit while his wife and children watched. A dozen of
the
serfs
raped the lady of the manor while the children watched, and then
they
forced her to eat the cooked flesh of her husband. Then they
killed her.

Now that is serious class warfare.

Discussing whether the top one percent of the wealthy in this
country
should pay a higher tax rate is not, though I think the "French"
treatment of a few dozen Wall Street chiefs and industrial
chiefs
would
provide quicker results.

Wiki gives credit of the story to one Jean La Bel, but I thought
this
line was interesting:

"The peasants involved in the rebellion seem to have lacked any
real
organization, instead rising up locally as an unstructured mass.
It is
speculated by Jean le Bel that evil governors and tax collectors
spread the word of rebellion from village to village to inspire
the
peasants to rebel against the nobility. When asked as to the
cause of
their discontent they apparently replied that they were just
doing
what they had witnessed others doing. Additionally it seems that
the
rebellion contained some idea that it was possible to rid the
world of
nobles. Froissart's account portrays the rebels as mindless thugs
bent
on destruction, which they wreaked on over 150 noble houses and
castles, murdering the families in horrendous ways."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquerie#The_uprising

In the 14th Century, the serfs had every reason to murder nobles.
They
still do.

Harry, nobody has the right to 'murder' anyone...

In the 14th Century, the nobility murdered just about anyone it
pleased,
and with impunity. Since the serfs had no justice whatsoever
available
to them, turnabout was seen as fair play.

Even in this country and in this century, we have official murder.
Some
may say that those killed in wars or by the executioner are not
murdered, but "the state" will say anything to justify its actions.

Harry,. who do you have the right to murder, and who has the right to
murder you?


Murder simply defined is *illegal* homicide. The country and many
states
engage in homicide and justify it by saying it was *legal*.
The state of course can make anything it likes legal, but that doesn't
make it justified. Executions may be legal, but they are not
justified.
Killing of non-combatants in a war is murder.

The situation is different in a case of self-defense. I don't have the
right to murder anyone, but I do have the legal and I think moral
right
to defend myself or my wife from intruders who break into the house
and
intend bodily harm. If that means shooting the intruders, so be it.

It's not the same as execution. The state has a choice. It can
warehouse
violent offenders until they die of old age. There are no such
alternative when dealing with a home invader.

You should know that all intruders are not murderers and rapists. You
better make sure you are targeted for bodily harm before you pull the
trigger. Your paranoia will work against you in defense of a shooting.
Think about that, big boy.


I'm more than a little familiar with gun safety and the "rules of
engagement" in this state. I take a couple of firearms courses every
year, and in every course, safety is stressed.

If it is the middle of the night and someone breaks in and that someone
is an ugly, squat little guy with a ponytail, I'll simply assume he
intends bodily harm and act accordingly. :) Maybe I'll have the
ponytail mounted on a wood base and hang it in the garage.

The reality is these days that a significant percentage of home burglars
are drug addicts looking for "merch" to steal so they have something to
pawn for cash.

I'm not in the least bit paranoid. I caught a burglar once, one who
started to come at me with a tire iron. He's probably just now getting
out of the slammer, since he drew a 20-year sentence. He was a big-time
burglar in NE Florida.

ahhhh haaaa, is that the one who stood directly in the middle of the
garage, against the wall, so you could sneak up on him with your Toyota
Tundra and pin him perfectly against the wall till the cops got there?
LOL, harry, nobody believes you, good Harrytale though...


No, **** for brains, I pinned him between the bumper of his car, which
was in my garage, and my *FORD* truck's bumper. It's too bad you don't
ever get anything right.

Yeah, uh.. What was the date on that, I bet the police report is a
spectacular read? Was this before or after your father crossed the
Atlantic in a small skiff to a fireboat welcome, or did you wait till
you graduated from Yale? snerk

On 10/18/11 9:31 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/18/2011 9:25 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/18/11 9:13 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 10/18/2011 8:47 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/18/11 8:38 AM, Drifter wrote:
On 10/18/2011 7:53 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 10/18/11 6:54 AM, Tim wrote:
On Oct 17, 7:52 am, X ` wrote:
On 10/17/11 8:41 AM, Tim wrote:









On Oct 17, 7:30 am, X ` wrote:
On 10/17/11 8:22 AM, Tim wrote:

On Oct 17, 5:30 am, X ` wrote:
In 1358, according to historian and author Barbara Tuchman, a
peasant
revolution started in the Oise valley of France. The peasants
attacked
and looted a manor house, killed the knight who lived there and
roasted
him on a spit while his wife and children watched. A dozen of
the
serfs
raped the lady of the manor while the children watched, and
then
they
forced her to eat the cooked flesh of her husband. Then they
killed her.

Now that is serious class warfare.

Discussing whether the top one percent of the wealthy in this
country
should pay a higher tax rate is not, though I think the
"French"
treatment of a few dozen Wall Street chiefs and industrial
chiefs
would
provide quicker results.

Wiki gives credit of the story to one Jean La Bel, but I thought
this
line was interesting:

"The peasants involved in the rebellion seem to have lacked any
real
organization, instead rising up locally as an unstructured mass.
It is
speculated by Jean le Bel that evil governors and tax collectors
spread the word of rebellion from village to village to inspire
the
peasants to rebel against the nobility. When asked as to the
cause of
their discontent they apparently replied that they were just
doing
what they had witnessed others doing. Additionally it seems that
the
rebellion contained some idea that it was possible to rid the
world of
nobles. Froissart's account portrays the rebels as mindless
thugs
bent
on destruction, which they wreaked on over 150 noble houses and
castles, murdering the families in horrendous ways."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquerie#The_uprising

In the 14th Century, the serfs had every reason to murder nobles.
They
still do.

Harry, nobody has the right to 'murder' anyone...

In the 14th Century, the nobility murdered just about anyone it
pleased,
and with impunity. Since the serfs had no justice whatsoever
available
to them, turnabout was seen as fair play.

Even in this country and in this century, we have official murder.
Some
may say that those killed in wars or by the executioner are not
murdered, but "the state" will say anything to justify its actions.

Harry,. who do you have the right to murder, and who has the
right to
murder you?


Murder simply defined is *illegal* homicide. The country and many
states
engage in homicide and justify it by saying it was *legal*.
The state of course can make anything it likes legal, but that
doesn't
make it justified. Executions may be legal, but they are not
justified.
Killing of non-combatants in a war is murder.

The situation is different in a case of self-defense. I don't have
the
right to murder anyone, but I do have the legal and I think moral
right
to defend myself or my wife from intruders who break into the house
and
intend bodily harm. If that means shooting the intruders, so be it.

It's not the same as execution. The state has a choice. It can
warehouse
violent offenders until they die of old age. There are no such
alternative when dealing with a home invader.

You should know that all intruders are not murderers and rapists. You
better make sure you are targeted for bodily harm before you pull the
trigger. Your paranoia will work against you in defense of a shooting.
Think about that, big boy.


I'm more than a little familiar with gun safety and the "rules of
engagement" in this state. I take a couple of firearms courses every
year, and in every course, safety is stressed.

If it is the middle of the night and someone breaks in and that someone
is an ugly, squat little guy with a ponytail, I'll simply assume he
intends bodily harm and act accordingly. :) Maybe I'll have the
ponytail mounted on a wood base and hang it in the garage.

The reality is these days that a significant percentage of home
burglars
are drug addicts looking for "merch" to steal so they have something to
pawn for cash.

I'm not in the least bit paranoid. I caught a burglar once, one who
started to come at me with a tire iron. He's probably just now getting
out of the slammer, since he drew a 20-year sentence. He was a big-time
burglar in NE Florida.

ahhhh haaaa, is that the one who stood directly in the middle of the
garage, against the wall, so you could sneak up on him with your Toyota
Tundra and pin him perfectly against the wall till the cops got there?
LOL, harry, nobody believes you, good Harrytale though...


No, **** for brains, I pinned him between the bumper of his car, which
was in my garage, and my *FORD* truck's bumper. It's too bad you don't
ever get anything right.

Yeah, uh.. What was the date on that, I bet the police report is a
spectacular read? Was this before or after your father crossed the
Atlantic in a small skiff to a fireboat welcome, or did you wait till
you graduated from Yale? snerk

D'oh. The crossing was not in a "small skiff," **** for brains.