92 year old WWII veteran kills intruder with rifle

[myrkul]

Some awesomeness:

I stop short of calling this "awesome"....

But Ice-T and I agree,

[swissmate]

Some awesomeness:


http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/zou1m/men_display_pictures_of_dead_cops_on_their/
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/photos-dead-police-officer-posted-outside-tennessee-farm-220517988.html

Two brothers who shot and killed a sheriff's deputy have placed photos of the slain lawman outside the entrance of their farm, calling it a "warning" to other law enforcement officials.

From the comments:

Mit Gott  •  7 hrs ago
Having lived in Roane County for decades I am more familiar with this case and can share some information on this case. There was a long time vendetta going on here both personal and professional. Law officers had been harassing the Houstons and provoking them for years before this incident took place. Way too much history to cover every minutia of every detail. But understand the Houstons had brought charges against officers due to the harassment and provocations leveled at them prior to this. This all bringing this to a head.
Before I get into the incident itself, I beg to explain that law enforcement in Roane county has a long history of corruption, (this can be searched and verified on the internet). And there is a tendency in Roane County to often issue warrants based on virtually anything including complete falsehoods and even lacking any evidence of any crime being committed at all. You can say anything (slander) about almost anyone and a warrant will be written.
Then virtually you are considered guilty and libeled until you hire an attorney to prove you innocent if you're lucky. Now on top of this the law enforcement offices have been plagued with corruption and excessive force over the decades I lived there. Case in example was the infamous case of a prior Roane County Sheriff who participated in the state's largest bust of a marijuana manufacturing farm and was later caught in a Federal sting operation trying to resale a very large portion of the same harvested marijuana. I won't mention his name as that was almost 30 years ago and he has served his time for that.
Now I digress going back to the case in point. Witnesses testified insinuations and threats were made by deputy Jones that he was prepared to use deadly force on Rocky when he got a chance to do so. Eye witnesses and evidence were presented in court that Rocky Houston was sitting unarmed on his porch eating from a can of peaches when the patrol car with Jones and Brown inside approached. The first shots came from deputy Jones service pistol leaving casings over twenty feet before the patrol car came to a stop. Rockey was able to duck into the house and retrieve his rifle and return fire. Leon returned fire with a pistol to help cover his brother. The fatal shots were all fired from Rocky's rifle. No fatal shots came from Leon. deputy Jones was shot fatally while still seated in drivers seat of the patrol car (two shots through the head and about another dozen through his body. Brown was slumped dead just outside the vehicle shot several times including one shot that took off his lower jaw and blew it about one hundred feet away.
This was no case in which an armed officer would normally approach an unarmed individual, identify himself and serve the warrant. It appeared that it was a case of a botched attempt at assassination that backfired and ended fatally for the would be assassins. Now is the posting of the pictures of the deceased in bad taste? Yes. but know this, even though the Houstons were acquitted, civil liability suits were placed against the Houstons to continue their harassment against them. So the postings may very well be the direct result of this provocation and harassment. Long story short, in my opinion and experience Roane County is not necessarily a place to live if you just wish to live and let live in peace. End of story.

Fuck yeah 2nd Ammendment.

Yeah, sure is awesome to be pride of killing people.

[muyuu]

Yeah, sure is awesome to be pride of killing people.

It's awesome to be able to be able to defend your life in your land from even police officers with deadly force. It sure is.

[fornit]

Yeah, sure is awesome to be pride of killing people.

It's awesome to be able to be able to defend your life in your land from even police officers with deadly force. It sure is.

yeah, awesome to live in country where you have to...

[gyverlb]

Yeah, sure is awesome to be pride of killing people.

It's awesome to be able to be able to defend your life in your land from even police officers with deadly force. It sure is.

The story above is about a town were people live like savages. Police officers going on a rampage after decades of corruptions is not what I'd describe as a town where the law is enforced. Don't you have any government in the USA to take care of such things?
Of course if you want to live in the early ages of the conquest of the west, this kind of town and having a gun nearby at all times is OK, but please hang a sign warning civilized people that they are entering a death trap when entering such a town...

[myrkul]

Yeah, sure is awesome to be pride of killing people.

It's awesome to be able to be able to defend your life in your land from even police officers with deadly force. It sure is.

yeah, awesome to live in country where you have to...

Mark the date. I agree with you.

It sucks that the police feel that they can get away with stuff like this.

[muyuu]

Yeah, sure is awesome to be pride of killing people.

It's awesome to be able to be able to defend your life in your land from even police officers with deadly force. It sure is.

yeah, awesome to live in country where you have to...

Obviously not. But this is not a country-wide issue.

[muyuu]

Yeah, sure is awesome to be pride of killing people.

It's awesome to be able to be able to defend your life in your land from even police officers with deadly force. It sure is.

The story above is about a town were people live like savages. Police officers going on a rampage after decades of corruptions is not what I'd describe as a town where the law is enforced. Don't you have any government in the USA to take care of such things?
Of course if you want to live in the early ages of the conquest of the west, this kind of town and having a gun nearby at all times is OK, but please hang a sign warning civilized people that they are entering a death trap when entering such a town...

The story is about such a sign

I'm not American, however some things about the USA are awesome. Not in many places one can legally defend oneself from the police with deadly force and get away with it.

[Bitware]

It is not "getting away with anything'.

It is noticing bad government, standing up against it, fighting it, then defending yourself against unlawful and tyrannical responses and repercussions.

Our founding documents NEVER gave us any rights.

The founding documents RECOGNIZED only SOME of what were, at the time, our most recognized and honored pre-existing rights by Birth/God/Creator... for being born onto this land.

The founding documents limit government.

Bad government will kill you to protect itself.

Good citizens stand up against it.

[fornit]

Our founding documents NEVER gave us any rights.

The founding documents RECOGNIZED only SOME of what were, at the time, our most recognized and honored pre-existing rights by Birth/God/Creator... for being born onto this land.

even if there were rights given by something or someone even before a society exists, people would never agree on what those rights are. there is no universal moral compass all humans share or rights that are recognized universally all over the world and through history. effectively, rights are given by societies to people. those rights differ and often the groups they are given to also differ. some societies grant rights to every human being, others dont even grant all of their own citizens the same rights.

usually some of those rights are protected by law, others only manifest in social pressure. sometimes societies are unified in their perception of rights, sometimes not. sometimes this perception changes over time and previously highly accept laws start to feel like coercion.

in my opinion, assuming too many absolute rights a priori is a sure way to never understand your fellow men, or live with them. if you have the oppurtunity to found your very own country, that might be ok. otherwise you might consider the possibility that rights are not right or wrong but just a consent, often a least common denominator of people with very different opinions.

[myrkul]

Our founding documents NEVER gave us any rights.

The founding documents RECOGNIZED only SOME of what were, at the time, our most recognized and honored pre-existing rights by Birth/God/Creator... for being born onto this land.

even if there were rights given by something or someone even before a society exists, people would never agree on what those rights are. there is no universal moral compass all humans share or rights that are recognized universally all over the world and through history. effectively, rights are given by societies to people. those rights differ and often the groups they are given to also differ. some societies grant rights to every human being, others dont even grant all of their own citizens the same rights.

usually some of those rights are protected by law, others only manifest in social pressure. sometimes societies are unified in their perception of rights, sometimes not. sometimes this perception changes over time and previously highly accept laws start to feel like coercion.

in my opinion, assuming too many absolute rights a priori is a sure way to never understand your fellow men, or live with them. if you have the oppurtunity to found your very own country, that might be ok. otherwise you might consider the possibility that rights are not right or wrong but just a consent, often a least common denominator of people with very different opinions.

Well, the agreement was brief.

A rational investigation can, and will, discover what rights are inherent in the human condition. Most are rights from. For instance, the right to be free from murder (usually called the right to life). Some rights "Hang off of" these deeper rights, for instance, the right to self defense and the right to keep and bear arms require and are required by, the right to life.

The rational test is whether or not a proposed "right" imposes a positive obligation on another person. For instance, let us say we wanted to enshrine the right to food in the constitution of our new nation, rationalizing that you need food to live, and the right to life therefore requires a right to food. "A right to food" imposes a positive obligation on others to feed you. Clearly, that doesn't work. If we were to put that right into our constitution, you would be required to feed anyone who asked, even to the detriment of your own family. So that's a no-go.

[Bitware]

A rational investigation can, and will, discover what rights are inherent in the human condition. Most are rights from. For instance, the right to be free from murder (usually called the right to life). Some rights "Hang off of" these deeper rights, for instance, the right to self defense and the right to keep and bear arms require and are required by, the right to life.

The rational test is whether or not a proposed "right" imposes a positive obligation on another person. For instance, let us say we wanted to enshrine the right to food in the constitution of our new nation, rationalizing that you need food to live, and the right to life therefore requires a right to food. "A right to food" imposes a positive obligation on others to feed you. Clearly, that doesn't work. If we were to put that right into our constitution, you would be required to feed anyone who asked, even to the detriment of your own family. So that's a no-go.

one of the best explanations I ever read.

[drakahn]

Not even allowed to have replica guns here unless they are orange... (no criminal would ever paint their gun orange right?)

Illegal guns are common enough though. Seeing that is a lot of what made me change my mind on gun control. I know there are groups of hateful people out there collecting weapons, there are probably equal groups out there that would hate me, so I would much prefer if everyone here had guns rather than only those that plan on using them...

That said, If you break into someone else's home, You might as well be in a different country, If you go to Bali with drugs, you get the death penalty, If you break into a 92 year old WWII Vet's home, Then he is King of that land, and you will get judged by his standards, That is a risk he took breaking into houses in the first place...

[fornit]

Well, the agreement was brief.

A rational investigation can, and will, discover what rights are inherent in the human condition.

for a rational investigation you still need some kind of axiom to start with. what should that universally accepted axiom be?

Most are rights from. For instance, the right to be free from murder (usually called the right to life). Some rights "Hang off of" these deeper rights, for instance, the right to self defense and the right to keep and bear arms require and are required by, the right to life.

self-defense obviously is. the right to bear arms is not. a society could ban arms alltogether, or some kinds of it. or the society could just say it recognizes your right to life but its duty to protect your fellow citizens from you is considered more important than your improved capabilities of self-defense.

The rational test is whether or not a proposed "right" imposes a positive obligation on another person. For instance, let us say we wanted to enshrine the right to food in the constitution of our new nation, rationalizing that you need food to live, and the right to life therefore requires a right to food. "A right to food" imposes a positive obligation on others to feed you. Clearly, that doesn't work. If we were to put that right into our constitution, you would be required to feed anyone who asked, even to the detriment of your own family. So that's a no-go.

how is that rational? from what do you deduct the right to be free from any obligation?
btw: you realize that you disagree with pretty much all social rights from the universal declaration of human rights? just wondering why, if those absolute rights are so rational and easy to recognize, your set of rights is so very different from the most commonly accepted one...

[myrkul]

Well, the agreement was brief.

A rational investigation can, and will, discover what rights are inherent in the human condition.

for a rational investigation you still need some kind of axiom to start with. what should that universally accepted axiom be?

Self-ownership.

In The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard argues that "100 percent self-ownership" is the only principle compatible with a moral code that applies to every person - a "universal ethic" - and that it is a natural law by being what is naturally best for man.

Most are rights from. For instance, the right to be free from murder (usually called the right to life). Some rights "Hang off of" these deeper rights, for instance, the right to self defense and the right to keep and bear arms require and are required by, the right to life.

self-defense obviously is. the right to bear arms is not. a society could ban arms alltogether, or some kinds of it. or the society could just say it recognizes your right to life but its duty to protect your fellow citizens from you is considered more important than your improved capabilities of self-defense.

Except that by banning one type of weapon you - by definition - ensure that only criminals have that weapon. And self defense also includes that against those who set themselves as your protectors, as evinced by the second story posted in this thread.

The rational test is whether or not a proposed "right" imposes a positive obligation on another person. For instance, let us say we wanted to enshrine the right to food in the constitution of our new nation, rationalizing that you need food to live, and the right to life therefore requires a right to food. "A right to food" imposes a positive obligation on others to feed you. Clearly, that doesn't work. If we were to put that right into our constitution, you would be required to feed anyone who asked, even to the detriment of your own family. So that's a no-go.

how is that rational? from what do you deduct the right to be free from any obligation?

Again, self-ownership. If I own myself, and you own yourself, By what rationale do you claim part of me (or the result of my labor) as yours, or I claim part of you or your labor as mine?

btw: you realize that you disagree with pretty much all social rights from the universal declaration of human rights? just wondering why, if those absolute rights are so rational and easy to recognize, your set of rights is so very different from the most commonly accepted one...

Do I? Until I hit Article 25, I found almost nothing to disagree with (except those things which assumed a State), and after, I found little to disagree with. In specific, Article 25, and 26. Read it yourself, and see which ones impose obligations not to restrict or compel behavior, rather than imposing obligations to do so:

https://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

[fornit]

Self-ownership.

In The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard argues that "100 percent self-ownership" is the only principle compatible with a moral code that applies to every person - a "universal ethic" - and that it is a natural law by being what is naturally best for man.

there a a lot of rights that cannot be deducted from self-ownership. for example, i cant really see how you can deduct property rights from self-ownership. specifically the right to own land and natural resources seems problematic, since both arent part of the result of your labor and are limited in supply, so that ownership might very well interfere with other peoples right to life.
one could very well argue that access to the means to sustain ones life through your own labor follows directly from the right to life, and therefore access to farmable land and water cannot be denied.

Except that by banning one type of weapon you - by definition - ensure that only criminals have that weapon. And self defense also includes that against those who set themselves as your protectors, as evinced by the second story posted in this thread.

having no fire arms doesnt really stop you from defending yourself. its just less effective. still much more effective than planting crops without land btw 

Again, self-ownership. If I own myself, and you own yourself, By what rationale do you claim part of me (or the result of my labor) as yours, or I claim part of you or your labor as mine?

by what right did you claim the land and resources you worked with as your own? you saw that apple tree first?
unless you grow apples from your own body i dont see how you can fully claim anything except yourself as your own.

Do I? Until I hit Article 25, I found almost nothing to disagree with (except those things which assumed a State), and after, I found little to disagree with. In specific, Article 25, and 26. Read it yourself, and see which ones impose obligations not to restrict or compel behavior, rather than imposing obligations to do so:

https://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

many of those rights require an institution that promotes them or obligates others to follow them. for example all rights that guarantee equal treatment arent worth much when everybody can choose freely what kind of people he doesnt employ, doesnt trade with or doesnt give access to his infrastructure, or at least charge more.

[myrkul]

Self-ownership.

In The Ethics of Liberty, Murray Rothbard argues that "100 percent self-ownership" is the only principle compatible with a moral code that applies to every person - a "universal ethic" - and that it is a natural law by being what is naturally best for man.

there a a lot of rights that cannot be deducted from self-ownership. for example, i cant really see how you can deduct property rights from self-ownership. specifically the right to own land and natural resources seems problematic, since both arent part of the result of your labor and are limited in supply, so that ownership might very well interfere with other peoples right to life.
one could very well argue that access to the means to sustain ones life through your own labor follows directly from the right to life, and therefore access to farmable land and water cannot be denied.

I see you didn't read the article, nor any of the sources.

Sovereign-minded individuals usually assert a right of private property external to the body, reasoning that if a person owns themselves, they own their actions, including those that create or improve resources. Therefore, they own their own labour and the fruits thereof.

While the land itself is not created by one's labor, by "mixing one's labor with it," land can be claimed - homesteaded - for one's own use. And indeed, you are correct, that access to farm-able land and water cannot be denied, but that requirement goes both ways. You cannot deny someone their land, and since they have prior claim, their right to that land trumps yours. You're welcome to buy it from them, if you can offer a price they'll accept, but otherwise you'll have to find other land, or offer your labor to someone in order to get your food. I've cut out the "apple tree" response, below, since it's best answered here. I may have planted that apple tree, or merely cared for it. But yes, it boils down to "I saw it first," or rather, I labored on it first.

Except that by banning one type of weapon you - by definition - ensure that only criminals have that weapon. And self defense also includes that against those who set themselves as your protectors, as evinced by the second story posted in this thread.

having no fire arms doesnt really stop you from defending yourself. its just less effective.

Defending oneself with a knife from someone with a gun is a notoriously poor decision... and there's a reason that firearms surpassed other ranged weaponry. The fact remains that if you make something illegal, by definition the only people with it will be criminals.

Do I? Until I hit Article 25, I found almost nothing to disagree with (except those things which assumed a State), and after, I found little to disagree with. In specific, Article 25, and 26. Read it yourself, and see which ones impose obligations not to restrict or compel behavior, rather than imposing obligations to do so:

https://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

many of those rights require an institution that promotes them or obligates others to follow them. for example all rights that guarantee equal treatment arent worth much when everybody can choose freely what kind of people he doesnt employ, doesnt trade with or doesnt give access to his infrastructure, or at least charge more.

Re-read again the part that I've bolded. Maybe then you'll understand what I said.

I'd like to know, however, why you consider that a person's right to "equal treatment" trumps an individual's right to choose who he associates with.

[pekv2]

Should hire him for the bitcoin community, shoot the scammers in the chest.

Bravo to this old man. This is a reason to own a rifle, pump the guts/lungs/vital organs out of em with it.

[fornit]

I see you didn't read the article, nor any of the sources.

i did. i just dont agree.

Sovereign-minded individuals usually assert a right of private property external to the body, reasoning that if a person owns themselves, they own their actions, including those that create or improve resources. Therefore, they own their own labour and the fruits thereof.

While the land itself is not created by one's labor, by "mixing one's labor with it," land can be claimed - homesteaded - for one's own use. And indeed, you are correct, that access to farm-able land and water cannot be denied, but that requirement goes both ways. You cannot deny someone their land, and since they have prior claim, their right to that land trumps yours. You're welcome to buy it from them, if you can offer a price they'll accept, but otherwise you'll have to find other land, or offer your labor to someone in order to get your food. I've cut out the "apple tree" response, below, since it's best answered here. I may have planted that apple tree, or merely cared for it. But yes, it boils down to "I saw it first," or rather, I labored on it first.

yeah, except nothing of that can be deducted from self-ownership. its a very artificial, theoretically unsound construct on top of it. its unsound, because it effectively allows for those with farmland/water/etc to render the right to life of those without that meaningsless whenever they please. its also impractical, because there is no good definition of the whole work-mixing-thingy, making it an i-touch-i-own rule, allowing you to claim ridiculous amounts of land and resources with little to no effort.

a communistic approach is much more sound regarding self-ownership: no one can own land, society can give you land temporarily and demand that you share some part of the fruits of your labor on that land with the society. its a much more logical and practical solution to making self-ownership and right to life work together without any coercion.
of course, it doesnt fit liberitarian dogma, so it evil 

Defending oneself with a knife from someone with a gun is a notoriously poor decision... and there's a reason that firearms surpassed other ranged weaponry. The fact remains that if you make something illegal, by definition the only people with it will be criminals.

that still doesnt effect your right to life. countries with stricter fire arm regulations have much less homicides with firearms, despite the all those better-armed criminals. your argument is purely theoretical.

Re-read again the part that I've bolded. Maybe then you'll understand what I said.

I'd like to know, however, why you consider that a person's right to "equal treatment" trumps an individual's right to choose who he associates with.

i understand you well enough. you have no problem with rights on paper as long as you dont have to do jack shit to honor them.
personally, the right for a woman to walk a street without a burka is more important to me than the rights of the muslim that owns the street. freedom of speech is more important to me than the rights of the owners of schools or "public" places. the right to equal payment for equal work is more important than the right of a factory owner to exploit desparate people. free education is more important to me than your wish not to share anything ever with society.
theres really nothing absolutist about that. i just prefer to live in a totally different society than you.

[myrkul]

Fornit, I really would appreciate it if you ceased to abuse the English language. Use the shift and apostrophe (') keys, if you please, it makes your writing that much more readable, and you look more intelligent than a 6th grader.

yeah, except nothing of that can be deducted from self-ownership. its a very artificial, theoretically unsound construct on top of it. its unsound, because it effectively allows for those with farmland/water/etc to render the right to life of those without that meaningsless whenever they please. its also impractical, because there is no good definition of the whole work-mixing-thingy, making it an i-touch-i-own rule, allowing you to claim ridiculous amounts of land and resources with little to no effort.

a communistic approach is much more sound regarding self-ownership: no one can own land, society can give you land temporarily and demand that you share some part of the fruits of your labor on that land with the society. its a much more logical and practical solution to making self-ownership and right to life work together without any coercion.
of course, it doesnt fit liberitarian dogma, so it evil 

/sigh... You continue to argue patently false things, which if you had actually read the articles I linked, you would know were false. The definition of the "whole work-mixing-thingy" (Homesteading principle) was first stated by John Locke:

Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a "property" in his own "person." This nobody has any right to but himself. The "labour" of his body and the "work" of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.

And property rights do not allow for someone to render one's right to life meaningless. What you must understand that your right to life is not actually a right to anything. Rather, it is a right to be free from being killed. A right to not be murdered. Nothing more, nothing less. You are not entitled to the property of another person. Ever.

Communism is not evil because it "doesn't fit libertarian dogma," but because it kills people. it requires coercion to force people to "share" their property and the results of their labor.

Defending oneself with a knife from someone with a gun is a notoriously poor decision... and there's a reason that firearms surpassed other ranged weaponry. The fact remains that if you make something illegal, by definition the only people with it will be criminals.

that still doesnt effect your right to life. countries with stricter fire arm regulations have much less homicides with firearms, despite the all those better-armed criminals. your argument is purely theoretical.

Oh but it does. If you remove or reduce the ability for someone to defend themselves, you are damaging their ability to protect their own right to life. I find it interesting that you both consider that one has a right to other's property, and that they should not be able to defend themselves or their property. That would rationally label you as a criminal. And my argument is not theoretical. It's backed up by hard facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime

Re-read again the part that I've bolded. Maybe then you'll understand what I said.

I'd like to know, however, why you consider that a person's right to "equal treatment" trumps an individual's right to choose who he associates with.

i understand you well enough. you have no problem with rights on paper as long as you dont have to do jack shit to honor them.

Tsk... You didn't answer me. I'll ask again. Why do you consider that a person's right to "equal treatment" trumps an individual's right to choose who he associates with?