There is a massive segment of the society who thinks this makes perfect sense:
Relatives of a 17-year-old are angry the teenager was shot and killed by a homeowner who police say was protecting her property.
“I don’t care if she have her gun license or any of that. That is way beyond the law… way beyond,” said Johnson’s cousin Nautika Harris. “He was not supposed to die like this. He had a future ahead of him. Trevon had goals… he was a funny guy, very big on education, loved learning.”
“What’s wrong with her,” asked Johnson’s sister Nisha Johnson. “She did not have to shoot him… It’s no reason she should have waited until I think he walked out the yard to try to shoot him… If she called the police already why would she shoot him?”
“You have to look at it from every child’s point of view that was raised in the hood… You have to understand… how he gonna get his money to have clothes to go to school? You have to look at it from his point-of-view.”
The Darwinism is going to be strong in this family tree.
You can see why Democrats craft their message as they do. There are millions like this, though admittedly most are smart enough to not espouse such opinions openly.
When the apocalypse goes down, it could very well become akin to a small civil war between the haves, and the have-nots. If you intend to be a have, arm up and begin preparing yourself. This will be K-selection, and as the article demonstrates, we don’t even need to wait for the Apocalypse-proper to happen, to see it begin. In many places, it has already started and the enemy is openly sporting their colors.
Dat be rayciss!
I don’t think I’m ready for that. Shooting an armed person is one thing, but I don’t think I could bring myself to shoot an unarmed individual. That must be crossing a line.
That’s why we need HARD men
If you aren’t willing to shoot an unarmed person to stop them from taking your property, it isn’t really your property, it’s theirs. You literally own nothing you aren’t prepared to defend with force. And foisting the responsibility off on somebody you’re paying to do the dirty work for you (police, security, military) doesn’t change the underlying reality.
If it makes you feel any better, you’ll find it easier than you think to jettison such antihuman notions as that it’s wrong to use force to defend property against an unarmed person when the property in question is food, water, or medicine you or your family need to survive.
It’s interesting you put it that way. I remember a story I heard about my grandpa, he would shoot opossums or else trap them and drown them. Aside from being pests, their fleas may have given my dad Typhus fever and landed him in the hospital. Yet he never continued the practice of my grandpa of eliminating these things which represented a threat. Maybe my grandpa had the right of it.
I read Dinesh D’Souza’s book “America: imagine a world without her” and he have for a good portion of it a theme that there are 2 ways to acquire goods we need/want but do not have. One we take them, two we trade for them. For most of human history, the first (take/steal) has been the operating method. Especially stealing from out group. This could be raiding the neighboring kingdom for grain, or taking his wife home to our city of Troy.
Western Europe developed trading especially trade cross borders as a viable alternative. Both have always be, but usually theft has out weighed trade as both the more acceptable and more common. Merchants in most cultures are just one or two steps above vagrants, and warriors, even if they are just raiders are usually one or two steps down from the nobility.
If most people think that stealing from in group is how the other guy got his, then to put it right it should be taken from him. This would be considered just. – or so Dinesh put it.
Therefore the reaction of the rabbits who see others who have and thinking that stealing from them is really just ‘recovering lost property’ or some such.
Hey Anonymous Conservative,
Please read this fascinating blog by a female psychiatrist with over 35 years of clinical experience. She views liberalism as a mental illness and has a very worthwhile analysis of the pathologies of leftists.
http://drsanity.blogspot.ca/2006/07/malignant-narcissism-sociopathic.html
It’s not particularly related to this story (per se), but it’s very relevant to the overall analysis of r/K strategies.