Chris Kyle Murdered

[WalkingWolf]

I'm glad to see my phraseology had the desired effect.

What affect? Weakening your own heart, and jeopardizing your own health because of stress from a internet forum? JMHO but you are wound to tight.

 

[marshaul]

What affect? Weakening your own heart, and jeopardizing your own health because of stress from a internet forum? JMHO but you are wound to tight.

You're missing the point. That I write a post which is intended to come across as breathless reflects nothing about how "tight" I'm wound.

 

[marshaul]

No the empire has not.

One would need step back from material concerns and see that the empire is not restricting your liberty....too much. I am in complete agreement regarding the burden the government places on us today to exercise our liberties to the maximum extent possible under the law. But I do not concede the point that we as citizens have no choice what so ever in this matter, or that events have given us no other options.

I have no restrictions place upon me regarding the movement of my property, such as firearms.

If you do not speed then a speed trap will not affect you. or learn where speed traps are typically set and avoid them.

I do not use fly.

I make do as best I can given this economy, and I vote. I work to inform my neighbors regarding the economy. Once they are informed they typically reject Big Government and they too will vote.

Zoning regulations are of little concern to me at this time. In the future, who knows.

I tend to focus my energies on concerns that are closer to home.

To each their own.

I don't give a whit what's "of concern" to you. All of the things I mentioned provide real impediments to people wishing to move.

Basically, the position you're in is, "if you don't like it, you should move."

So I say (hypothetically), "no, I can't move, there are too many impediments to moving."

And you respond, "well, none of those things are of concern to me."

But then, you're not moving, are you? So why should they be of concern?

I also find it amusing that, in discounting all my concerns, you left the potential mover with no option but to walk.

In case you haven't figured it out, people don't walk. Even back at the time of the founding, people would have moved furniture and goods via wagon or ship, and needed no special dispensation to do so. Now, the public thoroughfares have been co-opted for exclusive use by motor vehicles (and bicycles in some places), which, thanks to our benevolent SCOTUS, we have no right to drive, as they have decided that the freedom to walk is plenty freedom enough – anything more and you'd better ask permission, boy. Which leaves us in a state of considerably less freedom than at the time of the founding (even as our SCOTUS tries to convince us that nobody ever traveled anywhere but by foot).

There is no way that you can reasonably argue that the right to move remains intact. At every turn, in every possible way that end might be pursued, one must seek privilege. Unless, that is, you're willing to accept that your right to self-defense entails nothing more than the ability to use your own two hands – no weapons allowed.

 

[georg jetson]

I don't give a whit what's "of concern" to you. All of the things I mentioned provide real impediments to people wishing to move.

Basically, the position you're in is, "if you don't like it, you should move."

So I say (hypothetically), "no, I can't move, there are too many impediments to moving."

And you respond, "well, none of those things are of concern to me."

But then, you're not moving, are you? So why should they be of concern?

I also find it amusing that, in discounting all my concerns, you left the potential mover with no option but to walk.

In case you haven't figured it out, people don't walk. Even back at the time of the founding, people would have moved furniture and goods via wagon or ship, and needed no special dispensation to do so. Now, the public thoroughfares have been co-opted for exclusive use by motor vehicles (and bicycles in some places), which, thanks to our benevolent SCOTUS, we have no right to drive, as they have decided that the freedom to walk is plenty freedom enough – anything more and you'd better ask permission, boy. Which leaves us in a state of considerably less freedom than at the time of the founding (even as our SCOTUS tries to convince us that nobody ever traveled anywhere but by foot).

There is no way that you can reasonably argue that the right to move remains intact. At every turn, in every possible way that end might be pursued, one must seek privilege. Unless, that is, you're willing to accept that your right to self-defense entails nothing more than the ability to use your own two hands – no weapons allowed.

Very well said!

 

[B0wman]

We are all free to leave if we so desire.

Why should we be the one's to leave? The government doesn't own this land; the people do.

Or is every property owner in the US just a renter to Washington, DC?

Sorry, I hear this line over and over, and it drives me nuts. :banghead:

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Why should we be the one's to leave? The government doesn't own this land; the people do.

Or is every property owner in the US just a renter to Washington, DC?

Sorry, I hear this line over and over, and it drives me nuts. :banghead:

What gives you the right to own any land?

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

What gives you the right to own any land?

What gives the government the right to own any land?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

What gives the government the right to own any land?

don't hi-jack my question, what gives YOU the right to own land?

 

[Grapeshot]

don't hi-jack my question, what gives YOU the right to own land?

This thread is being hi-jacked by off topic discussion.

Are we done with the "Chris Kyle Murdered" subject?

 

[B0wman]

What gives you the right to own any land?

It sure as $*&# isn't the government!

This thread is being hi-jacked by off topic discussion.

Are we done with the "Chris Kyle Murdered" subject?

Agreed. I'm done.

 

[Grapeshot]

This is the last I've heard regarding the shooting.

FORT WORTH, TexasThe Iraq War veteran charged with killing a former Navy SEAL sniper and his friend on a Texas shooting range had been taken to a mental hospital twice in the past five months and told authorities that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, police records show.

Eddie Ray Routh, 25, also told his sister and brother-in-law after the shootings that he "traded his soul for a new truck," according to an Erath County arrest warrant affidavit obtained by WFAA-TV. Police said that Routh was driving the truck of victim and ex-Navy SEAL Chris Kyle at the time of arrest.

Routh drove to his sister's house, and told her that he killed two people and that he planned to drive to Oklahoma to evade Texas authorities, the affidavit said. Routh's sister then called police, and he was arrested after a short police pursuit in Lancaster.

http://everythinglubbock.com/fulltext?nxd_id=154232