I disagree, I don't know that I would take a life defending my property, but I certainly do think it is morally justifyable. A number of Biblical scriptures point towards the loss of a theif's life being on the theif rather than on the one taking his life.
Take this however you like, but although I love the Bible as much as the next guy, I am quite happy that we do not use the legal system laid out in the Old Testament. I enjoy being able to cook my meals on Sunday, and not facing the death penalty for not agreeing with my parents.
Now many in our current society frown on taking life in defense of property, but it was not always so, and to be honest the move towards such a "civilized" society has done nothing but give power to those who would do ill. Our society/government cannot protect us, and has made it clear that it has no responsibility to do so, and yet we are slowly being stripped of our "right" to do so. Taking a life to defend my property is NOT morally bankrupt, but the combination of the gov's inability to protect/defend me and its restrictions on defending myself are.
Saying that a thief on your property is a result of the government's lack of ability to protect you is as fallacious as saying that your house catching on fire is evidence of the fire department's lack of ability to put out fires. Certainly the government does not have the means to prevent every crime from occurring, but that does not give us the moral right to dismiss all other options available and proceed directly to shooting someone who means us no harm.
Further, no one is saying that you do not have a right to defend your property. One may call the police, confront the intruder, etc. I would however argue that, when faced with a person who is neither threatening yourself or others that we do not have the right to decide we are a law unto ourselves, that our property is beyond the laws and governances of the land, and that we have the moral authority to take upon ourselves the role of Judiciary and Executive and hand down a death sentence upon someone without legal trial. Granted that shooting the person may not kill them, but anytime one intentionally shoots another death is a possible consequence and thus becomes the maximum penalty.
The reason that laws were created were not to allow for the punishment of those who deface public property while allowing all crimes against a person to be decided by the self proclaimed victim. Just as you would expect to be afforded your rights to a trial by Jury, legal counsel, the opportunity to face your accuser, and the prohibition of cruel or unusual punishment, those who commit non violent crimes against you should be allowed the same benefit.
Once again I disagree, just because man's gov says that my rights are no longer valid does NOT mean that they are not. I was endowed by my creator with them, man has no "right" to take them away. For example if the Gov or some other group wants to take away our guns, and those other forms of resistance fail (which certainly seem to have been happening over the last 50 years) then I can certainly say that violent resistance would seem to be in order.
The Declaration of Independence states that governments should only be removed, "
when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism." Call me a liberal or an anti gunner, but if freedom of speech exists and free elections are being held then I don't know that a gun ban, implemented by said popular government, would qualify as "absolute despotism". In any case, the founders only started shooting once their lives were threatened on Lexington green, which goes back to my original argument that one is justified in shooting when preserving their life (I'm of the opinion the British shot first).
If you can't do something smart ........ do something right!
Jayne Cobb and Shepard Book, an excellent film!
