I don't think breaking into a house to use the phone in an emergency, or take shelter in a storm is even considered a crime, and as long as the taker makes restitution, it may not be immoral. If the homeowner is home, they might even donate the item--it's our contention that most people would want to help--and if they didn't, they wouldn't bother to dial the government at 911 and you'd have a bigger problem.
I have no trouble making the argument to liberals that if the goal is to erase guns from the face of the earth, that we should first eliminate nuclear weapons, stop the wars, and disarm criminals. To disarm the law-abiding, peace-keeping people, before one disarms the war-making and criminal elements, doesn't make any sense.
And liberals, especially, should be concerned about the People being able to protect their civil rights against our government or someone else's, and for women and the disabled to be able to go toe to toe with a linebacker, if the need arises.
I want to cut government spending and gouging, and I want non-majority-dominated healthcare and healthcare freedom, and I think it's a great idea to reintroduce it in phases. Incrementalism is bad when it goes against one, but our ally when it works in the correct direction.
What do you think? http://consequeries.com/
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: