🚀 go-pugleaf

<jsc3@dontspamme.havoc.gtf.gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:8d75qg$fhb$2@news-int.gatech.edu...
> ->> That explains a lot - The People's Republic of Massachussetts,
where
> ->> I think one is legally required to flee his or her own house if
possible
> ->> rather than stand his or her ground and defend should he or she so
choose.
> That's not precisely my point.  My point is the laws up there require
> you to leave if possible, but most people would disagree with that
concept
> where I came from.  Violently, if necessary.

It's actually illegal to defend one's home against an intruder? I
thought California was screwed up.

> You seem like a (mostly) reasonable peace loving person.  That is
great,
> it would be great if all or even most people were as peace loving as
you
> are.  However, history and the facts (and nature) have ensured this is
> not the case.  That is why I and many others choose to retain the
option
> of defending ourselves, even against our government...
                          ^^^^

You misspelled "especially."

--
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Brandon Berg $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
             Capitalist Pig and Godless Heretic

Armed people are free. No state can control those who have
the machinery and the will to resist; no mob can take their
liberty and property. --L. Neil Smith