Right On!!!!
Go Teddy!!!!!!!

You're hung up on the words "murder" and "over kill". So you should only stop a predator if their abusing your own child? Or you shouldn't stop any of them?

There is no logic in removing a predator? Only emotional?

Nugent was not talking about defending his own child at the time of abuse; and even then murder is not appropriate, necessary or just.

You are wrong. "Justice" is judging but treating another person appropriately; overkill is never just. You need to correct such views which will, in turn, temper your emotions. (E.g. Nugent's 'overkill' is purely emotional.)

An adult who is abusing a child IS initiating force, abusing their power to do harm to a child. I have just as much of a right to defend myself against initiated harm to myself by another as I do to defend my child from the same, that's my job as a parent. To protect my children. That is not 'murder', it's defending an innocent life from a predator. Are you defending a child molester's right to molest with no possibility of parental interference? Who exactly are you trying to defend here? If walked in on someone doing the unspeakable to your child what would you do? (If you don't have children, don't even attempt to answer that.)

It is justice, something the courts rarely provide

Murdering someone who molests a child is not a right, is overkill (no pun intended), is initiation and is not truly self-defense.

And don't forget the slaves. After all, there were laws that said slavery was legal.

This is what happens when laws are supreme. That is why America has (or had) individual rights as supreme.

And homosexuals, the Romani, etc...

Some would say, "Every law needs to be obeyed without question."
Just ask Jewish people.

Not intiate it. To defend himself against it. What are you talking about? He said nothing of being in favor of initiating force.

I agree. I was replying to a comment about having to obey laws...

He simply is willing to initiate force where it is unnecessary.

On the death penalty I have only one concern - how often are people wrongly convicted? I like the phrasing "beyond a shadow of a doubt".

But look at the judgement of the average voter? Do you trust their uncorrectable evaluation of fact and ambiguity.

Just consider people with competing religious certainty. All the need is some objective ethical standards that are a science rather than a mystical certainty like in the crusades, inquisition and now Islamic totalitarianism.

Half right Ted Nugent...

Yes on right to defend oneself. Well said.

No on blowing the brains out if someone you think is doing harm where it can be simply stopped and handled through those charged with objectively determining fact and applying retaliatory force. That is not an act of self defense.

The police and courts are the appropriate way to avoid arbitrary and subjective abuse of others. Contrast that with resorting to dueling where the outcome had nothing to do with the merits of the conflicting positions. Is that what Nugent wants?

I wasn't referring to the death penalty... different topic.
But.. as a child I had a close friend who was murdered while fishing with his cousin. Both were murdered by a creep just released from prison. Do you think I believe in the death penalty?

I think it happens all the time. No one talks about it.

" What if the law says you can't defend yourself?"

I say screw the law. I have a right to exist that no law can counter. Just as I have no right to force someone else, I do not accept anyone's right to force me. Read the oath...

"It is MY right to defend my life. The State has nothing to do with it."
Absolutely. I was responding only to the comment about the death penalty, not someone using potentially lethal force to defend himself or others.

So simple yet so true.

It is MY right to defend my life. The State has nothing to do with it.

Is it the state's right to kill criminals or people's right to live in a state empowered to kill criminals?

The right to defend your life, or your child's life is not an emotion... It's a RIGHT.

But that's the point. What if the law says you can't defend yourself?? How did he go beyond defending rights?