I think it's people like you that are a big part of the problem. Too lazy even to get out and vote against your own death
I don't care who you are, THAT's funny right there! If my coughing/laughing/choking fit had lasted 10 seconds longer, you would have been guilty of manslaughter. I just wish you hadn't posted anonymously!
Naw, you don't want to move here. I'm Canadian, and we've got similar problems to your own nation, if not worse. Our large cities hate the US, hate western civilization, and take every chance to defend savagery and barbarism in the name of "tolerance". Our federal government constantly seeks to take away our rights to defend ourselves. Our courts seek to impose speech codes for political expression in the name of stopping "hate speech". The good news is there are still plenty of us fighting the good fight. We're not ready to go the way of England and France quite yet.
I wanted to respond to you. I really, really did. But by the time I finished reading all that, I had lost all hope of ever getting through to you. I'm sorry. I hope that your hippie-wonderland lasts at least long enough for you to live out your life in peace. Nobody deserves to suffer just for being a hopeless idealist.
In other words, the only part of it that could be made really strong is the fingers. So it could squeeze a brick to powder, but it couldn't lift much more than an average human arm. That makes sense. It'd be a neat party trick, but not much use in the real world.
All present Western states are welfare states, to greater or lesser degree (yes, even the USA). Most are in fact quite open about that. This is inevitable in a true democracy - the government has to ensure some reasonable (for varying definitions of "reasonable") life level for the majority, or else the people will simply vote them out.
Not really - a properly set up capitalist democracy would include in it's constitution some sort of limit on taxation.
But you're largely right, since no western nations ever made such provisions. The main problem today is that our definition of "reasonable" has changed. When you define "poor" as those people who own a car, fridge, TV and dvd player, but can't afford a second car, well, you're certainly not being reasonable. The "poor" in the US would be considered middle-class in most of the middle-east, and friggin' rich in most of Africa! At that point you have crossed the line from "welfare state" and started drifting toward communism. And this is what needs to be stopped. For all intents and purposes there are no truly "poor" people in the western world any more, so why are there still groups advocating for their rights? More importantly, why are there more people "fighting poverty" today than there have been in the past? There's a perfectly good explanation: because these people understand capitalism perfectly well, and have turned "poverty" into their own private industry. Why try to accomplish something productive with your life, when history has shown you that getting the government to dole out money is so much easier?
By the way, your response was the only intelligent one I've seen, so don't take my disagreement with you personally. I'm glad at least someone around here is able to put together a coherent argument.
Like the previous deals on nuclear power, this is an attempt to bribe India away from getting too friendly with China and Iran, and buying U.S. arms instead of Russian. Science has nothing to do with it.
I can't beleive that got modded insightful.
I hate to jump on the bandwagon, but, as others have pointed out, there is exactly zero chance of India and China being friendly any time soon. And, secondly, while I understand that it's considered "cool" these days to assign eeeevil motives to all US interactions with other nations, not EVERYTHING has to be about warfare and power. For fucks sakes, we should all be excited about the fact that for the first time in history, a nation other than Russia is capable of rivalling the US space effort! And other nations are close behind! This is an AWESOME time to be alive! We're going to see cooperation and competition in new frontiers! And all you can think is "aw, it's those damn yanks trying to take over the world again"? What's WRONG with you???
His hope springs from the fact that there are others in this world who are aware that the only way to keep tyranny at bay is to be prepared to fight it. "Si vis Pacem? Parabellum!".
Your Orwellian rant is the speech of a man who expects always to be in the majority, and expects others to protect him if he's not. While your attitude may serve you in a pluralist democracy, it hinges on the existence of the men whom you despise - men who understand that vigilance is not just a necessary evil, but a way of life.
Vigilance and self defence do not mean having a private arsenal in a concrete bunker, and being paranoid of anyone who comes near you. They DO mean keeping informed of the world around you, being ready to defend yourself and others, and seeking to cultivate similar attitudes in those around you. It can be as simple as starting a neighbourhood watch, or as complex as organizing an armed neighbourhood militia to defend your streets, as some of your fellow citizens had to do recently in Louisiana. Ask yourself, how well could you provide for your family tomorrow if a New Orleans scale disaster hit your city? Only fools and sheep depend on others for their defence. It's YOUR life! Protect it!
Try again. They were created to fight Soviet Russia. We provided them--along with a bunch of other anti-Soviet forces--with weapons.
No, they weren't, and no, "we" didn't. Osama created Al Qaeda AFTER the Afghan-Russian war. And "we" never provided funding for Al Qaeda, nor did "we" provide funding for any of the foreign fighters in Afghanistan - the CIA only funded the indigent fighters.
First you tell me that you haven't studied up on Afghanistan, and then you try to give me a history lesson? You've got some gall!
Re: my sig, the people at the Boston Tea party were "terrorists".
Throwing tea in a harbour is terrorism in your book? Are you out of your fucking mind?
At worst they were thieves who destroyed a lot of private property. At best, they were practising civil disobedience. Either way, their actions in no way constituted terrorism. And the fighters who fought against the brits? They fought against the British ARMY. They didn't kill civilians. They didn't behead reporters. They certainly didn't institute draconian religious rule, or send suicide bombers into marketplaces. Hell, they even wore uniforms! Comparing the war for US independence to terrorists is like saying US Marines are the same as Nazi Stormtroopers. It's fucking ridiculous, although the outright absurdity of such comparisons never seems to stop people from making them. Usually I write such people off as a lost cause, but you're pushing all the right buttons today.
But go ahead--go back to painting me as a mindless liberal.
I don't give a damn what your political affiliations are. There are stubborn fools in every political party who seem to think that personal indignation is a good replacement for information and intelligence.
What the fuck nationality are you, anyway? Not enough subtlety or language skills to be a Brit. Aussie, perhaps? Expat former American?
Not that it's any of your business, but I'm an expat from the Balkans. Moved to the west in 1990. I'm separated from you by the 49th parallel. I've considered moving south a few times, but so far I've had too much loyalty to the nation which gave me a second chance.
Apparently you're the kind of person who would have done nothing when the Nazis went to the ghettos and started their genocide, because they weren't coming for you. THis isn't about football or religion, but something worse.
I was reading your comment, thinking how you're getting such a raw-deal by being modded "Flamebait".....and then I hit this part:
I'll leave it to you to try and figure what that is, although I kind of doubt you lack the mental equipment that sort of introspection will require.
And then I giggled. And laughed. And almost fell out of my chair.
I think you only got modded flamebait because there's no "+1 OMG That's Hilariously Ironic" tag:) Remember, proof-read twice, post once. You'll avoid looking like a silly bastard.
That's why the U.S. sticks people in jail (or at least requires you to be unarmed in court) *before* handing down a death penalty. Less messy.
Just a counterexample to the idea that all people have an inalienable right to life.
The death penalty is handed out for truly horrendous crimes. Even just a single murder is unlikely to get you the death sentence - you have to kill, rape, and/or mutilate multiple people to even be considered for that particular "award". Those who have shown themselves willing to repeatedly take lives without reason can not be allowed to live in a civilized society.
Even so, most civilized nations have chosen to get rid of the death penalty entirely. I don't care much one way or the other. I didn't say that the state never has the right to take a life - only that those so targeted have a right to defend themselves. The first part of that defence takes place in a court of law. If, in addition to that, a convicted death row inmate were to fight back against his guards and executioners, I certainly wouldn't hold it against him. If you're going to die anyway, die in a manner of your choosing!
I didn't say that. I said Osama led and presented them as such to the royal family of Saudi Arabia.
That's nice. And Hitler presented the death-camps as "relocation centres", while Chamberlain presented his treaty as a guarantee of peace. Since when have silly claims represented reality?
Al Qaeda was formed as an extremist religious militia from the get-go. They weren't created to fight Sadam, they were created to amass power for Osama, and force the world to kneel at the feet of Islam. That they chose to take the side of Saudi Arabia against Iraq is utterly irrelevant. You bring it up as if it should be some horrifying revelation. I respond with a shrug of the shoulders, and the phrase "so what?".
Stop pretending every single anti-war advocate has the same opinions.
If that was supposed to be a refutation of my point, it failed miserably. All you're telling me is that no matter what the US does there will be some "anti-war" group that's pissed off about it. In other words, "damned if you do, damned if you don't".
What the hell? I'm not allowed to bitch about a law up until SOMEONE IS PUT TO DEATH UNDER THAT LAW?? Think about what you just said there for a moment.
Fine, let me modify my statement: bitch all you want, just don't expect to be taken seriously.
Most people looking at the situation understand that it is most likely a ploy to put pressure on that poor bastards brother. Nobody actually expects the execution to occur. But even if it does, so what? It's unfortunate, yes, and we should do what we can to try and show them why their actions are wrong, but in the end, it's THEIR society, and we can only do so much. Only an utter idiot would expect Afghanistan to go from a medival Theocratic dictatorship to a modern pluralist democracy overnight. Or over 6 years for that matter. We don't even expect IRAQ to become an overnight success story, and Iraq was WAY ahead of Afghanistan. Change takes time, that's a fact of life. Your hysterics aren't going to make things get better any faster.
Like the rest of the country, I haven't been keeping up Afghanistan
Once again, that much is obvious. Maybe you should educate yourself a bit before beaking off?
Also... are you SURE you're not an American?
Yep. Are you SURE that you ARE an American?
Oh, and I just LOVE your tag-line. Terrorists protect people from the government, huh? Yep, Osama Bin Laden and Timmothy McVeigh did an awesome job of protecting people. Although the latter only "protected" 168 people, while the former "protected" almost 3,000!
You're one of those idiots who think that putting a "This is a Gun Free Home" sticker in their front window is a good idea, aren't you? A real bumper-sticker-thinker!
So why not clue me in? Why not confront the FACTS contained in my post and give me your interpretation of them?
Because your facts are inaccurate and misleading (such as the bit about Al Qaeda being an anti-sadam militia), and your entire rant seems to have no purpose other than to vent your personal frustration.
I will, however, point out that before the war everyone was bitching that the US intended to install a "puppet government" in order to secure their interests in the area. Now that the freely elected government is on the verge of violating basic human rights codes, you're bitching that the US allowed such a government to come about. It's pretty much a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't".
And, lastly, you're getting your panties tangled over nothing. A similar case came up before, and resolved itself in a civilized manner. If they actually end up executing this guy, then you might have a reason to bitch. Until then, you're just noise on the line.
You're implying that the minority has an inherent right to protect itself via violence from the outcome of a vote.
That's absolutely correct. I don't much care if the whole nation votes unanimously to kill me, I'm still going to defend myself until I run out of ammo.
I apologize for not making myself clear. I was being facetious while attempting a bit of sarcasm.
Oh, you were quite clear. I was also being facetious/sarcastic.
The U.S. auto industry has been pandering to what the people in this country want, which is not necessarily a good thing.
Err....I really don't know what to say to that. You've taken the main advantage of a free-market economy, and are attempting to say it's a bad thing? Oh. Ok. So, we should encourage our companies to make products nobody wants. Great idea.
Government intervention in the auto industry may have precluded a blood-for-oil war that we have been waging since 2003.
Blood for oil? Right. You've just signed away your right to ever be taken seriously.
but I still think unfettered capitalism has shown itself to be potentially very dangerous.
In other words, "I'm too incompetent to defend my ideals in a free society. Please give me an dictatorship to oppress all those who disagree with me".
And police *do* use rifles. The RCMP training in Canada, for example, includes proficiency with the 9mm pistol, the shotgun, and the.22cal rifle. (and before you say that a.22 isn't enough, know that the standard military rifle, an M16 in the US and a C7A2 in Canada, shoots 5.56mm rounds, which is about.223 calibre)
What the...
You were sounding really knowledgeable up to that point. I was nodding along, enjoying your post, and then *WHAM* you slam me with that stinker. Thanks a lot!
There are several massive differences between a.22 cal and 5.56mm NATO rounds. For example:
1) The largest available.22LR bullet weighs 60 grains, and most are much less - roughly 35 grains or so. The NATO 5.56 is a 62 grain bullet.
2) 5.56 mm rounds have about 3 times the powder as a.22LR round.
3) The muzzle velocity of a.22LR round is about 1,200 fps. 5.56mm rounds leave the muzzle at a speed of about 2,800 fps.
The end result of all these little differences? Your typical.22 round packs a punch of about 191 Joules, while a 5.56mm NATO round packs about 1,775 Joules. That's a HUGE difference.
Oh, and another thing:
The bulk of its killing power comes from the tremendous kinetic energy that the round carries, and from the fact that supersonic rounds tend to disintegrate on impact, dispersing all of the kinetic energy into its target.
The 5.56mm NATO round is designed specifically to cut through a victim cleanly and efficiently. It does not "disintegrate" on impact, and it certainly doesn't disperse all of it's energy into the target. It is in fact designed to wound, not kill, and that's one of the big complaints that the boys have been making over in the ghan. With the 5.56, you're unlikely to get a kill unless you hit a vital area, or you spray the bastard on full auto and get enough hits to put him down permanently. While this isn't a problem (and can actually be beneficial) when fighting conventional forces, it's a bit of a problem when you're shooting at suicidal maniacs who are hopped up on all sorts of drugs.
Ah, but you see, that's how the Zionist Space Lizards operate! That's why the 9/11 "truth" retards can, with a straight face, claim that the Project for a New American Century published a report containing their plans for global domination, as well as their intention to carry out the 9/11 attacks. Because, as we all know, the NWO always publish all their evil plans on the internet before they actually carry them out.
And now, we have in the USA a bunch of social programs to help those downtrodden. Did we have those prior the New Deal?
You're saying this as if anyone should be happy about the New Deal.
If one is without possessions, money, vehicle, or a reasonably safe place to stay, how does one make money?
By getting a job? The same goddamn way that 99% of our ancestors did when they first moved to a new, barely explored continent? Listen to you! If we're to believe in your ideology, then the North American continent could never have been settled! None of the settlers had pre-fabricated homes, very few had any money, they had only meagre possessions, and they certainly didn't have any vehicles!
Person X is normally in good health, in 30's and in a marriage with 1 child. Person X receives nasty disease in which cure exists. However, disease was not caught in time and now requires hospitalization and double dosage of cure drug.
Does or does not a government have a responsibility to ensure reasonable care of said individual?
In a communist or socialist society, yes. In a capitalist society, absolutely not. That's why capitalism encourages prosperity, while socialism encourages stagnation.
It's not only capitalism vs communism by the way, you see the same results any time you have a society based on personal achievement vs one based on a lack of personal accountability and victimhood. Look at Israel vs Palestine (hell, Israel vs ANY of their neighbours), or North Korea vs South Korea. I know it probably seems monumentally unfair to you that people have to actually work hard in order to achieve anything, but nobody ever said life was fair. Someones sense of entitlement does not give them a right to take away my property.
Says who? Who appointed you and vested you with the power to decide what the basis of a capitalist economy is?
Well, I own a dictionary, whereas you apparently do not. This makes me more qualified to speak about the meaning of words. I suggest you check out www.dictionary.com for details.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I know, but I'm allowed to make exceptions once in a while :)
Naw, you don't want to move here. I'm Canadian, and we've got similar problems to your own nation, if not worse. Our large cities hate the US, hate western civilization, and take every chance to defend savagery and barbarism in the name of "tolerance". Our federal government constantly seeks to take away our rights to defend ourselves. Our courts seek to impose speech codes for political expression in the name of stopping "hate speech". The good news is there are still plenty of us fighting the good fight. We're not ready to go the way of England and France quite yet.
I wanted to respond to you. I really, really did. But by the time I finished reading all that, I had lost all hope of ever getting through to you. I'm sorry. I hope that your hippie-wonderland lasts at least long enough for you to live out your life in peace. Nobody deserves to suffer just for being a hopeless idealist.
In other words, the only part of it that could be made really strong is the fingers. So it could squeeze a brick to powder, but it couldn't lift much more than an average human arm. That makes sense. It'd be a neat party trick, but not much use in the real world.
But you're largely right, since no western nations ever made such provisions. The main problem today is that our definition of "reasonable" has changed. When you define "poor" as those people who own a car, fridge, TV and dvd player, but can't afford a second car, well, you're certainly not being reasonable. The "poor" in the US would be considered middle-class in most of the middle-east, and friggin' rich in most of Africa! At that point you have crossed the line from "welfare state" and started drifting toward communism. And this is what needs to be stopped. For all intents and purposes there are no truly "poor" people in the western world any more, so why are there still groups advocating for their rights? More importantly, why are there more people "fighting poverty" today than there have been in the past? There's a perfectly good explanation: because these people understand capitalism perfectly well, and have turned "poverty" into their own private industry. Why try to accomplish something productive with your life, when history has shown you that getting the government to dole out money is so much easier?
By the way, your response was the only intelligent one I've seen, so don't take my disagreement with you personally. I'm glad at least someone around here is able to put together a coherent argument.
I hate to jump on the bandwagon, but, as others have pointed out, there is exactly zero chance of India and China being friendly any time soon. And, secondly, while I understand that it's considered "cool" these days to assign eeeevil motives to all US interactions with other nations, not EVERYTHING has to be about warfare and power. For fucks sakes, we should all be excited about the fact that for the first time in history, a nation other than Russia is capable of rivalling the US space effort! And other nations are close behind! This is an AWESOME time to be alive! We're going to see cooperation and competition in new frontiers! And all you can think is "aw, it's those damn yanks trying to take over the world again"? What's WRONG with you???
His hope springs from the fact that there are others in this world who are aware that the only way to keep tyranny at bay is to be prepared to fight it. "Si vis Pacem? Parabellum!".
Your Orwellian rant is the speech of a man who expects always to be in the majority, and expects others to protect him if he's not. While your attitude may serve you in a pluralist democracy, it hinges on the existence of the men whom you despise - men who understand that vigilance is not just a necessary evil, but a way of life.
Vigilance and self defence do not mean having a private arsenal in a concrete bunker, and being paranoid of anyone who comes near you. They DO mean keeping informed of the world around you, being ready to defend yourself and others, and seeking to cultivate similar attitudes in those around you. It can be as simple as starting a neighbourhood watch, or as complex as organizing an armed neighbourhood militia to defend your streets, as some of your fellow citizens had to do recently in Louisiana. Ask yourself, how well could you provide for your family tomorrow if a New Orleans scale disaster hit your city? Only fools and sheep depend on others for their defence. It's YOUR life! Protect it!
First you tell me that you haven't studied up on Afghanistan, and then you try to give me a history lesson? You've got some gall!
Throwing tea in a harbour is terrorism in your book? Are you out of your fucking mind?
At worst they were thieves who destroyed a lot of private property. At best, they were practising civil disobedience. Either way, their actions in no way constituted terrorism. And the fighters who fought against the brits? They fought against the British ARMY. They didn't kill civilians. They didn't behead reporters. They certainly didn't institute draconian religious rule, or send suicide bombers into marketplaces. Hell, they even wore uniforms! Comparing the war for US independence to terrorists is like saying US Marines are the same as Nazi Stormtroopers. It's fucking ridiculous, although the outright absurdity of such comparisons never seems to stop people from making them. Usually I write such people off as a lost cause, but you're pushing all the right buttons today.
I don't give a damn what your political affiliations are. There are stubborn fools in every political party who seem to think that personal indignation is a good replacement for information and intelligence. Not that it's any of your business, but I'm an expat from the Balkans. Moved to the west in 1990. I'm separated from you by the 49th parallel. I've considered moving south a few times, but so far I've had too much loyalty to the nation which gave me a second chance.
And then I giggled. And laughed. And almost fell out of my chair.
I think you only got modded flamebait because there's no "+1 OMG That's Hilariously Ironic" tag
Even so, most civilized nations have chosen to get rid of the death penalty entirely. I don't care much one way or the other. I didn't say that the state never has the right to take a life - only that those so targeted have a right to defend themselves. The first part of that defence takes place in a court of law. If, in addition to that, a convicted death row inmate were to fight back against his guards and executioners, I certainly wouldn't hold it against him. If you're going to die anyway, die in a manner of your choosing!
Al Qaeda was formed as an extremist religious militia from the get-go. They weren't created to fight Sadam, they were created to amass power for Osama, and force the world to kneel at the feet of Islam. That they chose to take the side of Saudi Arabia against Iraq is utterly irrelevant. You bring it up as if it should be some horrifying revelation. I respond with a shrug of the shoulders, and the phrase "so what?". If that was supposed to be a refutation of my point, it failed miserably. All you're telling me is that no matter what the US does there will be some "anti-war" group that's pissed off about it. In other words, "damned if you do, damned if you don't".
Fine, let me modify my statement: bitch all you want, just don't expect to be taken seriously.
Most people looking at the situation understand that it is most likely a ploy to put pressure on that poor bastards brother. Nobody actually expects the execution to occur. But even if it does, so what? It's unfortunate, yes, and we should do what we can to try and show them why their actions are wrong, but in the end, it's THEIR society, and we can only do so much. Only an utter idiot would expect Afghanistan to go from a medival Theocratic dictatorship to a modern pluralist democracy overnight. Or over 6 years for that matter. We don't even expect IRAQ to become an overnight success story, and Iraq was WAY ahead of Afghanistan. Change takes time, that's a fact of life. Your hysterics aren't going to make things get better any faster. Once again, that much is obvious. Maybe you should educate yourself a bit before beaking off?
Yep. Are you SURE that you ARE an American?
Oh, and I just LOVE your tag-line. Terrorists protect people from the government, huh? Yep, Osama Bin Laden and Timmothy McVeigh did an awesome job of protecting people. Although the latter only "protected" 168 people, while the former "protected" almost 3,000!
You're one of those idiots who think that putting a "This is a Gun Free Home" sticker in their front window is a good idea, aren't you? A real bumper-sticker-thinker!
I will, however, point out that before the war everyone was bitching that the US intended to install a "puppet government" in order to secure their interests in the area. Now that the freely elected government is on the verge of violating basic human rights codes, you're bitching that the US allowed such a government to come about. It's pretty much a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't".
And, lastly, you're getting your panties tangled over nothing. A similar case came up before, and resolved itself in a civilized manner. If they actually end up executing this guy, then you might have a reason to bitch. Until then, you're just noise on the line.
rofl
I imagine that sig is going to get you some interesting responses in the future. Good luck!
Err....I really don't know what to say to that. You've taken the main advantage of a free-market economy, and are attempting to say it's a bad thing? Oh. Ok. So, we should encourage our companies to make products nobody wants. Great idea.
Blood for oil? Right. You've just signed away your right to ever be taken seriously.
In other words, "I'm too incompetent to defend my ideals in a free society. Please give me an dictatorship to oppress all those who disagree with me".
Nice. Real nice.
Yes, it has, but what's that got to do with broadband? The internet is a series of tubes, not a series of roads!
Gives a whole new meaning to "getting boned"!
You were sounding really knowledgeable up to that point. I was nodding along, enjoying your post, and then *WHAM* you slam me with that stinker. Thanks a lot!
There are several massive differences between a
1) The largest available
2) 5.56 mm rounds have about 3 times the powder as a
3) The muzzle velocity of a
The end result of all these little differences? Your typical
Oh, and another thing:
The 5.56mm NATO round is designed specifically to cut through a victim cleanly and efficiently. It does not "disintegrate" on impact, and it certainly doesn't disperse all of it's energy into the target. It is in fact designed to wound, not kill, and that's one of the big complaints that the boys have been making over in the ghan. With the 5.56, you're unlikely to get a kill unless you hit a vital area, or you spray the bastard on full auto and get enough hits to put him down permanently. While this isn't a problem (and can actually be beneficial) when fighting conventional forces, it's a bit of a problem when you're shooting at suicidal maniacs who are hopped up on all sorts of drugs.
Well, 1) Your analysis is based on bad assumptions, so your result is way off. and 2) You're a sick bastard for fucking a horse.
Ah, but you see, that's how the Zionist Space Lizards operate! That's why the 9/11 "truth" retards can, with a straight face, claim that the Project for a New American Century published a report containing their plans for global domination, as well as their intention to carry out the 9/11 attacks. Because, as we all know, the NWO always publish all their evil plans on the internet before they actually carry them out.
By getting a job? The same goddamn way that 99% of our ancestors did when they first moved to a new, barely explored continent? Listen to you! If we're to believe in your ideology, then the North American continent could never have been settled! None of the settlers had pre-fabricated homes, very few had any money, they had only meagre possessions, and they certainly didn't have any vehicles!
In a communist or socialist society, yes. In a capitalist society, absolutely not. That's why capitalism encourages prosperity, while socialism encourages stagnation.
It's not only capitalism vs communism by the way, you see the same results any time you have a society based on personal achievement vs one based on a lack of personal accountability and victimhood. Look at Israel vs Palestine (hell, Israel vs ANY of their neighbours), or North Korea vs South Korea. I know it probably seems monumentally unfair to you that people have to actually work hard in order to achieve anything, but nobody ever said life was fair. Someones sense of entitlement does not give them a right to take away my property.