It's sort of bewildering (though true) that there WOULD be consequences to such an act... aside from a promotion and a nice raise, anyway. There might be a lot less people in prison if we were a little freer in shooting the ones we have there now.

I see the problem, in part, as an attorney problem. If more attorneys were inside, there would be less of them outside causing problems.

Somewhere along the way, we have lost our focus, which used to be a society as free as humanly possible, with the smallest possible government footprint, and the greatest available personal freedom, limited only by the requirement to grant this same freedom to everyone else – except those who have forfeited their rights while they serve prison time for behavior we have collectively deemed unacceptable.

Robert, of course you know that the consequence of what you propose, shooting to death unarmed men held captive, is that the society which allows such a thing is not free.

That must be why, in your response to Jason, you talk about how our goal as a people should be to live in a free and safe society with a government that does not intrude upon our personal lives.

Collette – one of the hallmarks of a good debate is the willingness to let the other person's words mean what they were intended to mean. Spin is the penultimate resort of a losing argument. The ultimate is, of course, attacking the person instead of the argument. You have not done that, and from what Jason tells me about you, you would not do so. You know well, however, that your take on my comment is displaced.

Under our constitution – a copy of which I keep on my desk and read regularly – when a citizen is sentenced to prison, he or she loses the rights normally granted by the constitution. On the other hand, the constitution specifically provides for, and prohibits other, treatment of prisoners.

The persons I referred to were not "unarmed men," but "unarmed prisoners." Furthermore, they had joined an open rebellion against the prison, which in every legal sense is an alter-ego of society. Not only was this a rebellion, it was "armed," in the sense that the prisoners used whatever they could to foment their rebellion; I am under no illusion that had they been able to acquire firearms, they would have used them to further their aims.

The bottom-line point here is that prisoners do not enjoy constitutional rights while they are prisoners, except those specifically granted by the constitution.

Not getting shot during a violent rebellion is NOT one of those rights!

In its (admirable) quest to ensure the survival of individual rights in our society, the Left has applied a fuzzy reasoning that defies logic. Let me help you out here.

* All speech is not protected. I should not need to point out specific examples of the kind of speech that cannot be allowed in a free society.

* Doing things is different from saying things. That is, for example, burning a flag is an act of behavior, not an act of speech. Sitting down in front of a moving vehicle is an act of behavior, not an act of speech. Despite the unfortunate fact that the Supreme Court has defined these things as "speech," in the real world they are not. To define them this way is to dilute the constitutional meaning of "free speech."

* Privacy is not constitutionally protected, even though the Supreme Court has leaned that way. Legislation by legal fiat does not make such action right, and certainly not constitutional.

* The constitution does not provide for "groups" within society. It addresses the federal government, state governments, and individuals, and it expressly limits what governments can do, and also specifically cascades allowed actions to lower entities, such that if a power is not specifically granted to the federal government, it automatically reverts to state governments, and unless not specifically provided for at the state level, devolves to the individual. This is completely unambiguous. All the courts have ever done here is to confuse things by inserting definitions that the founders never intended. This is not to say that the courts have a legitimate right to define something new – like radio and TV as part of "the press." But defining groups with rights the same as individuals was never intended by the founders. Yet, the Left is so focused on the rights of "Blacks," "Latinos," "Women," "Gays," etc., that it has completely lost focus on the rights of genuine individuals, without reference to their "group affiliation."

I could go on, but you get the point (I hope). Society exists for you and me, not for prisoners who have abandoned the principles of a safe and sane society, and whom we have locked up for our safety. When they then rebel against us in armed, violent conflict, or even violent conflict without the benefit or arms, we have every right to eliminate them and their threat.

My comment regarding attorneys was directed at the unfortunate reality that most attorneys are part of the so-called Intellectual Left, and consequently are frequently in the forefront of the Left's efforts to reestablish the "rights" of those who have constitutionally forfeited their rights for the duration of their interment.

One final question: If you were walking down the street with your children, and were attacked by a person obviously intent on either harming or killing them, and if you had the ability, would you kill the attacker?

Honestly, now...what is your answer?

Incidentally, Collette, if all the prisoners were to lie down on the initial order, nobody would get shot.

(And this is the entire point: the Left generally misses the main argument while getting bogged down in minutia. Please read and comment on my recent post "Through a Glass Darkly.")