you're taking this massively outside of the context OP is stating.
He's not stating all of his premise on the context of corrupt democrat controlled government.
Not trusting the government to deliver justice by definition means that you are also saying that you do not trust a patriot government to deliver justice to evil people and communists when the situation arises (NCSWIC). A military controlled government is still a government.
you're getting your panties in a knot over you taking OP's point out of context.
SSConservativePride does have a point though, and I understand where he's coming from.
Point 1:
Men who pay for abortions should be executed by the government. Funding an abortion is no different from hiring a hitman to remove an "inconvenient" person.
I think everyone agrees with.
Point 2:
A law that mandates death for those who fund abortions is a critical step to Save Our Children.
While related, is a completely separate point. I think he is simply saying if you focus on the first one, your thread would have much more productive discussion. I don't think he's arguing against the second point at all really (I agree with you OP), but that it's hindering discussion on the first point because you've attached the two together.
you're taking this massively outside of the context OP is stating.
He's not stating all of his premise on the context of corrupt democrat controlled government.
Not trusting the government to deliver justice by definition means that you are also saying that you do not trust a patriot government to deliver justice to evil people and communists when the situation arises (NCSWIC). A military controlled government is still a government.
you're getting your panties in a knot over you taking OP's point out of context.
SSConservativePride does have a point though, and I understand where he's coming from.
Point 1:
I think everyone agrees with.
Point 2:
While related, is a completely separate point. I think he is simply saying if you focus on the first one, your thread would have much more productive discussion. I don't think he's arguing against the second point at all really (I agree with you OP), but that it's hindering discussion on the first point because you've attached the two together.