« Congressman: Obama's Seat Must Be Filled by Black | Main | Photographic Evidence of Reincarnation »

Moonbats: Making activism look silly since 1968.

"...it is up to the property owner to take action to remove those individuals."

With an AR-15 converted to full auto or a pump action shotgun?

Homes for the homeless - How could anyone be against that???? The libs will stoop to anything....

Next thing you know we will be putting high fences around our property with locks on our gas-tanks!!!!

I have a friend who thinks that if the economy gets real bad, the soup lines from 1929 will be replaced by the government giving out vouchers for dollar meals at Micky-Dees....

Like Mr. Snarky Joe Plugs said:

Gird your loins!!! This will only get worse....

GOP Mike

Name, the AR-15 is over the top. I recommend a Remington 870 Express. Holds 7 shells. Inexpensive, reliable and very effective.

The squatter problem is directly related to the failure of our schools. People have no logic or critical thinking skills.

You (Mr. or Ms. Joe [or Josephine] taxpayer...I'm being VERY politically correct and gender neutral today] have to pay for a home, pay your property tax, live up to building and safety codes, pay fees, fines, upkeep...as well as take care of a family, buy food, health insurance, fire insurance, car insurance, earthquake insurance, flood insurance and a ZILLION other things that cost you money and mean that you work 60 hours a week.

Then, next door, a squatter moves in. No legal right to be there. No insurance. No fees. No building or safety codes. No nothing. Basically, just stealing things and saying "you can't touch me". It's dangerous? It's unhealthy? It's unsafe? Tough.

If critical thinking or logic had been taught in schools, it would take about a nano second to figure out this cannot be tolerated. Aside from the health and saftey concerns (not to mention the fact that it's ILLEGAL), things like this send the worst possible message to society: Why work? You can get it for free and no one can do anything!

But, in our politically correct world, this isn't so. We somehow feel guilt or 'tolerant' or like the squatter has some sort of right to be there.

Big Brother REALLY has a hissy if you convert your AR. They put one guy away for a long time a while back when his doubled at a range due to being broken, not even converted. It just needed a bit of repair, and if I recall they weren't even able to duplicate the failure.

Just wait for the multi-million dollar lawsuit for injury when one of these scum bags falls drunkenly down the stairs at a house they broke into.

The courts will rule that the owner "should have" taken control of the property to prevent the intrusion and thus save the "victim" from injury.

Here is what I would prefer using to clear out squatters:

http://www.imfdb.org/images/3/3c/Terminator2-01-2-.jpg

And if I threw one of these squatters bodily from my house he'd probably sue me. And he might even win! I'd have to pay good money to defend myself even if I'm in the right and even if I win.

That the city is effectively looking the other way on this is a joke.

Name,

In my humble opinion, the AR-10 would be a far better option. That 5.56 round just won't blow through walls like the 7.62.

Again, just my opinion, but the AR-10 is worth the extra $500 bucks or so. Of course, with home defense it's all about the shottie anyway ;)

Dirty grinning moonbat wouldnt you like to see him get his teeth knocked down his throat?

Moonbats in Hollywood and Beverly Hills have mansions with lots of unused rooms - send the homeless in there. Moving to Beverly...., Hills that is....

If the people aren't using the houses, then what's the problem? Society isn't going to collapse if people are off the streets and living in unused buildings.

Matt- You're quite right: people are compelled to work ridiculous hours to pay for things they believe they need. If people don't feel they need these things (insurance etc.) then there seems no good reason to compell them to have them: if something goes wrong on their head be it.

The problem is they're there on someone else's liability. As mentioned before, if one of these squatters injures himself in the house, some ambulance chaser will sue the rightful owner for big money, and you know the way juries are these days, may well win. These are not just unused buildings, they're someone's property, and this is tresspassing. It's specifically illegal for a reason.

J.D.: The problem is that they are in the houses illegally. They broke in and are squatting in a house belonging to someone else, without the permission of that someone else. If the property owner decides he wants to allow the homeless to live in his house for free, that's fine. But the squatter needs to get permission first - without it he is trespassing, and the ability to remove trespassers is fundamental to property owner's rights.

It's also a problem for another reason. If it's OK for the homeless to move into an empty house without the owner's permission, then what would be wrong with the homeless throwing your family out of your house and taking it for themselves? That is, what difference should it make if the home is empty or not? The owner has a right (Constitutional, no less) to be secure in his property and possessions, whether he is physically on said property or not. If we allow the homeless to become homeful (yeah, I just made that word up) by squatting in someone else's unoccupied home we are violating the rights of the property owner. At that point, no one's property is secure, occupied or not, since we have now established that it is OK to take another's home away from them just by moving into it.

In Indonesia (at least in the bigger cities), every house has a huge concrete wall or some other fence around it, often topped by razor wire or broken glass cemented to it. If the owners didn't do that, particularly for houses they rent out, a squatter would take over the place five minutes after the last occupant left, and even if you can find a policeman, they may or may not help you remove the squatter. Squatting is a huge problem there, and the government takes very little notice of it (mostly because they have other problems - they're broke). If more cities behave like Miami, squatting could become a huge problem here, too.

Not to mention, how can you possibly maintain a civilized society if people can just grab something from someone else and keep it?

Yeah, what if you've left the house to go to work for the day? You're not there, the house is unoccupied, someone is then entitled to take possession of it? I heard of a case in Canada where someone went on vacation, a second party SOLD their house to a third, and the original owner had no recourse. Ridiculous.

I sure would like to move a whole bunch of homeless people espciealy some homeless vets into the homes of all those hollywood eletists like JOHNNY DEPP,GEORGE CLOONEY,JESSICA LANGE,MICHEAL MOORE,and the rest of them so since they want to aid these unfortunate persons let them do it in their own homes

Why are there still homeless people if community organizers like Jesus Barack Obama are doing such a good job of securing them affordable housing?

Whoops the "Jesus" was meant to have a strike-through, no offence meant

To JD's point...and I think this is important...it's the same kind of argument that is made about illegal aliens. "But they're GOOD people".

I live in So Cal, and yes...a lot of illegals ARE decent people. But I've lived among them. A neighborhood goes to complete trash within a few years of them taking over (and trust me, they take over). They bring the worst of where they came from with them, including a culture that in NO way wants to assimilate. Property value? In the toilet. Quality of life? Yeah, right. Safety and security? Only if you have a security perimeter set up. Crime? It becomes an every-day way of life.

The majority of homeless people are drug using three time losers. They could give a monkey's about anything but getting high. For every sad story of a woman and her two kids who are struggling, there are hundreds of bums looking for an easy, free ride. That mother and her kids would most likely never be squatters anyhow.

You don't want to live where these people are. You don't want to tell them "it's OK to break the law here". YOU DON'T WANT TO ENCOURAGE THIS IN ANY WAY! Lastly, you missed my whole point: if you allow SOME people to just take what they want and not have to function within the rules, then you must allow EVERYone to do it. There goes society and civilization.

I went on this Max guy's website called Take back the land. They have some funny MoonBat photo galleries on it. These people are deranged!