” Those who refuse to support and defend a state have no claim to protection by that state. Killing an anarchist or a pacifist should not be defined as “murder” in a legalistic sense. The offense against the state, if any, should be “Using deadly weapons inside city limits,” or “Creating a traffic hazard,” or “Endangering bystanders,” or other such misdemeanor.”Now, yes, as a basic principal I agree with that. But what happens if the state isn't worth defending anymore? Let me put it this way - I believe that the Constitution of the United States is the greatest founding document in the history of the world, and it's worth defending. However, I don't think that the current government is anywhere CLOSE to actually following said Constitution. And the people currently running things in D.C. aren't worth a squirt of piss in the wind. If I heard that somebody was attacking D.C., I'd be guarding two things - the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. Capitol Hill? Meh. Armed terrorists could murder every last bastard in the Capitol Building and I would only weep for a few of them. And my tears would be short lived, because wiping the current Congress from the face of the Earth would only improve this country, not hurt it.
On the other hand, the people in Congress who are causing the most problems fall under that whole "pacifist" description. So there's that.
Bah. That's now my night is going.