"As for me, I'm not shocked, I'm thrilled. This evil murderous bastard finally at last got what he deserved.

If that makes me an accomplice, as pro-abortionists are labeling anyone who protested against Tiller's medical murder practice, so be it."

I'm sorry, but that's either nuts, or it's treason. We'll start with nuts.

I would not side with the person who killed the slave owner, though I be a strong abolitionist.

The Long murder illustrates why not. In both cases, loyalty to the laws of the United States is cast aside to murder, on grounds of moral conviction, for conduct that is legal. Because those in question cannot win a democratic political argument. The same is true for Jack's thought-experiment.

Newsflash: There are a lot of people out there with ideas that fit these categories. They're not always going to pick the targets you approve of. Once you decide it's OK for group A to do it, anyone and everyone could be a target.

Which is one reason why the rule of law around murder is such a critical component of civilized life. Just as the potential and historic recurrence of its breakdown on these grounds is one of the underpinnings beneath the human right to bear arms.

Back to our Earth First! types for a minute, and animal rights activists who believe that animals and people are morally equivalent, with the same rights. Can they shoot people for torturing and killing thousands of animals in the name of science? If you believed in the Earth First! theology and were a staunch pro-lifer, then based on your premises, an abortionist and an experimental scientist who conducts lethal experiments on live animals wold be exactly the same moral thing. Exactly.

In a Imamist fatwa society of whatever flavour, you can go out and shoot people on those grounds. In a civilized society, you cannot. Marxism is fundamentally anti-civilization, of course. Always has been. Its 100-million skulls record within a similar justifying framework is just an expression of that fundamental nature. And that exact fundamental flaw.

In a civilized society, a slaveowner whose practice is still legal is allowed the same basic protections against murder as any other citizen.

Stealing his slaves and putting them on the Underground Railroad is another thing. If you believe they are humans, you cannot be stealing since that only applies to property, not sentient creatures with free will. You still expect to pay the price if caught, of course. And you're morally enjoined to either make sure that those you've freed choose to freely accept the risks under full disclosure, or ensure that you've placed them in a better position. Else you haven't done good, you've done them a direct and personal harm.

But murder is a whole different ball game.

The basic compact of citizenry in a free government ultimately rests on the principle that we will protect fellow citizens, within our agreed laws and fundamental liberties. If you repudiate that, there isn't anything left of free citizenship.

As an aside, the failure to openly grasp that fundamental truth pretty much underlays the liberal-left's position on any form of international or domestic security over the past 40 years.

A congruent lack of judgment lies behind To The Point commenter mwilhite - who stupidly asks, as he defends the Tiller murder:

"Which is more important, the rule of law or saving millions of innocent lives?"

Answer: In societies where it's OK to summarily kill people you disagree with, for doing things that are legal, the record shows a pretty hefty death toll anyway. Defend, then, the Rule of Law around murder, lest you simply move the death toll around.

Which brings us to the next part, treason.

In the subsequent comments, a few TTP members said outright that they were OK with moving the death toll around. That many murders (abortions), they said, justified murder in return.

Which is another way of saying that Muslim jihadists shooting American troops in America is conceptually fine, but they would personally take issue with the gunman's choice of targets. Of course, the fact that people do disagree is why the rule of law is part of free societies in the first place.

To be fair, however, there's actually a coherent moral position one can hold within that framework. TTP reader Kenny frames it nicely, and it's the right follow-up question:

"Would it have been alright to have shot Hitler in 1939 or 1940, and if not, why not? How about an even bigger mudrered, Stalin? Should someone have taken him out while he was in the midsts of murdering millions?"

The answer to both question is yes. In acts of justified armed insurrection against the government as a whole. Totalitarian governments are not legitimate, and armed insurrection against them is justified. This includes killing their leaders, and functionaries. Jack Wheeler spent a lot of time tramping around such insurrectionists all over the globe. He's the person who, more than anyone else, brought the reality of anti-communist liberation movements to the Reagan White House's attention.

In the words of a document many of us are familiar with, however, that's no longer a mere act of murder. To organize and engage in it, in order to change the politics of an established country that has effective control of its own territory, is far more akin to "levying war." Which is one of the US Constitution's definitions of treason.

So be it - insurrections are always treason. You either win and change the government by force of arms, in which case the charge becomes moot. You're now the government, and you were always loyal to yourselves. Or you lose. At which point, trial for treason is nothing less than one should expect.

Along the way, of course, lies civil war. At least once before in America, that meant many thousands of people dead.

In case you're wondering, Jack, later in his own article, extends his historical slavery analogy and wonders if the death toll of abortion could reach a level that could morally justify secession. It's a valid moral question to ask, and it shows that he, at least, understands at some level how high the stakes could go. Shades of Orson Scott Card's novel "Empire".

Fortunately, prominent pro-life groups have been quick and clear in their condemnation of the Tiller murder - a sharp contrast to the positions of Gulf-supported Islamic front groups like CAIR and the AMC on terrorism and terrorist acts.

A government that does not understand or respect that difference risks crossing some pretty important red lines of its own, and is likely to seriously radicalize far more of its opponents. Which is what I fully expect Obama to do: conduct a public witch-hunt without qualification or distinction. All supported by a media who aren't that interested in Islamic terrorism like the inconveniently paired Long shooting, since they'd rather focus on their enemies.

Having said that, those people who do espouse support of the Tiller murder, and especially any organizations that are supportive or equivocal, ought to expect a strong government reaction. Including monitoring and further investigations. The lack of these public square and investigative reactions with respect to organized supporters of terrorism like CAIR and the AMC, is part of the reason that Islamic terrorism is a larger problem than it should be.

I do not support that mistake, and I do not support repeating it elsewhere.

Levying war is a double-edged sword. If you're one of those people who believes that taking up arms is justified - perhaps by the scope of what you believe to be a genocide, because you haven't won the political argument yet in a free society - then so be it.

Just don't kid yourself about what you're doing, or what you've stepped into. On any level. And don't expect my support. On any level.