He and his men could have set the hay, at the local stable, on fire. The townsfolk, as a whole, would come to fight it. At which point, all the Miller gang would have to do is start firing indiscriminately. Probably from nearby rooftops, with Winchester rifles!

In short; Kane undeniably did the right thing, staying to face the Miller gang when no one else would. Because, "civilized" appeasement would have failed Hadleyville just as miserably as it failed to keep Europe out of World War II.

John Wayne's intense dislike for this film was based on his unshakable belief that the citizens of Hadleyville would not have been so cowardly. And, prior to the 1890's, that might have been true of such a frontier town in real life. But, by the 1890's, the Old West was no longer considered "wild." So, I find it all too _plausible_ that the citizens of such a frontier town might consider themselves too civilized to tolerate a gunfight between outlaws like the Miller gang and a real-life version of Marshal Kane.

recall a piece similar to this post 9-11, and it ended with discussion of Will Kane dropping the badge in the dirt after the fight is over. That piece also drew the parallel to Europe and the rest of the free world, who owes its freedom and its enlightened social welfare states to the UD shouldering most of their national defense, hoping and praying that the US does not lay down its badge and retreat leaving them to face the Allah-akbhar screaming Frank Millers of the world alone.

One small nitpick. The correct spelling is MarshaL, with one L. The Marshals are the least known and most frequently misspelled branch of Federal law enforcment.

One small nitpick. The correct spelling is MarshaL, with one L. The Marshals are the least known and most frequently misspelled branch of Federal law enforcment.

this just confuses these types of people as to the black/white issue and makes the liberals feel good about their bias against the patriots, non-elitists and day to day Americans.

sojourner – go back to the way we were and work yourself to death on that with barbra and bob.

I think your post was in moderation or something as mine went up. Even if I had read your “rant” before I posted, I would only have slapped your wrist regarding the generalizations I know you yourself recognized. But having said that, I have to look at myself and ask how do I side with the conservative issues you highlight, while seeing your position against that type of thought. I could argue those points here, but that would take this way off topic. So, thanks for your contribution.

Like most liberals Sojourner gives us a wholly inaccurate portrayal of events. It is just spin. Amy had to choose between a belief that would get her husband, a good man, killed by an evil one, or choose to violate those principles to save him and the town. Recall the scene where I think it was Lee Van Cleef busted a store widow and stole something. “Can’t you wait?” he was asked. They had more plans after killing Kane. Life doesn’t always present us with the simplistic choices of liberalism. Life isn’t a Saturday morning cartoon morality play. Principles aren’t scientific laws. Sometimes they are superceded by other, higher principles as in this case. Otherwise, Amy did the wrong thing, and should have been pleased with the death of her husband and the death of the town. She lived up to her principles. Just as liberals will be pleased with themselves when a former Gitmo detainee kills a bunch of innocent children.