He just sealed his fate!

Clearly it's time to stop letting the patients run the insane asylum.

Typical of socially-regressive conservative politicians and pundits and their "Second Amendment remedies".

Facts are Meaningless To RePUKEblicans

This is the guy of whom the head of the NH Tea Party - Jane Aitken - remarked "will bring new knowledge and perspective to the often overlooked office of the Sheriff." She, and presumably the Tea Party are endorsing him for Sheriff.
Szabo also believes that the Sheriff is the highest authority in the county, answers to no one, and is responsible for interpreting the law according to common law and the Constitution and acting upon any transgressions.
Endorsement: http://bedford-nh.patch.com/articles/nh-tea-party-leader-endorses-liberty-minded-candidates
Sheriff as supreme being: http://bedford-nh.patch.com/blog_posts/power-of-the-county-sheriff#comment_4448691

Abortion is legal. This man threatened violence against a person acting legally. That the GOP has failed to disavow him, and some have embraced him, says volumes.

What happened to the party of Law and Order?

Szabo's weakness of mind is in not knowing that legal and lawful are synonymous. Slave laws were both legal and lawful, but they were not just. In the absence of science proving that a fetus below a certain stage of development is a viable human being, the law prevails. At any rate, sheriffs take an oath to uphold the law. Justice is left to the courts.

So he wants to enforce his own laws? Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the Christian Taliban.

Another REPUB whacko......Say goodnight, Frank...

I wonder how he feels about pregnant women who drink alcohol?Or smoke cigarettes?Forcing a child to drink alcohol would result in charges filed,if he thinks an 8 cell embryo has rights,would he arrest the pregnant women who drinks and smokes?

It's quite obvious that Frank Szabo has no background in law or law enforcement, either civil or criminal. If he did, he would know that "legal" and "lawful" are synonymous by dictionary definition. And since his insistence that the two concepts are, indeed, not equivalent in meaning, that is the basis of his whole "deadly force" premise, how can we trust that he has a rational grasp of just about anything else?

8 cells old. *Gasps* I guess if your wife had a miscarriage you would have thrown her in jail

Conservatives like this advocate abstinence, no abortion, in all cases. When these 14 year olds , who are not mature enough to take care of themselves have children, men like this complain angrily because the are on welfare, food stamps and public housing. Their actions have been the cause of so many of our children raising children who can't take care of themselves. Are conservatives really this ignorant ?

The more they talk the more we see the type of government and repression that would come from the republican party.

LOL! So this is why my sister-in-law calls NH "Ignoramia"!

I find this guy as horrifying as anyone, but I do feel that it should be pointed out that his argument does have a legitimate intellectual pedigree. The economist and philosopher Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992) made a similar distinction between "law" and "legislation". He took the former to be an inherent underlying element of social order, regardless of what legislation a government might pass. A good government, he believed, would pass legislation that dovetailed with law rather than working at cross purposes.

Hayek said he was not a conservative, but his works are certainly studied, and his views espoused, mainly by conservatives and libertarians of an intellectual bent.

Hayek is no fringe figure: he was a Nobel laureate, and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by George H.W. Bush in 1991.

I find that conservatives and libertarians who cite political works such as Hayeks rarely understand the larger context within which they were written, and quote passages and ideas free from any contextual anchors, thereby giving them free rein to misapply and mis-construe the main points and any conclusions of arguements reached using them. In short, they take just what they want and use as they see fit. For an example, see Glen Beck.

Why hasn't New Hampshire candidate for Sheriff Frank Szabo been arrested for making a threat to murder ANY Doctor he determines to be performing an {illegal} abortion. [which seems it means 'in his opinion' which makes him a dangerous man and a threat to anyone who performs this medical procedure. he should be arrested and ordered by the court to undergo a psychiatric evaluation [say, like maybe from now until AFTER the election]

I assume they are on hold on the phone lines of Attorney General Eric Holder, behind the decent folks who feel threatened by the New Black Panther's illegal offer of a bounty for the kidnapping of defendant Zimmerman. Holder has to work on a first-in, first-adjudicated basis if he is to be seen as having any integrity, does he not?