I was asked, not very long ago, why I thought it would be permissible to kill someone in self-defense.
This is my thought: If I am in a self-defense situation, then the decision that a life may be taken has already been made by the other guy. What I insist on, and why I would use a weapon, is to have some say on whose life is forfeit.
(Or, if you like, if you are going to call the tune, you had better be able to pay the band.)
These Dad Jokes Are Getting Bananas
1 hour ago
6 comments:
Succinctly, clearly, and accurately put, as always. I'm not a gun person; though I've gone shooting a few times in years past, I'm not comfortable around them. I'd be the most likely victim of my own gun, if I owned one. That doesn't mean others shouldn't have the option- and especially people who are likely to be victims. I'm not one of the latter.
I'm curious what you think of the idea of registration and/or licensing. After all, we require it for animals and cars.
If you are so fucking stupid as to ask that question then I will chalk one up to Darwin and go clean my fucking guns and knives.
That is not a reply to Lockwood, it is to the original post.
BN, while I am sympathetic to your point, it was not the answer that would be informative to the person who asked me the question.
Lockwood, I am against both registration and licensing. I have seen enough evidence of both being abused with regard to some politician's idea of gun control and/or confiscation. And only honest people would comply.
Animal licensing is supposedly to ensure that strays are returned, and that may be true, but it is largely a revenue-generating procedures. Hell, car registration is being used in my state to help close the budget deficit, which is why the fees were doubled.
"A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie."
"Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext, with the view of confiscating them and leaving the population defenseless."
- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Post a Comment