Yes, according to them, YOU don't have the right to defend yourself or family w/ lethal force no matter what is happening. Children being stabbed to death in front of you? Wife being raped and beaten ? You have to find some way to stop it other than killing. To them, the MURDERER and RAPIST has more 'rights' than you. These are the 'reasonable', 'common-sense' solutions they seek.
This is the mental disconnect these people have from reality. They don't care what lies they say or what happens to you as long as you don't have a gun and/or are prevented from using one in ANY capacity.
Can there be any 'compromise' w/ someone who's minds are that diseased?
6 comments:
They're intentionally wording it in a bad way too. It's not that we have a right to take a life, but that the action is excusable under the right circumstances. Your goal when defending yourself isn't to kill the attack so much as it is to stop them.
The biggest reason they have that attitude is they intend to commit acts that would put them at risk of justifiable homicide.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Taking another's life in self-defense is not the objective when shooting in self-defense, the objective is to stop the threat. It is unfortunate that the best means to stop a threat may and often does result in ending the life of an aggressor, but our right to live is paramount. They will disagree with this apparently, but they have a long way to go and a lot of liberty loving people to go through, to reverse this principle. The Founders were willing to carry it to its logical conclusion, I wonder if they are? Apparently they're willing to have the State shed blood and take lives to relieve people of their weapons. That's a big problem with wanting to force utopia on others, it requires force and ultimately you wind up in this huge contradiction. It's definite collectivist view and all of their dreams require force upon others, to relive them of their property and liberty in order to carry out "equality", and life if enough resistance is met; they just like people in uniforms holding the guns, doing the dirty work, apparently that makes it okay. It's absolute absurdity.
It's the "even if" that they explicitly state that gets me.
The rest of us think there's absolutely a right to stop an aggressor from killing someone else, by killing them if necessary.
Hell, it's arguably an obligation, possibly...
@ Josh in Champaign:
Quite right. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," IN THAT ORDER.
So killing/raping makes the criminal happy? The VICTIM'S right to LIFE trumps the criminal's right to pursue happiness. Period. Full stop.
Yes, the criminal also has a right to life, but that's precisely why the semantics of "shoot to stop" vs. "shoot to kill" are important. No decent person WANTS to end the life of another, but many (if not most) want even less to be murdered in the name of that ideal.
Posted this over at Weerd's.
The reason they want the State to have an absolute legal monopoly on force (both initiating and reacting), is because they plan on having absolute control of the State.
When your plan is, “L’état, c’est moi!", of course you want a lock on force.
The are narcissists. Evil, dangerous, sociopathic narcissists. Who have made it quite clear, time and time again, through their OWN words, that they want me and (more importantly, to me) mine dead. . . liquidated. . . exterminated. . . pick your favorite phrase.
Post a Comment