Here's why you don't frikkin' throw bombs.* Made a right damned mess, didn't it? Empowered a lot of ijits, didn't it? And it was one of the first demonstrations of the now-old saw that in any movement, the informer is prolly the guy urging you to blow stuff up. (The preceding link is wrong; I probably intended this one).
Morally, one may respond to force with force. One does not initiate force.
(* 24 Aug 2010: This is totally the wrong link.
4 comments:
That's why it's called self-defense.
Not self-offense.
Apparently the difference is difficult for these idiots to see.
The incidence of illegal gun activity among people with proper concealed carry licenses is exceedingly low. The process for getting such a licensee drills into the person the consequences of misuse, and also there is considerable screening in the process. I don't have such a license, but I hope that there are always people around me who are carrying. We are all safer when they are there. It is their presence that serves as a deterrent to the wacko who might other wise say, "Well, they are all unarmed, so here I go."
If there had been people carrying at Virginia Tech, it would have been a much different story. This is repeated over and over where people think that "gun-free" means safe.
(I don't have a license because I have gotten too old, and I shake too much to be safe. I know this, so I don't even consider it. But I support them all the way.)
It is to everyone's benefit if malefactors suspect their next victim may be armed; it is to my benefit if I am armed when someone tries to harm me or rob me.
...On the other hand, one of the "OMG, Starbucks follows State law" whiners missed an option when she allowed as how she didn't know if someone open carrying was "there to harm me or protect me." How about neither? How about, "just there for the coffee?" I'm too old to play Sheriff; I just want to be take seriously by bad guys when I say, "Go away!"
One may respond to force even before it hits you.
Post a Comment