Sibbitt and I continue our discussion on weapons and the role of the citizen.
I have indeed been discussing "Government" as a monolithic entity, and in the assumption that this imaginary Government would want to destroy me. In a scenario where a hostile force sought to control a population rather than destroy it entirely, personal firearms are absolutely would certainly prevent it, especially in the US.
I'm happy to hear about The Oathkeepers.
I should also point out that when I read the news, I am painfully aware of the gatekeepers of this information and that simply because it is not being reported does not mean it is not happening. I strongly suspected this to be the case with cases of self-defense; such instances would likely be reported in the local news precinct, but probably not nationally unless a bunch of disabled puppies were involved.
Many, many times I have come across news reports of horrible crimes perpetrated on those who wanted to defend themselves but were unable and I've wished they had just had one gun somewhere in the house. Or at least tear gas grenades.
Again, I tend to feel this way towards people I perceive to be less capable of defending themselves physically.
I'm also for the Dune Home Defense System: The gom jabbar, a little needle tipped with meta-cyanide. I wonder if those would be legal.
So thanks for the information, Sibbitt. As usual, I feel better about most things and worried about a whole slew of new things.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments, questions, topic suggestions, and your vote for worst sentence can be made here: