Quote:
Originally Posted by Hippikos
I thought that was bleeding obvious, unless you have a large canon in front of your head.
|
While my Webster's Third does give
canon as a variant spelling of "cannon," I'd advise against such use, as this spelling calls up for most people
"One of the clergy of a medieval cathedral or large church living as a community under a rule" or
"A clergyman belonging to the chapter or the staff of a cathedral or collegiate church." No doubt wearing an Army serplice...
And the precedent set by the acknowledgement (it isn't a granting -- read the text and you'll see that the right to keep and bear arms inheres in one's condition as a human being is assumed) that free humans should have killing tools at their private disposal, that private persons should be equipped comparably to the best armies of the time, is a very strong one.
It's all the stronger in that this is the one known remedy to genocides; the state is no bulwark against this kind of mass crime as it takes the state to enable it -- one state may punish another for having done it, but that's too late to prevent it or cure it. No state has successfully impeded a genocide in another state.
If you oppose death penalties, presumably by deeming them too likely to be wrongful, you'd oppose death as a penalty for being in an unpopular group, too. Thereby, you'd be interested in the known means of preventing that.