Quote:
Originally Posted by Griff
I'm not really sure death threats are appropriate here. It does illuminate the truth that some gun nuts are armed for intimidation not self-defense.
|
Yes, the emphasis on "obliged to respect" kinda seals it, doesn't it?
Our founding documents state
Quote:
|
“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….”
|
and nothing about a subset of those men who are armed, y'know, so others are obliged to respect them.
What widespread gun possession does is reduce the margin for error to the length and force of a trigger pull. Bad decisions are executed faster, more emphatically, more fatally. Being armed does not exempt one from making bad decisions, that's a human trait we all share.
The news is overflowing with reports of shootings that did not need to happen. Can the term unjustified be used? Yes, in the vernacular; no, in the strictest legal sense in many cases. And not just in the horrific stories about overreactions by police. Civilians are just as liable to make rash choices that have tragic consequences.
Let me ask you about Jake Gardner, you can google that name and see the news stories where it appears. He had the right to a fair trial but that's moot now that he's dead. How did a gun oblige others to respect his rights? Of course it didn't. All it did was accelerate the consequences of a bad decision.
Let me ask one more thing. When has using your power to kill ever obliged someone to respect your rights?