Isn't Self-Defense Common Sense?

[Robert Hairless]

Mr. Obama, you have Secret Service protection. So, your self-defense plan blatantly includes handguns. Why do you think Americans shouldn't have the right to protect themselves with handguns."

I'd be tempted to ask this variant of that question:

Mr. Obama, I'm glad that you have Secret Service protection. People do need protection in this dangerous world, especially when the U.S. is under continuing threat of terrorism.

I applaud you for being sensible and I'd be interested to know if you have some goals in mind in your plan to disarm American citizens so they do not have the means to defend themselves?

Is it simply that our lives are not as valuable as yours and your wife's, or do you plan to provide Secret Service protection for every Americans, or will you reject Secret Service protection to demonstrate to all Americans that you and your wife are just like everyone else?

 

[Greell]

no no its different...you see HE isn't the one using the gun...so its perfectly ok to exclude his involvement with guns..

 

[jakemccoy]

Greell wrote,

no no its different...you see HE isn't the one using the gun...so its perfectly ok to exclude his involvement with guns..

(You're playing devil's advocate, but...)

Actually, it's not different. Taking away Americans' right to use handguns prevents me from being able to buy my own security team equipped with handguns. Why is my life less valuable?

 

[Sans Authoritas]

There is no such thing as a "reasonable restriction" on a right. Not being able to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater (Holmes was an illogical fiend) is not a violation of your right to free speech. On the same hand, without contradiction, no one may anyone pre-empt your ability to scream "fire" in a crowded theater by cutting out your tongue. You are either freely allowed to do what is your right, with all that entails, or your right is infringed.

In itself, yelling "fire" in a theater is morally acceptable. If there is no one in a theater, there is no moral problem. If there is a fire, there is no moral problem. You can only get punished for an act that un-necessarily puts people at risk. Carrying a firearm in public does not un-necessarily put people at risk. Therefore, there is no such thing as a "reasonable" prohibition against carrying firearms for anyone who is walking the streets (felon or not.) As myself and others have repeatedly said, if someone is a such an imminent threat (a violent person or a mentally deranged person) then why is that person not behind bars or dead? You've no right to inconvenience me or any other person with any law that restricts my right to defend myself with the best means in existence. That includes background checks, magazine capacity laws, "where you may carry in non-prison areas" laws, and any form of permit system. You have no human right to not have potentially violent people walking down the street carrying firearms. You do have a human right to defend yourself from unjust aggressors with the best means in existence.

Has your love of foolish rules blinded your love of liberty? I've seen many "pro-freedom, pro-gun" people defending "reasonable restrictions," here and elsewhere. They are walking contradictions, albeit with good intentions. As such, they are no different than the anti-self-defense contingent. What are such infringement supporters talking about? What is a "reasonable restriction" on your ability to defend yourself in public? Do you truly and actually think it is "reasonable" to pass a law that says lawbreakers cannot carry firearms? Do you think it is "reasonable" to have such [apparently] dangerous people on the streets to begin with? Do you think you are safer because a law prevents anyone from getting firearms through legal means? Freedom-infringement advocates vehemently deny these things, yet support "laws" that are created to do just that!

They are the same people who say, "Criminals don't care about laws, that's why they are criminals." It numbs the mind to think that they support such infringements on our right to defend ourselves!

They are utilizing the same logic as the anti-liberty "safety and security" sheep when they say, "Well, yes, just as you don't have a right to scream "fire" in a crowded theater, you don't have the right to carry a firearm without certain background checks and permits."

You have the right to free speech. Lying to kill people is not free speech.
You have the right to peacably carry a firearm for self-defense. Shooting innocents is not part of that right. Ban the crime of hurting innocents itself, not the ability: otherwise, you have to ban true freedom: because the gun that can be carried and used to hurt innocents can be carried and used to protect your life and the lives of your family members.

You do not want to clap people in branks based on the pants-wetting fear that they could say something dangerous: why, therefore, would anyone want to disarm someone because they could potentially do something dangerous? There must be no law against that which does not actually harm people, or pose an imminent threat of doing the same. Permits and background checks do not fall into this category. If someone has proven himself a threat, he should be dead or in prison, period. The only unreasonable law you can have about such people is that they are allowed to be free. And that is your problem, not mine. Do not put a band-aid on the gangrene of violent men walking free by passing a law that says everyone has to jump through hoops to make sure free, violent men (who do not care about laws) cannot have firearms.

I reject the "reason" behind all property-and-liberty-control "laws." I ask you to join me in my convictions. If, however, you wish to keep supporting rules for the sake of rules, your "laws" for the sake of "laws," support that is veiled with some watery, lukewarm notion that "it will keep us safer. . ." well, in that case, as a wise man once said, "May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

-Sans Authoritas

 

[AZ-Mike]

If you read Orwell's "Animal Farm" you know why Obama (or any of them) is allowed to have guns/protection and we are not; it simply comes down to them being "more equal" than the rest of us.

It is amazing to me how many times humans will repeat the same things hoping for a different result. How many times they will listen to the same lies expecting it to be the truth.

It's sad really.