|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
NC: Whatever it takes to stop invader is good home defense
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
But I suspect my friend Dave has a hidden agenda, albeit an honorable one: he wants to reduce gun violence, and he believes that more legislation is the solution. I think he believes that people don’t “need” an assault-style rifle, therefore banning or significantly restricting their ownership would be a “common sense” measure to reduce gun violence.
If so, I would argue that such legislation isn’t common sense at all; it’s reactionary, shortsighted and ill-informed. But until he chooses to make his gun control argument explicit, I will take his essay at face value, and respond to his points regarding home defense.
|
| Comment by:
mickey
(1/22/2016)
|
| Violating the rights of millions in hope of preventing a few lawbreakers from breaking the law is not my definition of honorable. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people. — Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. |
|
|
