|
|
|
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:
| Comment by:
Millwright66
(11/16/2015)
|
| Pity that Mr. Williamson felt he had to "cherry pick" his examples but then failed to recognize there's no incumbency upon the threatened to determine if the weapon used is lethal. Self-defense, or defense of family or others "in extremis" isn't "vigilantism". Perhaps Mr. Williamson can persuade the gang bangers and gun-using drug peddlers/users not to randomly shoot their victims and be content with money. But until that miracle happens, legally armed citizens will continue to defend themselves and theirs with lethal force if its thrust upon them. |
|
|
| 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]. |
|
|
