Omelet > wrote in
news
> In article >,
> Michel Boucher > wrote:
>
>> The
>> willful wearing of weapons is the line at which I cease to
>> distinguish between them.
>
> Why?

I would think that would be obvious. People who carry guns
(whether criminals or not) are willing to inflict bodily harm on
others.

>> To insist that a line written 200 years ago by poofy men in
>> powdered wigs grants you right of life and death over anyone
>> you encounter on a case by case basis is the height of hubris
>> one has come to recognize as the USAian delusional trait par
>> excellence.
>
> So we don't have a right to have a weapon of self defense
> available in case of a violent attack?

No, you don't, because the basic premise is that a piece of paper
gives you justification and that piece of paper does not say what
you think it says. In fact it says the opposite.

> I don't understand your reasoning.

Violence is ungood, killing is double-plus ungood.

> I'm not trained in martial arts, I'm middle aged and out of
> shape and not able to defend myself in any other reasonable
> manner.
>
> Am I just supposed to lay down and be a victim?

I'm 63, have never carried a weapon and never felt any need to.
I don't understand YOUR reasoning.

> Please explain to me why a dead rape victim strangled with her
> own panty hose is morally superior to a woman explaining to an
> officer how her attacker got that bullet wound?

Violence is ungood, killing is double-plus ungood.

--
"When a government starts to cancel dissent or avoid dissent
is frankly when it's rapidly losing its moral authority to
govern."

Stephen Harper, 18 April 2005