Posted by Phil Lee (149.32.89.229) on October 19, 2000 at 12:49:
A person under attack from an assailant has an inherent human right to defend herself from that attack by any means necessary. I think most of us, in our hearts, believe that.
That right is natural and inherent. It is a right that any creature on this earth has by nature of their creation. This right and instinct extends to OUR FAMILY. Look at almost any animal species, and you will always see vigorous attempts by mothers and fathers to protect their young. But it's not just blood relatives. That instinct toward self-protection also extends to our neighbors. We praise as heros those who come to the defense of neighbors under attack.
So into the eternal battle between criminal and citizen, come these "gun control nuts" that say, "we all will be safer if all law abiding citizens submit ourselves to restraints upon when and how we are allowed to defend ourselves, and we must get government approval to defend ourselves, and only defend ourselves in the way the government states we can. And kids shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves."
Of course, they don't say it THAT way. They say "we want govenment registration of handguns." "We demand trigger locks be sold with every gun." "We want every gun owner to be licensed by the government." "We want to compel smart guns." "We want a Juvenile Brady bill."
But all who think that our problems with violence can be solved if only they can pass some law against guns are deluding themselves.
Gun control isn't just unconstitutional. Gun control isn't just a bad idea. Gun control is unnatural. It restrains the innocent to favor the aggressor. It is against nature. People don't act like that. No creature on earth acts like that. We understand that the real message of gun control proponents is one of repression, not liberty, and increased danger in society, not safety.
You should understand that too.