a common rejoinder from ammophobes to the right to keep and bear arms is "what about my right not to be shot?" there are so many things wrong with this, one might be temporarily befuddled as to how to best approach it. I've come to the conclusion that one of the best ways is the positive/nagative classification of rights.
self-defense with firearms doesn't require anything from anyone else except to leave you alone. you are spending your own money and risking your own life. but the imaginary right "not to be shot" would require a massive mobilization of armed enforcers monitoring every area your holiness deigns to visit, each one ready to lay down his own life to save yours. and all it takes is one armed asshole, perhaps even a disgruntled element of that same security force, to deprive you of it.
you might come to the conclusion that your "right" is prohibitively expensive. but since you're sticking "society" with the bill, why would you care?
Back to blog or home page
last updated 2016-06-24 23:15:19. served from tektonic