The guy I rent a room from wanted to go out to lunch to the Jade Dragon, a Vietnamese restaurant that serves the most awesome vegan pho. This was a good idea since I work 60-77 hours a week and don't go anywhere outside of normal weekly shopping.
I saw that under his steering column he had a pistol, so I had to ask, "Are you worried about car jackers?"
He responded with, "Nope."
I reminded him, "We live in Fargo, North Dakota, there is hardly any crime here."
He responded with, "Well, I'm going to keep it that way."
I am not an advocate of firearms or the 2nd Amendment, but I am a very big proponent of self defense, which would include the use of firearms. I think that is sometimes missed by firearms enthusiasts, which is it is about preservation of one's self or of another more than it is about some specific tool to do so or some words on paper that are presented to grant permission as if the words were needed or are otherwise magical in their permission granting.
The understanding of preservation of one's self or of another and the natural right to do so is a superior position to have, which exists regardless of the tool(s) to accomplish it or a third person's permission to do so. Once life is snuffed out there is no retrieving it, that person is gone forever. To preserve that life any means possible should be used and there is no permission needed to do so.
I do understand that some hold high the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, but before the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution was written, there was the reason that it was written. That reason is far better than simply saying, "Muh' Constitutional right! Muh' 2nd Amendment right!" That reason is to be secure, to preserve life from those that would take it.
If the argument is made about a specific tool or the written permission to use or own any tool, then that opens the door to debate which does not address the right to preserve life. Focusing on the tool leads to red herring discussions full of emotional appeal and the knee jerk reaction want for political action. Focusing on the permission of the 2nd Amendment is fallacious in its 'appeal to authority', as if what is law equates to what is moral or of good ethical standards, which does is not.
Those that would argue against preserving life or the right to preserve life from those that would take it would have to employ mental gymnastics to do so, and so it would be much so easier to defeat their political agenda driven position.
Know the foundation to your position and use that while debating.I saw that under his steering column he had a pistol, so I had to ask, "Are you worried about car jackers?"
He responded with, "Nope."
I reminded him, "We live in Fargo, North Dakota, there is hardly any crime here."
He responded with, "Well, I'm going to keep it that way."
I am not an advocate of firearms or the 2nd Amendment, but I am a very big proponent of self defense, which would include the use of firearms. I think that is sometimes missed by firearms enthusiasts, which is it is about preservation of one's self or of another more than it is about some specific tool to do so or some words on paper that are presented to grant permission as if the words were needed or are otherwise magical in their permission granting.
The understanding of preservation of one's self or of another and the natural right to do so is a superior position to have, which exists regardless of the tool(s) to accomplish it or a third person's permission to do so. Once life is snuffed out there is no retrieving it, that person is gone forever. To preserve that life any means possible should be used and there is no permission needed to do so.
I do understand that some hold high the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, but before the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution was written, there was the reason that it was written. That reason is far better than simply saying, "Muh' Constitutional right! Muh' 2nd Amendment right!" That reason is to be secure, to preserve life from those that would take it.
If the argument is made about a specific tool or the written permission to use or own any tool, then that opens the door to debate which does not address the right to preserve life. Focusing on the tool leads to red herring discussions full of emotional appeal and the knee jerk reaction want for political action. Focusing on the permission of the 2nd Amendment is fallacious in its 'appeal to authority', as if what is law equates to what is moral or of good ethical standards, which does is not.
Those that would argue against preserving life or the right to preserve life from those that would take it would have to employ mental gymnastics to do so, and so it would be much so easier to defeat their political agenda driven position.
Comments