Lawmakers who take the law enforcement community’s alarm to heart are better characterized as being pro-safety, rather than anti-gun, and we suspect most Montana sportsmen understand that regardless of how they feel about the bill.
If only The Helena Independent Record knew how much I care about what "sportsmen" feel on this matter...
Bottom line: If you're against people defending themselves, you're anti-human. Gloss that over any way you want, but it's the truth.
Almost ALL government have the proverbial "cart before the horse".
ReplyDeleteThey have totally forgotten the purposes for which they were instituted to begin with.
One can hardly blame them though. As most Americans form into groups to promote there own liberty. While seeking to suppress the liberty of 'others'.
Businesses are the perfct example of this phenomenon. They want to enjoy the ability and security of making their profit. While seeking to repress the ability of customers or employees from exercising their Inherent and Inalienable Natural Right. Believe it's what is known as hypocrisy.
And, as we all can see. What comes around, does indeed, go around. We are only as Free as we allow even our enemy to be.....
How can one allege that they "support the Second Amendment" when said person doesn't support the natural right to self defense? Is it because they don’t object to hunting?
ReplyDeleteIn this case, perhaps it would have been more accurate to label this bill’s opponents as “anti-self defense” instead of “anti-gun.” When it's possible for a goblin to sue the pants off a Montana citizen who finds him or herself in the position of having to use a gun to defend against a home invader, the argument that Montanans “already have the right to defend themselves” rings just a little bit hollow.
What does being a “sportsman” have to do with a woman defending against a rapist? Does the Montana legislature believe that there is no natural right to defend one’s self?
Perhaps the point that the Helena Independent Record is trying to make is that self defense is not a reason for the Second Amendment, but duck hunting is.
Funny, I though that that spurious argument had already been destroyed umpteen times. Maybe the argument about the Second Amendment being about hunting is like the Night of the Living Dead – no matter how many times you kill it, it keeps coming back to life.
In the future, the GOP should label opponents to this proposal what they are - anti self-defense - not anti gun. Maybe that will stop all the other hollow rhetoric about the Second Amendment.