>20 Questions, Quoting Myself

27 Sep

>Self-defense, like privacy, freedom of association, freedom of conscience and freedom of thought [and expression], is an inherent human right. The only people who think it is a matter for debate are those who do not recognize that right — and they are no better than book-burners, witch-burners and cross-burners.

I don’t debate commies, klansmen, nazis or anti-gunners, ‘cos there is no debate: they’re wrong and I don’t give a fig how many trains — or sheep — they make run on time.

Wrote that in reply to a commenter in an earlier post. Decided I’d be happy to put it on the front page.

Joe Huffman finds debating an anti less than productive for another reason. Although on second thought, his reasons aren’t all that different after all; what was witch-burning or herding people off to concentration camps but the practice of irrationality? Who fears ideas and their free exchange more than those whose power and self-image is based on illogical thinking, unquestioned beliefs?


24 Responses to “>20 Questions, Quoting Myself”

  1. Divemedic 27 September 2010 at 1:39 am #

    >The question that divides many, even pro-gun people is this:Does your right to self defense exist wherever you are? Even on private property? Even against the owner of the property? If so, then are signs prohibiting effective self defense a refusal to recognize that right?wv: grocks

  2. Roberta X 27 September 2010 at 1:43 am #

    >Am I not my own private property? My walking into your living room doesn't give you the right to rape me.

  3. Divemedic 27 September 2010 at 2:36 am #

    >I totally agree. Therefore, I refuse to obey signs that demand that I disarm when entering a business, unless the law requires that I do so.As far as homes, I just don't have friends who don't respect my right to self defense.

  4. Eck! 27 September 2010 at 2:42 am #

    >Yes!Self defense, is self explanatory. It is not geocentric it is person centered.The problem I have is that limiting ones tools for self defense has two responsibilities placed on the property owner (or limiting authority) that being a guarantee of safety and the ability to assure that happens. If you believe that calling the cops satisfies that, show me how you guarantee that? You the property holder have passed the buck and failed in the responsibility to make good that guarantee. If you cannot make the guarantee they you infringing on my rights of those to be safe in my person which is my responsibility. Eck!

  5. danontherock 27 September 2010 at 3:00 am #

    >That first paragraph is absolutely the best I have seen written about self defense. Straight, true and to the point.

  6. danontherock 27 September 2010 at 3:04 am #

    >Can I link this to a Canadian gun forum?Dan

  7. Roberta X 27 September 2010 at 3:23 am #

    >Of course!

  8. danontherock 27 September 2010 at 3:43 am #


  9. Anonymous 27 September 2010 at 5:31 am #

    >"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the king; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle

  10. Roberta X 27 September 2010 at 6:40 am #

    >Are they truly not rational acts? Are you sure?

  11. Bubblehead Les. 27 September 2010 at 8:36 am #

    >Firearms are tools that can be used to defend one's self from harm. So are edged weapons,clubs, chemicals,etc. So are my hands,feet,knees,elbows ,teeth,etc. Whenever I hear the Antis try to ban the Right to Defend Myself, I ask them if they are willing to have those Dangerous Weapons (their teeth) removed. After all, 7 million years of Evolution left us with the ability to make the effort to rip our opponents throat out by the use of our jaws if it gets that close. But I prefer to use more modern, safer (to me) tools such as Rifles, Pistols and Shotguns. Let the Anti's follow their own doctrine, and let them die off when Danger threatens. It's a matter of "Evolution in Action", and the sooner the Anti's are removed from the Gene Pool, the better for the Race. I'd aid them in their quest for Self- Destruction, but their Politicians won't allow me, and I choose to not spend my time in the State Pen on a personal mission to remove these culls from the Gene Pool. But if Balloon Goes Up, and the Final Act of the Desperate Sheeple is to take my tools away……

  12. John B 27 September 2010 at 10:41 am #

    >I just couldn't resist debating her. I'm sorry, I'm the type who goes under the bridge to fight the trolls. I suppose that makes me her troll.If you're going to fight monsters, you run the risk of becoming a monster. If you stare into the darkness, the darkness will stare into you!"Luke I am your Father!"(sorry I couldn't resist)

  13. Anonymous 27 September 2010 at 3:19 pm #

    >I posted the 20 questions one to one suggestion here with Joe Huffman, and two other blogers also to the Brady lady. Only you responded. Thank you. From the rest utter silence. For my self I admit I do not posess the knowlege or intelect for such a thing. All I made the suggestion to including the lady claim they could or would prevail. But none seem to want to back it up.But each side will preach to there respective chiors. touting there arguments supperiority. My conclusion. Possers all.

  14. Roberta X 27 September 2010 at 4:18 pm #

    >…And, Anon, your conclusion is so important and useful that you will neither sign your name nor bother to use decent spelling and punctuation. Here; let me say it so you will understand: the right to self-defense is a fundamental right. It is not a matter of debate. That's why it is in the Bill of Rights next to freedom of religion and freedom of the press.

  15. Anonymous 27 September 2010 at 5:39 pm #

    >OK, OK. I haven't quite worked out how to use spellchek. And I appologize for useing the anonymous option that you provide.

  16. Roberta X 27 September 2010 at 6:03 pm #

    >You have spellcheck in your own brain — or at least on the shelf or online. And you can sign yourself on even an anonymous post; it gives people something to call you by. Too late, now, as I have named you: Trollsome.

  17. Boyd 27 September 2010 at 6:29 pm #

    >Regarding those who would prohibit self-defense on their private property, I firmly believe that they have the right to do so (albeit irrational). If that's what they want to do, they have an obligation to notify those who would enter their property, and it's incumbent on you to avoid their property if you don't want to give up your firearms or other weapons.I'm not sure why one person's right to self defense trumps another's property rights. For me, I just don't enter onto anyone's property who would deny me my rights.

  18. Kim 27 September 2010 at 6:57 pm #

    >There IS no debate on this issue. Self-defense is so ancient a right, and its abridgement so recent an historical event, that it barely needs discussion except in the rarified halls of dementia.And of course self-defense extends outside the home, to wherever the "self" finds itself. Once again, only the delusional could argue otherwise.

  19. Boyd 27 September 2010 at 7:26 pm #

    >If you were to allow debate, Kim, I'd ask you if you have the right to enter on anyone's property even if they don't want you there.But since you don't allow any debate, we'll never know.

  20. Anonymous 27 September 2010 at 7:33 pm #

    >Trollsome agrees. Self defence is a right. Alan Gura argued that point to the suppreem court. And got a five to four ruling. Should he have argued, there is no question find in my favor? Trollsome also knows armed self defence has been heavily regulated. When the government issues a permit it can also take that permit away. Effectivly registering the owners if not there guns.

  21. Tony Muhlenkamp 27 September 2010 at 9:32 pm #

    >I think Alan Keyes addresses the issue as well as any, and better than most, in his article "The Reason for the 2nd Amendment."http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18629

  22. Anonymous 28 September 2010 at 12:09 am #

    >Trollsome, ol' bud, the difference it, the Supreme Court has a lot more troops than the Bradys. RX

  23. Anonymous 28 September 2010 at 3:09 am #

    >To Kim, I agree in part and disagree in part.Self Defense is innate and not limited to people. All living creatures have a survival instinct (why do rose bushes have thorns). It is not granted by the government, though it is often infringed.However, infringement is not a recent development, it's almost as old as the survival instinct. Dating to the first time an alpha male forced another to bare its throat.Kind of illustrates the point: Gun Control is not about public safety, it's about submission.Mycroft

  24. Roberta X 28 September 2010 at 5:40 am #

    >Boyd: do you demand the right to pat down everyone who sets foot on your property?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: