Screw you, you statist bastard.
I would like to say one thing, in what is my conception of the Republic, security is the responsibility of the State, I am against militias, I am against the private ownership of firearms, and I’m trying to make you think about that. If you are assaulted by an armed burglar, he’ll use his weapon more effectively than you anyway so you’re risking your life. If the criminal is not armed and you are and you shoot, your life will be ruined, because killing someone over a theft is not in line with the republican values that are mine. The private ownership of firearms is dangerous. I understand your exasperation for having been burglarized two times, I understand the fear that your wife and daughter may have but the answer is in the efficiency of the police and the efficiency of the judiciary process, the answer is not in having guns at home.
So, according to the leader of France,
Better for you to be robbed/beaten/raped/murdered than have a gun, because you being armed infringes on 'the responsibility of the State'.
If you are assaulted by an armed burglar, he’ll use his weapon more effectively than you anyway so you’re risking your life. Hey, Mr. President, has it occurred to you that your life is ALREADY AT RISK with the bad guy attacking you? Hmmm?
Better for the police and courts to demonstrate their efficiency in (hopefully)punishing your attacker than you(you filthy peasant) actually use arms to protect yourself.
And you'll notice that that efficiency will be demonstrated AFTER you've been robbed/raped/beaten/murdered. Which doesn't do you a whole hell of a lot of good, does it?
1 comment:
You could maybe say that "he'll use his weapon more effectively than you anyway" in France, but I don't think that would fly in this country. Odds are pretty good that armed potential victims have at least some firearms training, and I know many of us get more practice time than the police.
MichigammeDave
Post a Comment