...even if I had been, I would have invoked my own right to move freely from state to state, a right far more important and precious than the right to have a firearm....
Those firearms will guarantee your rights. Blood was spilled to get them, and it will cost only a few hundred dollars worth of deterrence to keep it.
Self protection is vigilantism if it is used in a manner disproportionate to the threat...
So if a knife-wielding criminal breaks into my home, it would be disproportionate for me to respond with a firearm?
Along the same lines, is it disproportionate for a LEO to respond with a .45 against an armed and dangerous criminal armed with a .22?
It is the responsibility of the citizens to protect the country. Always has been. That is even part of the second amendment.
Besides, if the citizens are not req to protect the country, than who is? The government is also the citizens.
Yes, agreed. And although we're doing a ho-hum job of it, Switzerland is what the United States should be like. Where the population of the United States itself is a standing army. Criminal problem solved right there, since everyone will have the discipline necessary to being a law-abiding citizen.
__________________
Science is the organized unpredictability that strives not to set limits to mans' capabilities, but is the engine by which the limits of mans' understanding is defined-Yahoshua
  
|