|
| Thanks for that explanation and I can see that line of reasoning. That said, and I'm bringing this up simply for the sake of debate and not to criticize, where or how is the line drawn at what is appropriate to protect yourself? IE, why is a firearm considered adequate, but not something like a land mine (which would be a good example of a defensive use of force)? Now I know much of this is steered by what the Founding Fathers decided on, but even today... is popular opinion still that a firearm is an adequate level of force?
From the perspective of protecting yourself from your fellow man I'd say yes... since it's the level of force widely available, but for protection from the government (since I hear that as a common reasoning to support gun ownership) who are we kidding? | |
|
The best summary of the church shooting I've read.
