I didn't know your were so naive
Posted by LaudateAgno on 2025-September-14 23:00:01, SundayIn reply to Re: If you've never heard of Kirk before posted by diogenes on 2025-September-12 20:00:52, Friday
|
I'm a complete supporter of the right to bear arms. No, that's the wrong way of putting it: We have a responsibility to bear arms. If your government seeks to curtail this responsibility, and if your government is of the modern Western pseudo-democratic quasi-representative variety, I would think your responsibility to maintain arms in potential defense against its tyranny should be obviously imperative. "I do think his murder brings home how glib was his earlier statement that a level of civilian deaths was a price worth paying to preserve gun ownership." It is your statement above which is truly glib. It testifies, as I stated before, that you have no appreciation for Kirk's position, which is at once more subtle and more sophisticated and more straightforward than your glib caricature of him as someone simply happy to let everyone carry guns around, whatever the cost. It testifies, also, to the perfect moral collapse of the "anti-gun" leftists, who show eagerly express themselves by killing their opponents with guns. Who are these "anti-gun" leftists bent on keeping the population disarmed? Your country is collapsing into totalitarianism by the minute, and you don't want to arm yourself? Good luck. You're hardly allowed to carry a kitchen knife with you these days (thanks to all the knifings perpetrated by, ahem). Yes, good luck. Where I live in the USA, almost every male over the age of ten possesses and regularly uses a gun. Yet gun violence is exceedingly rare, almost unheard of. The threat of gun violence in an armed population is a function of the civility of the society. The threat of gun violence in an unarmed population is a function of state power. |
Follow ups: