I'm a firm believer in Occam's razor, the philosophy that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Occam's razor can be well-applied to the "right to bear arms" argument.
Yesterday, I came across this simple, brilliant tweet in my Twitter feed (article continues after photo):
In 140 characters or less, the author of this tweet reminded the most vociferous gun control advocates that they, too, depend on private gun ownership for protection. Brilliant!
My succinct arguments, presented using hypothetical situations:
1) A felon has broken into your house and intends to rape and kill you. You dial 911, but the police are 5 minutes away. Would you rather spend those 5 minutes unarmed, risking being raped and killed? Or, would you rather have the ability to eliminate the threat before you are harmed?
2) The economy further deteriorates, history repeats itself, and society collapses. There are riots in the streets, and the government becomes tyrannical. In this scenario, would you rather your defenses be limited to handguns, or would you rather have assault weapons at your disposal?
Think about it, libs.


This is how I feel about it. I put this sign up in my yard:
ReplyDeleteMy front yard sign
Nice!
DeleteJust watch the you tube video "Britain wants their guns back.
ReplyDeleteYep. Violent crime has skyrocketed in Britain.
DeleteSorry I don't need a gun, Jesus is my armor.
ReplyDeleteGood luck with that.
DeleteSeth, just ran into your blog, never knew about it. I just loved this! I can tell you also from my own personal experience that among the first measures taken by any aspiring authoritarian or totalitarian government (either "left" or "right") is the DISARMING of the civilian population by "legal" means (that automatically implies that criminals will keep theirs).
ReplyDelete