a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn
How does it matter who denied these people the right of reasonable self-defense? I really don't know and I really don't care.
As atomish so aptly stated, the right to self-defense implies the right to respond with reasonably adequate force to the attack one is defending
themselves from. If someone is attacking you with a drinking straw, it is not reasonable to whip out a bazooka. If someone is attacking with a
firearm, however, it is reasonable to pull out a firearm for defense.
From your response, I can only assume you have never faced an attacker. The illogic needed to make the kind of statement you have made, i.e. defending
with a barstool against a firearm, is hard for me to fathom. Again, that is desperation, not self-defense.
I am glad we agree on the abject lunacy that has led to 'gun-free' zones. Recent history has proven that such are no more effective than flashing neon
signs that say, "Attention criminals! Helpless victims inside!" Perhaps with the 'adequate security' you mention, the crime rates in these areas would
dwindle. But what constitutes adequate security? One armed guard? Two? Twenty? Five hundred?
Would it not be easier to allow the citizens themselves to assist effectively in their own defense? I'm not calling for Wild West versions of justice,
just that the fundamental right to self-defense be honored by allowing honest, upright citizens to own and carry the same level of weaponry as the
vast bulk of attackers use.
49 people died, all while waiting on the police. I do not say this to disparage the police; they cannot be everywhere, and they came into this without
knowing all the details of what was happening. The fastest response would have been from a patron, who was already there. The most knowledge of the
situation would have belonged to a patron, who was witnessing it. If 10% of those in the club had been armed, I seriously doubt the body count would
have exceeded 5 before the terrorist was dispatched to another world.
That's 44 souls, 44 lives, 44 dreams and hopes and loves and futures forever gone to us. A very high price to test out an agenda, and especially an
agenda whose supporters will not accept the failures and tragedies from it staring them in the face.
Also, I am not arguing for a right. I have the right to keep and bear arms already. I am arguing against the illegal abolishment of that right without
proper due process. You are the one arguing for change. All you need to do to realize your agenda is to amend the U.S. Constitution. I will vehemently
disagree with such an attempt, but you have every right to try to convince enough people to make it happen.
I personally think you'll have better luck without the dead bodies lining the gun-free zones, but, hey! I could be wrong.