spread throughout lands far and wide

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. It may be a human right but it is not one recognized by the UN which is one of the major institutions of the progressive religion. The UN reserves that right only for countries other than Israel.

    U.N. To World: You Have No Human Right to Self-Defense

    Self-defense is a privilege that governments may choose to grant or withdraw. You have no human right to self-defense. If a government does not impose repressive restrictions on gun ownership—more severe than even the laws in New York City or Washington, D.C.—then that government is guilty of violating international human rights.

    So says the United Nations in its latest assault on the Second Amendment.

    Comment by Freddie Sykes — February 3, 2013 @ 5:30 pm

  2. • Every critter on this planet was born with the right to defend itself. It’s a natural right, an unalienable right.
    • Bein’ armed to defend one’s life, liberty, and unalienable rights is certainly an integral part of all founding documents (Declaration, Constitution, Bill of Rights).
    • An armed citizenry is also the ultimate protection for all other human rights.
    • The law and the mama-griz principle make it clear that we also have the right to defend others who have the right to defend themselves.
    Sooo, yeah.

    If God had meant man to survive,
    He would have given us claws or fangs or tusks or horns or antlers or talons or venom or tough skin or an armored shell or camouflage or immense strength or incredible speed,
    buuut He didn’t (and we gotta assume that our continued existence is okay),
    so I reckon He must’a given mankind the intelligence and dexterity to make and use weapons and a planet just fuuull‘a stuff to make ‘em with.

    Sooo, reckon gun-grabbers hate God and Nature both!
    (What? Wellp, we been all along that Progism just don’t make a lick’a sense, right?)

    Comment by DougM (Progophobe) — February 3, 2013 @ 5:44 pm

  3. Power never really cares about limits. The reason to have a heavily-armed populace is to ensure that Power doesn’t get too “feisty.”

    Unfortunately, Power seems to have got too feisty anyway.

    Comment by Merovign — February 3, 2013 @ 5:50 pm

  4. Its BeeYooDeeFullll!!!

    Also, what DougM said.

    *rights* are natural.
    * privileges* are granted by Other People.

    Comment by Claire — February 3, 2013 @ 5:56 pm

  5. I would extend that right to be inclusive of ones property (and I don’t mean just land)

    Comment by Caged Insanity — February 3, 2013 @ 6:22 pm

  6. ^ CI
    You do have a right to defend your property from damage, theft, etc.,
    just not with lethal force.
    Now, if that attack also threatens your life or limb (e.g. arson or break-in),
    that would be self-defense.
    (What? Nah, ain’t no lawyer, just teach stuff like this in CCH class.)

    Comment by DougM (Progophobe) — February 3, 2013 @ 6:42 pm

  7. You do have a right to defend your property from damage, theft, etc.,
    just not with lethal force.

    Come to Texas….

    Comment by Melissa In Texas — February 3, 2013 @ 7:22 pm

  8. I remember back a few months before the tolerant, diverse leftists kicked me off The Olympian comments section, and I responded to a story about local violence and vandalism to private and public property.

    I commented that I hoped local law enforcement would be able to get a handle on this before some law abiding citizen found himself fearing for his or her life and responded with deadly force.

    The knotheads revved it up as a death threat, and one of the libtards even claimed to have contacted law enforcement saying the I was threatening the POS.

    So that’s an indication of the intelligence quotient and general reading comprehension of the angry left.

    Comment by JoeBandMember™ — February 3, 2013 @ 7:36 pm

  9. ^ Because they’re the ones we have to defend ourselves from…hence their response.

    Comment by Mr. Death — February 3, 2013 @ 9:50 pm

  10. ^ Doug (2) said He would have given us claws or fangs….
    But …but… tigers and bears don’t need more than ten claws and fangs,
    so why doesn’t the UN demand they be declawed and defanged to a max total of ten?
    I nominate Dianne Feinstein to do the work, without novacaine or lidocaine, of course. They’re controlled substances.

    Comment by dick, not quite dead white guy — February 3, 2013 @ 11:29 pm

  11. ^ *snick*
    Seven in NY.

    Comment by DougM (Progophobe) — February 4, 2013 @ 12:59 pm

  12. ^LOL^

    Comment by Melissa In Texas — February 4, 2013 @ 5:27 pm

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Close this window.

0.163 Powered by WordPress