The Left has to change the subject to vigilantism because the case for self-defense is so manifestly obvious. Is the state respecting the fundamental rights of citizens — including their right to life — if it mandates passivity in the face of violent attack? Of course not. It does, however, respect the right to life when it empowers self-defense while also prosecuting those rare few who seek to mask murderous intent behind a self-defense pretext.
Protecting the right of self-defense is just. Mandatory disarmament is not.
February 24, 2014
Dear New York Times, Self-Defense Is Not Vigilantism
[In other words, as is usual, they have to lie to win.
It is the right to self-defense that is our strongest point in the debate and the one they will lose when the debate takes place in the U.S. In some other countries and cultures a reference to the right of self-defense will get a blank stare.
I would like to suggest those who find the right of self-defense incomprehensible should be encouraged to leave this country. Surely they would be more comfortable in a time and place where the government had or has a monopoly on violence such as one more of the following (from here):
- Japan’s Savage Military
- The Khmer Rouge Hell State
- Turkey’s Ethnic Purges
- The Vietnamese War State
- Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing
- Pakistani Cutthroat State
- Tito’s Slaughterhouse
- North Korea
- Barbarous Mexico
- Feudal Russia
And that doesn’t even include Uganda, Nazi Germany, communist China, and Stalin’s USSR.—Joe]