Because you weigh 300 lbs and can’t run a block and it’s easier to shoot someone than fight them. And you have a micro-penis.
FormerlyPeabodyPress @CodeNamePeabody
Tweeted on October 5, 2022
[It’s not only another Markley’s Law Monday, it is another science denier!
When a woman confirms Markley’s Law I always wonder if her husband or boyfriend has sent me a naked picture of her or will someday. At my age, I am little surprised it still happens but you never know. The odds are extremely low, but this could be the one.—Joe]
Funny thread. See what the left considers a meme? Very pathetic.
And par-usual it starts with the question; “Why do you need an AR15?”.
The answer is, I don’t need one. And the reason I have one is none of your business. Bitch. I don’t answer to you, or anyone for that matter.
This is an uncommon Markley’s Law QOTD in that today’s penis obsessed author acknowledges, however begrudgingly, the dual facts that, a) people sometimes get violently attacked, and that b) self defense is then, perhaps, in some way, acceptable.
So we’ve established some common ground, agreeing that self defense might be necessary and valid, and now we’re down to the solitary question of what methods of self defense are morally acceptable. FormerlyPeabodyPress @CodeNamePeabody seems to be advocating for empty-hand, hand-to-hand combat between healthy males as the sole acceptable means of defense. So most women, certain old people, and the infirm are at an extreme disadvantage to any healthy young male attacker, and that’s furthermore assuming that all violent attackers are guaranteed to be unarmed (no gun, no club, or knife, brick, broken bottle, anti-constitutional legislation, et al).
Also it’s remarkable that we’ve seen this before from the anti-2A side, throughout media, as a recurring theme;
They feel that a violent, felonious attacker and his victim should be thought of as being on such morally equal footing that the defender would be committing an infraction if he were to use a weapon in his defense. In other words it would be unfair of the victim to use a gun (or any weapon, presumably) against the poor criminal attacker, and that ideally it should be more a “fair fight”. The criminal, after all, merely wanted someone else’s stuff, or he wanted mere forced sex with a woman and what after all is so terribly wrong with THAT?
Totally ignoring the fact that weaker people are often specifically targeted by criminals, ignoring the fact that anyone who appears to be of equal or superior physical status to the criminal is avoided by the criminal, the anti-2A mind thinks that a “real man” should “fight fair”, “man to man” with a violent criminal, and may the best man, whichever one that turns out to be, win.
This establishes that the anti-2A mind is, at best, unclear on who is the better man; the felonious attacker or the victim who was going about his own business, not committing any crimes before the attacker came along and chose to victimize him. No moral difference seems to have been established by the anti-2A mind until, apparently, after one or the other wins a “fair fight”. Fight “fair” and may the best man (which, it would appear, they secretly believe is the criminal) win.
I’ve been saying it for years, and this QOTD day bears it out quite well, that the anti-2A mind is a mind which has emotionally bonded with the criminal element. The anti-2A mind is indeed the criminal mind. It is also the “Social Justice” mind, because the criminal state of mind is, ipso facto, the state of mind which erases property rights, and indeed all of the rights and liberty enshrined in our nation’s founding documents. The “Social Justice” mind is also, if you’ll go and read up on it from the horse’s mouth, Catholic Social Doctrine.
The anti-2A and the “Social Justice” (rebranded Catholic Social Doctrine) rhetoric are couched in the language of peace, fraternity, safety and compassion, but they are at all times nothing but coiled, venomous snakes ready to strike.
Fight them?
I’m a man of peace.
I’m so in favor of peace, that if someone suddenly deprives me of peace, I’m going to make sure I regain my peace as quickly as possible.
I’m under no obligation to play fisticuffs by Marquess of Queensberry Rules with anyone that won’t make an appointment by mutual consent through our seconds.