Quote of the day—Zack Ford‏ @ZackFord

Self-defense is not a sufficient argument against gun control.

Zack Ford‏ @ZackFord
Tweeted on January 15, 2019
[The United States Supreme Court and about 100 million United States gun owners disagree with this absurd assertion. But you should know that people like this exist.—Joe]


4 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Zack Ford‏ @ZackFord

  1. If you are unfortunate enough to live in a “may issue” state, this attitude is not the ravings of a “Useful Idiot” but is the policy of those with the power to deny you a carry permit. Ironically while “Self Defense” is not a justification for a carry permit if your job or business requires you to carry large amounts of cash or valuables, you can get a permit. I.e. you can get a permit to defend property but not your life.

    • Well, self defense isn’t just a sufficient justification to carry a weapon if your life fundamentally isn’t worth much.

      My life is quite valuable, thank you very much. I’d like to think yours is, too… but it’s not as valuable to me as my own, or my children’s. So, I am willing to accept self-defense as suffiicent justification for you to carry, due to my own general position on the value of innocent human life. Just don’t put me in a position of “you or me”, because I’m going to choose “me”.

      Conversely, a general sociopathic denial of the value of human life is a necessary to generally deny the natural right of self defense.

  2. I like to perform the following “thought experiment” with people who believe there is no individual right to self defense.

    I tell them I’m going to kick them in the nuts unless they take action to stop me. Then I do so. As they lie writhing on the ground, I tell them I’m going to kick them in the nuts again unless they take action to stop me. And then I do so. Repeat until they understand that self defense is an inherent, individual right.

    Did I say this was a “thought experiment”? Oh, dear me, I only meant it was an experiment that usually makes people rethink their opinion.

  3. Anyone can play this game of course, but I can play it legitimately;

    “Public safety” is not a sufficient argument against the second and fourth amendments. (You’re not safe around a government that can violate your rights)

    “Poverty” is not a sufficient argument for coercive redistribution. (Poverty is maintained, not solved, by theft and redistribution)

    “Fairness” is not a sufficient argument against freedom of association. (It isn’t fair to force others to associate with one another)

    “Unity” is not a sufficient argument against freedom of conscience. (Let’s unify in the understanding that others may believe differently and still respect the rights and property of others)

    The glory of public works projects is not a sufficient argument for tolerating a coercive system. (Liberty is vastly more glorious than anything ever built via “legalized” coercion)

    The insecurity and envy among the weak, the fearful, the hateful and the power-hungry is not a sufficient argument for crushing the spirit of the capable, threatening and intimidating the perceptive, or taxing away the substance of the productive. (Insecurity is knowing that you’ve been surviving by the robbing and bullying of others and don’t know any other way to make a living)

    There is no sufficient argument for authoritarianism. (Sufficiency is having the knowledge, skills, attitude, drive and faith that you will be able to survive without taking from others by force or threats of force)

    I’ll stop now, but you can readily see that this could go on and on and on, and anyway the last one says it all.

    I bet you never heard a politician talk like this. Ever.. It’s because they don’t agree with any of it.

    Every authoritarian violates the ninth commandment (bearing false witness) so as to excuse, rationalize and justify the violation of five, six, seven, eight and ten, and that’s what this QOTD illustrates. Like a Jedi waving his hand while performing his mind-trick, he dismisses the value of life as “insufficient”;
    “Yours are not the lives we’re looking for.”
    It is the ultimate in arrogance.

    The only “sufficient argument” the authoritarians have ever had is; “Do what we say or we’ll hurt you.” It’s the bully’s argument.

    The only “sufficiency” of such an argument lies within the mind of its would-be victim. It has first to be planted there, as a fear strong enough to overcome reason. But God favors liberty, so they’re going up against the un-defeatable force.

Comments are closed.