When someone threatens me, personally, I get angry. If they are within striking distance I may violently defend myself from them.
And, make no mistake, those demanding more anti-gun "laws" are threatening me personally. They are threatening to violently attack, rob, and enslave me... and murder me if I resist. That's what "laws" are: a threat.
But no one has had the guts to do it to my face, even when directed at me. As is the nature of these anti-liberty cowards, they do it while hiding behind screens, hundreds of miles away. They still make me angry and trigger my "fight or flight" response.
The danger to them is there is nowhere left to fly to. The anti-liberty bigots have closed off the entire freakin' planet. "Pro-gun" places like Texas impose anti-gun "laws" no civilized place would ever tolerate-- and the anti-liberty bigots whine that it's not enough. It's never enough. That leaves fighting as the available option.
I understand the sentiment of "Kill 'em all" even though I disagree with it in practice.
I'll continue to use my words to try to show them the error of their ways and to make it clear I gave them every chance to do the right thing and get their filthy government off my rights. But I know what it's going to come to. Sooner or later. It's only a matter of time.
"Kill 'em All" is a very simple utilitarian solution. The logic works like this; Dead people don't violate, and therefore dead masses do not violate in mass.
ReplyDeleteThe ethical dilemma is valuing and respecting the rights of those who are of a neutral position among the violators. My answer is to kill them all anyway. Killing them all gets the job done, ethics doesn't.
Want Libertopia or not? If so, get WMD's and start killing people by the billions. If not, keep up the great work teaching people about liberty.
If I had enough WMD's to kill at least 4 billion, I would have already used them. It is kind of waste unless you kill at least that many.