06-13-2016, 07:49 PM
Not mentioned is the question of prudence.
The position of a strong 2nd Amendment supporter is that the shooter had the right to purchase powerful weapons. He has the right to caress his weapons and fantasize about shooting a roomful of faggots. He has the right to carry them into gay nightclub.
They support this even though they know that someone in this situation is prone to use his weapons, resulting in the deaths of innocent people.
On the other hand, the same people deny the right of a people (e.g. Iran) to acquire or have powerful weapons because they fear they may use them, resulting in the deaths of innocent people.
How does one justify these two contradictory positions? I think the answer lies in proportionality or scale. Does the right of a potentially irrational sovereign nation/individual to be able bear powerful arms outweigh the threat of deaths of innocent people from the inappropriate use of such powerful arms?
The position of a strong 2nd Amendment supporter is that the shooter had the right to purchase powerful weapons. He has the right to caress his weapons and fantasize about shooting a roomful of faggots. He has the right to carry them into gay nightclub.
They support this even though they know that someone in this situation is prone to use his weapons, resulting in the deaths of innocent people.
On the other hand, the same people deny the right of a people (e.g. Iran) to acquire or have powerful weapons because they fear they may use them, resulting in the deaths of innocent people.
How does one justify these two contradictory positions? I think the answer lies in proportionality or scale. Does the right of a potentially irrational sovereign nation/individual to be able bear powerful arms outweigh the threat of deaths of innocent people from the inappropriate use of such powerful arms?