Skip to main content

View Diary: Dear Founding Fathers... (89 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Several questions (0+ / 0-)

    The framers of the Constitution felt that self-defense was an inalienable right given by God, and this was actually stated in the debates over the language of the 2nd amendment. So:

    1) Do you believe that a person has a right, whether legal, god-given or otherwise to defend their own life?

    2) Do you accept that for various reasons, a person may be physically incapable of matching an attacker's strength, be outnumbered by them, or both?

    3) Do you feel that a pepper spray that can be negated with a minimal outlay in mask and filter, or a taser with a maximum of 2 shots and a cost to be proficient with it of $20 per shot is the strongest means you would allow for a person outnumbered or outmatched to have sufficient self-defense potential?

    4) If your answer for question 3 is that those two technologies are not sufficient to meet a reasonable need for self-defense, what do you suggest as an alternative?

    5) Last, if you believe a person should be allowed some sort of weapon to enhance their self-defense, and you are claiming the 2nd does not speak of an individual right to own weapons, do you think your position is inconsistent?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site