When do parents have the right to shoot back against state-sponsored kidnappers? and Why Hitler loved a disarmed population
I’ll explore both sides of this argument here and then share my own views.
On the “shoot back” side of the argument, this woman had every right to defend herself against armed assailants who were engaged in acts of violence (breaking down her door) and who conspired to kidnap her daughter. In the legal world, the term “conspiracy” simply means more than one person was involved in planning the event. This was, without question, a conspiracy to kidnap a human being…
….Why Hitler loved a disarmed population
But let’s get back to the issue of when it’s appropriate to shoot back. The “don’t shoot back” crowd seems to think that the government can do no wrong. If the government comes for you in the middle of the night to kidnap your children for no justifiable reason, you’re supposed to just surrender and do what you’re told. This is the entire argument of the “don’t shoot back” crowd.
Hitler would have loved this idea, of course. In fact, he pursued it quite diligently. One of the most important elements of his plan to exterminate the Jews was to disarm them first. That’s why Hitler passed gun control laws before he started rounding up Jews and sending them off to the gas chambers. It’s always easier to round people up if they don’t shoot back, you see. An armed population is much more difficult to subject to genocide because they have the pesky problem of causing kinetic action to take place….
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/032091_Maryanne_Godboldo_gun_rights.html#ixzz1JsiOWDo5