I think I got it.
It is ok to pass as many laws as you like (not that I think you need many) that makes it illegal, with the full jeopardy of the criminal justice system, to commit an act of Predatory Violence, as long as that law does nothing to impede Protective Violence. I await your proposals Diane Feinstein.
[Make Believe Violence is a whole separate category and beyond the scope of this post.]
I don't think anyone of our side has a problem comprehending this. Murder is illegal and Predatory, but in an effort to bubble wrap the country the Liberals like to encroach on Protective Violence too. Part of it is their desire for guaranteed safety and security as though that were possible, part of it is their desire to Control others and bend them to their whim and will, and a BIG part of it is they do not know the difference between Protective and Predatory.
This would explain their violent tendencies, like calling for the road hauling of members of Congress that do know the difference and refuse to infringe on the Protective side of the equation. To Liberals it's all just Violence. And with single-stage thinking they don't remember what they are summoning with 911 to come save them from bad guys trying to hurt them that instant. There is a disconnect there. And they can't see themselves with a gun because they assume they'd snap and use violence in a Predatory manner. When you don't know the difference, I can see this as a possible outcome. Perhaps all Liberals should avoid personally refraining from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights until they get this little detail straight in their head. They are confused and conflate, or willfully obtuse and conflate. Either way...
A man with a badge and a duty belt with holster is nothing special. Just a contractor the people have hired to do the policing job they do not have time to do. It is his or her sworn job to commit Protective Violence for their bosser, Us. The ones that do Predatory Violence are certainly not doing their job and in a just world are treated the same as any bad guy scumbag stickup artist or murderer. We should be no less well-armed than police officers. And, in fact, We the People take our cue from the police when selecting the means to protect ourselves. In fact, maybe the police have gone to far when they start arming themselves like soldiers. Who are these civilian police officers going to go to war with? Why do they need machine guns? Why are they exempt from rules other civilians have to abide by? Are they really under-armed compared to the bad guys with something like a .30-30 lever gun?
Prosecute predators, but make no law that hamstrings my ability to protect myself and my family.
This is also an answer to the Rectro ad Adsurdium fallacy that Lefties like to trot out. "No gun control?! You'll only be happy if everyone has their own M1 Tank and Maverick Missile armed Drone!" No. Those are weapons that are use to prey on the enemy. Just because they now call it the Department of Defense doesn't mean the War Department really deals in defense or defense only. The military initiates violence on the enemy. The whole 'the best defense is a good offense' and is not the purview of civilians, either badged or not.
About Hillary Clinton's emails - Assume that foreign governments read them all. - Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
1 hour ago