This from the NRA, interviewing people protesting them.
SAVE THE BEST FOR LAST: This one #gun-grabbing #protestor thinks THAT YOU SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO #DEFEND YOUR LIFE if an #intruder breaks into your house. The #NRA and our 6 million members know better than this and we will never stop fighting for the #2A! #EmptyHQ #FreeIceCream pic.twitter.com/SYWWztnl6Z
— NRA (@NRA) August 6, 2018
This is depraved thinking. This woman actually believes that the force a person should bring to bear in a case of self defense should be proportional to what a judge would sentence a person to in a trial.
How far does this belief go?
No state allows rape to be punished with the death penalty (it should be) so is using lethal force to stop a rape is too much?
No state punishes attempted murder with the death penalty so is using lethal force to stop someone from trying but failing to kill you is too much?
In Brown vs. The US, the Supreme Court held that in matters of personal defense “detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.”
This woman thinks it is moral to flip this on its head.
These are the kind of people who are perfectly fine with the hypothetical scenarios of a person gambling their lives against a criminal, until it is their asses on the line. When that threshold is crossed, they are quick to pick up the sword of retribution and make use of it.
Were it not for double, triple or quadruple standards, they would be entirely lacking in standards that we could measure.
“This woman actually believes that the force a person should bring to bear in a case of self defense should be proportional to what a judge would sentence a person to in a trial.”
This goes along with rhetoric like “We don’t impose the death penalty for rape, so you shouldn’t be able to shoot your attacker.”
No state punishes attempted murder with the death penalty …
That’s rewarding incompetence. They intended to kill; they had means, motive and opportunity, they just didn’t accomplish it. That has never made sense to me.