Friday, March 29, 2013

Even women who know their assailant need armed self-defense

The obviously far more fundamental question, though, is, "Does knowing one's assailant (intimately or not) impose a moral prohibition on the intended victim defending herself by the most effective means?" If her husband, or boyfriend, or ex, wants to kill her, and is sufficiently more powerful than she to succeed in doing so unless she uses a gun, is she morally obligated to die?


Anonymous said...

Well, according to the Libtards, yes, it IS morally superior to die then to successfully defend yourself with a (gasp!) gun.
I wish they'd practice such among themselves. They'd either deplete their Libtard ranks, or we could prove/disprove the old saying about "A conservative is a Libtard who's been bitch slapped by reality."

B Woodman

skybill said...

"....Is she morally obligated to die?...." Morally obligated by "Who?" and or "What??".. I'm not a "she," I'm a "He," and in my minds' eye to switch places and put myself in that jeopardy, I'll say Guns, Knives, Baseball Bats, Nuclear weapons, what-ever-it-takes-to kick-ass!!! Once the "Other side" has crossed that threshold that your "LIFE" is in imminent danger, "All Bets are OFF!!"