English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-08-17 13:33:34 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

2 answers

I think thats a good idea. I don't like the idea of the government telling me just how I can defend myself.

After all,

"He that shall oppose an assault only with a shield to receive the blows, or in any more respectful posture, without a sword in his hand to abate the confidence and force of the assailant, will quickly be at an end of his resistance…..This will always be the event of such an imaginary resistance, where men may not strike again. He, therefore, who may resist must be allowed to strike. And then let our author, or anybody else, join a knock on the head or a cut on the face with as much reverence and respect as he thinks fit He that can reconcile blows and reverence may, for aught I know, deserve for his pains a civil, respectful cudgelling wherever he can meet with it". --John Locke

I translate this as roughly you have a right to defend yourself with weaponry equal to any you are attacked with. And anyone that disagrees with that idea should be beaten with a stick.

But I attended these classes even though I am opposed to the concept of government regulating my self defence. I found the class very informative. When you think about using a fire arm for self defense you always conjure up for yourself a clear cut case. The class makes you think about lots of difficult situations, and makes you think about when to shoot and when not to shoot. I am more confident I would make the correct decision now than before I took the class. The class is worthwhile.

2006-08-17 14:09:32 · answer #1 · answered by Roadkill 6 · 0 0

great class, not that hard.

2006-08-17 23:08:55 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers