From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For someone who appears to think that Cybershooters taking an interest in
self-defence issues err towards extremism, Neil's stance is itself somewhat
extreme. You exaggerate, Neil. You're being silly. There are people who think
that violence is so repugnant that people should employ it in self-defence
only as a very last resort, and that they should face a severe legal
inquisition in consequence. There are others, including myself, who think
that while violence is abhorrent, it is also an inherent human
characteristic, and that those people such as professional criminals who will
always be liable to use violence should and must be served out the same way.
If someone breaks into your house in the dead of night, you owe it to no-one
to fling yourself on the mercy of the invaders - because that's what
attempted flight or crying for help is, in effect. The morality of the ages
supports the individual's absolute right - indeed, duty - to defend life &
property against criminal attack.
To suggest that we should not comment in detail on the Martin case because we
weren't in court, or don't have access to court records, is as daft as saying
we shouldn't criticise WW1 generalship because we weren't hovering in a
balloon above the Somme, with binoculars.
And I suggest that many Cybershooters are so interested in the Martin case,
and other self defence issues, because they're sport shooters, some of them
of very long standing. Firearms ownership, especially in this country, tends
to open one's eyes to the conflict between the burgeoning power of state
bureaucracy, and the rights of the individual. Cybershooters have not only
the self discipline, responsibility and strength of character that comes from
a sound training in the use of firearms, but are individualists, with a keen
sense of right & wrong, and a more active interest than most in issues of
individual freedom.
-------[Cybershooters contacts]--------
Editor: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Website & subscription info: www.cybershooters.org
