Sunday, January 29, 2006

Right to Defense

I spotted an interesting headline on Yahoo this evening..."Wyo. a Battleground in Deadly Force Debate." Of course, anything to do with "deadly force" piqued my libertarian interest, since I firmly believe in an individual's right to defend themselves against an attack on their life or property with force, deadly or otherwise. I thought I was reasonably well versed on this subject, which is why I was surprised to see that the news story had to do with a law being pushed in Wyoming that would specify that people have no duty to retreat from an attacker before using deadly force.

Pardon my language, but what the frack?!? According to the article, half of the states in our union have laws that specify this fact; that you cannot use deadly force unless you attempt to retreat. Which would mean, basically, the only time you are sanctioned to us deadly force is if you are left with no other option. In other words, if I witness a crime in progress, I am not allowed to use "deadly force" to resolve the situation unless someone's life is in danger. While this sounds like it might be a good law, so to speak, it means in effect that regular citizens would not be allowed to use firearms to defend their lives or property unless their life was in direct danger. We're just supposed to call the police and wait while our property is taken instead of being able to intervene.

Remember, government is your friend/protector/parent/nanny. You don't need to do anything to protect yourself because we'll protect you from anyone and anything, including yourself.