13-07-2016, 19:01
Citiram del javnega pisma Davida karaseka, predstavnika Češkega združenja za pravico do orožja, ker menim, da je zelo lepo izpostavil, kar se dogaja.
Priporočam branje celega pisma tukaj:
https://firearms-united.com/2016/07/13/o...#more-1423
Compromises simply aren’t acceptable where justice is at stake
A crime has been committed, and you are charged, but you didn’t do it; what length of prison time would you be willing to accept as ‘reasonable compromise’?
Someone wants to rob you and you don’t want to be robbed; how much of violence and theft are you willing to suffer as ‘reasonable compromise’?
Someone wants to bully your daughter in the school, and she doesn’t want to be bullied; how much bullying is ‘reasonable compromise’?
There are no reasonable compromises in such a situations. Absolute refusal is the only proper answer. Telling legitimate firearms owners:
“We don’t want to ban all semiautomatics, or even all conversions, all we ask you is to give up 20+ magazines – why aren’t you willing to even this small concession?”
is like telling black Americans: “We don’t want you to wear chains or slave in cotton fields, all we ask you is to sit in the back of the bus – why aren’t you willing to accept this small concession?” These ‘compromises’ aren’t unacceptable because they would be too burdensome; they are unacceptable because they are totally unfair.
Priporočam branje celega pisma tukaj:
https://firearms-united.com/2016/07/13/o...#more-1423
Compromises simply aren’t acceptable where justice is at stake
A crime has been committed, and you are charged, but you didn’t do it; what length of prison time would you be willing to accept as ‘reasonable compromise’?
Someone wants to rob you and you don’t want to be robbed; how much of violence and theft are you willing to suffer as ‘reasonable compromise’?
Someone wants to bully your daughter in the school, and she doesn’t want to be bullied; how much bullying is ‘reasonable compromise’?
There are no reasonable compromises in such a situations. Absolute refusal is the only proper answer. Telling legitimate firearms owners:
“We don’t want to ban all semiautomatics, or even all conversions, all we ask you is to give up 20+ magazines – why aren’t you willing to even this small concession?”
is like telling black Americans: “We don’t want you to wear chains or slave in cotton fields, all we ask you is to sit in the back of the bus – why aren’t you willing to accept this small concession?” These ‘compromises’ aren’t unacceptable because they would be too burdensome; they are unacceptable because they are totally unfair.