The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Where is the confusion?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Your example was a rabid dog (see in situ)

Where is the confusion?

The confusion is yours.

The dog has no rights; shoot the f0cking thing.

The human has rights on NAP;

Yes, NAP is my gig. I will not shoot the dog if it is not a threat. If it is a threat, I might. If I individually determine it to be an imminent threat, I will defend myself, and I ain't gonna fire up the DP to ask you or any collective if it's okay before I act in self defense.

If you're comparing the rabid dog to a human with a gun pointing it at you, fine, I agree with that. You should neutralize the threat.

Yes! Bingo! Simple!

But according to NAP, he hasn't committed aggression, and should be released. No victim, no crime, as the lovely Josie the outlaw says.

Not enough information. If someone points a gun at me I might say, "Hey, watch it buddy!" If someone points a gun at me and says, "Give me one good reason I shouldn't pull this trigger!" I would engage the best means available to me for self defense, even if it meant shooting him first.

There's no proof either would ever have harmed anyone, and there are no victims.

I find it odd that you had no quarrel with my using the term "threat". Guess what? When "proof" is provided, "threat" ceases to exist. Threat ends in either proof or neutralization. Your choice. My choice.