I can see how what I said could be seen that way but that is absolutely not at all what I mean. If someone went out and created trouble for those riding the ATVs I would say they should be charge for assault with a deadly weapon. I merely say that anyone who get aggressed by these groups should have the right to defend themselves.

I’ve followed this thread quite closely.

> Literally no one is saying people shouldn’t defend themselves

That seems to be precisely what your argument has been?

> government does not act it is up to the individual and community to protect themselves.”

I mean, I fucking hate guns, but can you reasonably explain to me why the right to carry a gun is not justified here? Like actually reasonable?

Is this woman, who is violently being grabbed from her car, that also has her children in it, supposed to say: “nah, nah, nah, nah, aboo, boo, I call time out! I’m going to call the police. Things are in time out until they arrive!”

What more could a right to self defense exist of?

> it isn’t out of the realm of reality for someone to interpret that as you wanting more than ‘individuals using “adequate self-defense”’. It is especially not out of the realm of reality considering the country we live in.

This is your projection to attempt to self validate your ridiculous interpretation. Nothing more, nothing less.