Jesus, those stories are fucked.
12 Likes
Absolutely! After all, it’s three spots higher on the list, right?
3 Likes
And then bury them in your yard 'cause the coroner ain’t got time for that shit.
7 Likes
8 Likes
Well, shooting the deputy did not make economic sense, so The Market dictated he should live
4 Likes
Someone haffi post it, mon. Might h’as well be I and I.
4 Likes
Those control the government’s actions. Most of that document is meant to check, limit and define government power. Not that of the people who have an inherent right to be safe in their homes and to protect themselves and their families.
Laws older than the Constitution and as basic as a mother rabbit defending her babies from a fox.
Would you not fight to protect your loved ones from someone coming at them with intent to do harm?
The oldest law is the one Thucydides quotes: the strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must. Pretty much everything good in the world comes from our attempts to change that. There is nothing in nature about firearms, and while one might certainly defend themselves, property is a legal fiction we made up.
15 Likes
Definitely! Which is why I would never keep firearms in my home. My family and I are more likely to be harmed by any firearms we keep in the house than by an intruder.
ETA: the risk factor, BTW, is 22 x. That’s 22 times more likely for a home firearm to be involved in a murder, assault, suicide, or accident, than is self-defense. Let that sink in.
17 Likes
"I can kill people freely if I think, maybe, they might be about to do some harm," is a long fucking way from that, buddy.
16 Likes
That’s the thing about rabbits. There aren’t a lot of them out there looking at, say, the brown rabbits that might wander near their den and deciding that they should be attacked, because they don’t belong there or made them feel uneasy.
The fundamental disconnect here is trying to interpret the law without looking at how it is applied in the real world. Questions like “How many times has this law been used as a defence for someone accidentally killing an innocent” or “What proportion of POC are victims of gun violence vs other populations” matter because humans, unlike rabbits, will use laws to shield their otherwise abhorrent behaviours.
Hint: It’s not because there’s a problem with the brown rabbit population.
17 Likes
Let’s not forget who gets off because of laws that allow for public lynchings and who doesnt…
12 Likes
The problem with this argument is the fallacy of “only strangers are dangerous” is that the inhabitants of the home are the most likely to be harmed by the firearm. And this is spoken by a gun owner.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/study-finds-higher-homicide-risk-homes-handguns-83871667
There are many many more I could cite, but I will stop there for now. To make a home defense argument absolutely requires that you ignore every safe gun storage rule. If you are dealing with a gun locked in a case, with a trigger lock on it, with ammunition also locked in a separate location, you will not be able to make that weapon usable in the period of time that an intruder would allow. You absolutely cannot be a responsible gun owner, and capable of defending your home. These are utterly incompatible.
16 Likes
The Rabbit Articles of Confederation are still binding law.
9 Likes
Gotta keep distracting from the real threat, cause the sweet gun money has got to flow… /s
11 Likes
Another benefit to my spinsterhood! 
11 Likes
That said, anybody who thinks rabbits are a good model for society should read Watership Down, and think hard about what they’re asking for.
13 Likes
9 Likes
The chilled bunnies seem okay, eventually, compared to the death cult sacrifice bunnies and the straight up fascist bunnies.
10 Likes
For sure! And rabbits mostly get along at low population densities is a real thing. But so is rabbits will rip each other to pieces to assert dominance at higher population densities. 
9 Likes
