This is a carry over from Vox’s. Where I said:
“Winston believes that non gun owners rely on gun owners to provide their safety since they expect men with guns to come and help them out if the situation arises. Thus they are dependent on the provision of others for a basic human need, ie parasites.”
I do believe it is the right and duty of the individual to provide for their safety and security. I do not recant that basic premise. However, I have to reconsider my conclusion.
In fact under our system of government and law; neither group can be held accountable for not taking care of you, even if the circumstance in which you find yourself is one in which it is their job to address.I don’t believe you can count on the police or armed forces to take care of this need for you.
Unfortunately for me in this debate my belief, however well founded, doesn’t change the intent of the protectee. The intent of the protectee is to trade money in exchange for the assistance of the protector. One cannot be a willing party to an exchange and be a parasite. In the case of a trade, one party is exchanging something of value in order to obtain something of value; therefore they are not a freeloader.
I’m wrong about a non-gun owner being an automatic parasite.