|
Clarification:
I strongly agree with bark'n's post in general, especially that if "kill" makes you personally uncomfortable you should probably not carry a weapon designed to do just that.
All the same, I personally recommend keeping one's sig line relatively innocuous, not because it is politically incorrect or "makes me uncomfortable" or because I don't like to think in such stark terms. Instead, consider that the twelve individuals on your jury will almost certainly be sheep (the DA will make sure to weed out all the sheepdogs). What you put on the internet is public domain, and it will be used to paint you as some violent individual who'd been waiting years so he could blow away somebody and get away with it. And don't think that all the reasonable thinking in the world will be your defense (except perhaps in Texas).
Harold Fish seriously was convicted because he used a 10mm w/ hollow points. Look at the jury interviews; one girl said that she believed that Grant Kuenzli was a violent and aggressive person, and that Harold Fish was an upstanding family man. She said that the one thing that the jurors couldn't get past was that he used a big gun with hollow points, and that, to her, suggested that he wanted to kill someone. We live in a society of idiots. Be prepared to defend yourselves as well as possible; in the moment when you are threatened, there can be no hesitation. But until that moment, do what you can to mitigate the potential repercussions of that necessary act.
So, in summation, I agree with bark'n's sentiments, but one need not have some sort of extra-macho blow-his-brains-out sig line to do so. And for the record, I think bark'n's own sig line is excellent and entirely above reproach.
__________________
"War necessarily brings with it some virtues, and great and heroic virtues too. What horrid creatures we men are, that we cannot be virtuous without murdering one another?" -John Adams
|