Ooooh, that had to hurt, eh, Rebecca?

Via just about everyone, comes this and this from Sebastian, the Pro-Gun Progressive. In the clips linked here, he debates Rebecca Peters of the International Action Network on Small Arms, and well, she quite clearly got her ass handed to her. I am biased, but still it should be noted that she just breezed right over some critical points Sebastian made -- so even by the academic rules of debate she came up on the short end of the stick.
The one that immediately comes to mind is toward the end of the first segment, where Sebastian speaks of the court rulings that the police have no duty to protect the individual. How does Peters answer this?
"Well, they can't protect everyone, if a large portion of everyone is carrying a gun....it's a scary sort of image...that you're only able to enjoy your rights as a person in a democracy if you're only able to shoot everybody who might potentially be a threat to you, that is not the way that democracies come about. The basis of society should not be that every person should be able to kill anyone else that they want to."
Well, first off, how about that straw man! Me, I don't WANT to kill anyone. With apologies to Charlie Daniels, "I'm the kind of man who wouldn't harm a mouse, but if I catch somebody breakin' in my house, I got a big ole .45 a-waitin' on the other side." And I sure as hell won't be happy about it -- though I'll be thankful if I live. I've heard it said that those forced to make the choice between killing or being killed in the context of violent, immediate crime don't ever really get over being forced into that. The basis of society ISN'T AND NEVER WAS that "every person should be able to kill anyone else that they want to." And it's more than a little disingenuous of Rebecca Peters to cast a free society as such.
And then there's that woeful ignorance of history -- "you're only able to enjoy your rights as a person in a democracy if you're only able to shoot everybody who might potentially be a threat to you, that is not the way that democracies come about." Well, actually, that kinda IS the way that democracies come about, and constitutional republics as well for that matter. It was only by armed revolt that our forebears threw off the yoke of the British monarchy -- and that's just one example. Not only is being armed and willing to use force the way free societies come about, it's also the only way they will actually STAY free. This is the way it's always been, ever since Cain slew Abel. There are those who argue that violence and tribal war are the natural state of man, and once again, the evidence is in abundance with even a cursory examination of history -- it's always been one tribe wanting to rule over or exterminate another, or seize their assets, right on up to this very second. One could even argue that on the micro level, one tribe is that of the violent criminals and the other is the tribe of the law-abiding citizens. There are always going to be certain groups of people who want to rule over and impose their will on others, and the only way they'll be able to do this is if their desired subjects are unarmed and unable to resist. And Peters said nothing about even this, let alone situations such as the one mentioned here.
But beyond all of this, well, let me say what I said to James, the Texas Gun Nut --
Sometimes the only thing left to say is...
"You can't have my guns. If you come for them I will kill you and as many people you bring with you as I can. And that is not a threat -- it's a promise."
It might sound extreme -- SayUncle referred to it as "scaring the white people" -- but sometimes the only thing you can do is rattle the sabers and rattle them hard. Sometimes it's just the only argument the other side will listen to. And ultimately, once again, it's the whole rationale behind the RKBA -- "if you screw with me bad enough, I will kill you."
Sebastian, if you're reading this, good job, my friend! Bravo!