While I support the 2A in its most basic intent, I will continue to oppose the perversions of that particular right because of one personal experience some 37 years ago. I've posted a/b it not too long ago and won't rehash it. But I will say that coming within a heartbeat of taking a life is probably the most effective cure for chronic wannabe vigilanteism.
On one hand, I hope that no one here ever has to experience that cure. On the other, I would urge those who think laws like the castle doctrine and SYG think a little deeper. We all have the right to protect ourselves and what's ours — and if deadly force is truly the only remaining option, then one does what one must do. However, consider carefully the difference btwn a right and an obligation. And most important, consider the saving of one's own life and all other lives as well. Nuff sed.
That's the whole point of the paranoia... and I think that cost Travon his life because Zimmerman was too quick to judge and take deadly action ! He wasn't looking for a peaceful solution. Sure there was a fight and Travon probably attacked him... but WHY? we'll NEVER know !
Yes the 2A IS a right but with every right comes responsibility, and too many are willing to forget that or treat it too lightly ! Paranoia is a powerful emotion... right next to FEAR- an "animal instinct" ! !
The argument that a law won't stop crime is not particularly valid. On that basis, we ought to get rid of all laws. After all, stop signs are often ignored, at least around here; and people ignore speed limit signs all the time--they're more honored in the breach than the observance, in fact; and drug laws, all of them, may as well be dumped; and kids under age get drunk all the time, so get rid of those laws too; and murders take place whether there's a law against it or not. Hell, I bet that there are some people out there who covet their neighbor's wife, so dump the 10 commandments while we're at it.
_________________________ MACTECHubi dolor ibi digitus
All true. Very true. So pass laws. But pass laws that affect a problem. Don't just pass laws because lawmakers need to look like they are doing something. First determine that a problem exist. Then pass alaw that would have affected the problem. Also make sure the law doesn't have unintended consequences .
Take my home state, Kansas, Secretary of State. Got his position because of stating a problem of voter fraud. Did a problem exist? Well, is 86 incidents in dozens of years constitute a problem? No. Now does the law affect said problem? Debatable. Then does the law have unintended consequences? Oh, my God yes.
We don't née no stinking bad laws.
If we don't count our blessings We are just wasting our time
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.