Missing the Obvious
One has to wonder and marvel at the utopian mindset of those in the "mainstream" media, which is almost anything but. Examples continuously pop up, despite their protestations to the contrary. One of the latest is from the much-vaunted ABC News, asking if the basic concept of self defense is a right, or if it's really just vigilante justice...
The story was most likely prompted by the wave of "no flight" self-defense bills working their way through several state legislatures. These states and most others have required for some time that, when confronted by a criminal intent on doing harm in public or taking from you what is yours, it is your duty to flee. Anything less usually warrants some degree of criminal prosecution. You heard that right. ABC pays lip service to the rights argument, but shows a degree of bias with this statement.
The "Stand Your Ground" laws would allow people to defend themselves with deadly force even in public places when they perceive a life-threatening situation for themselves or others, and they would not be held accountable in criminal or civil court even if bystanders are injured.
The bias here stems from the insinuation that one shouldn't focus on the fact that criminals are the ones being targeted. Any ole' gunfight could break out between two normal citizens and result in innocent men, women, and children suffering. How callous such a law could be, right?
And, of course, The Artist Formerly Known as Handgun Control Inc. had to weigh in.
"You don't just broadly paint a new statewide law saying, if you're in doubt, go ahead and shoot and kill the other person," says Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington. "It's anathema to peace and calm in our communities."
Everybody get that? Our communities are full of peace and calm as long as you don't have the ability to defend yourself in public. Then if you get mugged, raped or killed by wandering thugs that might be in your neighborhood or even downtown, then well, at least the peace and calm of the community wasn't violated by your evil gun.
The real bias of this comes in the form of the question even being seriously asked. "Is water just wet, or is it really a dangerous substance that can drown you?" Self defense has a long, enshrined history as a basic natural right of humanity. Established law in England before the founding of the Republic, but common sense makes it obvious that this right has been with us since the first man or woman picked up the first sticks and stones to defend themselves against a stronger attacker. To assume that we do not have a right to defend ourselves regardless of where we are is no different than assuming that criminals have a right to prey on us as they see fit. Really, there's no argument there, it's just fact. There is no middle ground on that position.
Should we assume nothing will ever go wrong with this law? That's just as ridiculous, but I'm a big fan of personal responsibility and I think that walks hand in hand with personal liberty. If you're going to have one, you should have the other. If you abuse that liberty at the expense of someone else, you'll be punished to the full extent of the law and rightly so, but a freedom shouldn't be taken away just because something bad might happen. If that were the standard, there'd be no freedoms at all.
One has to wonder and marvel at the utopian mindset of those in the "mainstream" media, which is almost anything but. Examples continuously pop up, despite their protestations to the contrary. One of the latest is from the much-vaunted ABC News, asking if the basic concept of self defense is a right, or if it's really just vigilante justice...
The story was most likely prompted by the wave of "no flight" self-defense bills working their way through several state legislatures. These states and most others have required for some time that, when confronted by a criminal intent on doing harm in public or taking from you what is yours, it is your duty to flee. Anything less usually warrants some degree of criminal prosecution. You heard that right. ABC pays lip service to the rights argument, but shows a degree of bias with this statement.
The "Stand Your Ground" laws would allow people to defend themselves with deadly force even in public places when they perceive a life-threatening situation for themselves or others, and they would not be held accountable in criminal or civil court even if bystanders are injured.
The bias here stems from the insinuation that one shouldn't focus on the fact that criminals are the ones being targeted. Any ole' gunfight could break out between two normal citizens and result in innocent men, women, and children suffering. How callous such a law could be, right?
And, of course, The Artist Formerly Known as Handgun Control Inc. had to weigh in.
"You don't just broadly paint a new statewide law saying, if you're in doubt, go ahead and shoot and kill the other person," says Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington. "It's anathema to peace and calm in our communities."
Everybody get that? Our communities are full of peace and calm as long as you don't have the ability to defend yourself in public. Then if you get mugged, raped or killed by wandering thugs that might be in your neighborhood or even downtown, then well, at least the peace and calm of the community wasn't violated by your evil gun.
The real bias of this comes in the form of the question even being seriously asked. "Is water just wet, or is it really a dangerous substance that can drown you?" Self defense has a long, enshrined history as a basic natural right of humanity. Established law in England before the founding of the Republic, but common sense makes it obvious that this right has been with us since the first man or woman picked up the first sticks and stones to defend themselves against a stronger attacker. To assume that we do not have a right to defend ourselves regardless of where we are is no different than assuming that criminals have a right to prey on us as they see fit. Really, there's no argument there, it's just fact. There is no middle ground on that position.
Should we assume nothing will ever go wrong with this law? That's just as ridiculous, but I'm a big fan of personal responsibility and I think that walks hand in hand with personal liberty. If you're going to have one, you should have the other. If you abuse that liberty at the expense of someone else, you'll be punished to the full extent of the law and rightly so, but a freedom shouldn't be taken away just because something bad might happen. If that were the standard, there'd be no freedoms at all.
posted by Rob Beck | 1:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home