I read an interesting article on Huffington Post today (A Revision on the Bill of Rights, Part III) that really made be go Huh? The gist of the article was that when citizens exercise their 2nd Amendment right, and their right of self-preservation, by shooting a criminal in the act of committing a crime, they are denying that criminal of their right to fair justice, the author states; “The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial.” I find this mindset very disturbing, and seems to be a common theme for many of the left leaning politicians and journalists. The problem I have with this rhetorical diatribe is that it presumes that the criminals actually have greater rights than their intended victims. This has already been very well illustrated in the highly publicized police shootings of so called “victims”. I cannot fathom how anyone could actually believe that someone who chooses to act in a criminal fashion, sometimes with the intent of causing great bodily harm, should be afforded the same, or greater, rights than the intended victim? How is this even remotely rational? Following this logic, how long will it be before we just stop pursuing criminals and prosecuting them for their crimes? Justifying their behavior because they are misunderstood? or just less fortunate that us? As a society we need laws to ensure that we do not devolve into some form of a post apocalyptic future, where fear and terror reign supreme.
We do not need to punish the innocent because evil people have made a choice to be criminals. There is NO good reason for anyone to commit a crime against another person. And I for one, and very thankful that our founding had the foresight to enact the Bill of Rights, especially the 2nd Amendment, so that citizens can exercise that right in time of need.