He was stalking the neighborhood: you just know he was up to
no good. With his hood over his head, armed with a package of skittles and a
drink, it could only mean trouble. Fortunately, he didn’t fool anyone, as the
neighborhood vigilante was out there on guard, guarding you and me with his
perceived ‘second amendment right to bear arms’. To seal the deal, the stalker was black:
a crime in itself, but by George, as in Zimmerman, there was only one thing to
do.
Oh, he had a record of drugs this stalker did; he had tattoos too! He was
talking to a friend in the midst of doing his evil: by George as in Zimmerman,
he needed to be stopped!
And George, as in Zimmerman: had his rights, had his gun and
was all set for instant heroism, HE was the neighborhood watch. He did his job
at first, very well. But it wasn’t enough to do just that, no after he reported
to the police the existence of this future felon, after the police advised him
to desist from any more, he decided his work wasn’t done. By George as in Zimmerman,
he went ahead and challenged the right of Trayvon Martin to walk a street, and since Trayvon fitted
the preconceived idea of a criminal. Trayvon needed to die. After all, he fit
all the criteria in the minds of those who wave the flag in jingoistic
self-righteousness, thinking the 2nd amendment means they are a
militia.
I really don’t know what the neighborhood is like. If there
are black kids wearing hoodies who rob and steal, that may be true, and reason
for suspicion, but if you are wrong and you pre-judge with unproven facts, the
biggest consequences are those paid by the self-righteous.
Some nitwit once said she carries a gun because her home was
robbed 5 times. I wonder why she would want to stay in a neighborhood where
your home gets robbed that often that you don’t move, but get a gun and chance
your own freedom because you think you have a right to carry a gun. And when
you make the same mistakes by George as in Zimmerman, we can discuss that case
too.
On the same token, I see the reaction to the verdict. It is
very definitely without merit. No one knows if Trayvon is innocent, he may be
and he may not be. Why does he take on the look of suspicion, he invites
ignorant people to pre-judge him and he exposed himself to danger. If it is his
right, ok, so much for rights. For those that march, did they find that verdict
as justice not being served? Like O.J. Simpson’s verdict? Is it justice you
wish or something else?
The fact to the matter is: a gun once again came into play,
a gun put in the hands of someone who should not own one, but is protected, not
by the second amendment, but by a gun lobby that controls congress and maintains
the dangers that it implies to all Americans.
1 comment:
I feel like you're the only one who has the guts to talk about what really matters in this case. The laws in Florida that made it possible for George Zimmerman to carry a gun and shoot an unarmed kid -- even though GZ is not affiliated with law enforcement at all -- were lobbied for by the NRA as a way to make sure people could use their guns more or less whenever they wanted. That has nothing to do with race and everything to do with trying to further strengthen gun rights, which are already quite strong.
-#1 Son
Post a Comment