posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 01:31 PM
reply to post by ADVISOR
'Considering it takes the police forever to respond to incidents, that they will not show up until after the crime is over. "
By this comment it seems more like you support defending those that need help, that is not vigilanteism. In fact even killing someone in the defense
of another can be considerred legal. Vigilanteism is many times someone taking it upon themselves to be judge jusry and executioner (after the fact
just as you were complaining police show up after the fact) and many times without all of the facts.
"Then again, self defense and an understanding of the Second Amendment, which says it is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms", ought to be
practiced by all law abiding citizens. Because then, we wouldn't be having this discussion."
Now I believe in the right to bear arms but it is fooling yourself to think if everyone did we would not have crime. We also have an actual historical
representation of this during the wild west. Pretty much everyone had guns and crime was just as bad if not worse then. Humans are going to commit
crimes regardless of who has weapons, even going further back when everyone carried swords for protection that dd not deter crime really.
There have been basically Vigilante gangs in the past created to protect their neighborhoods which at first seems good. Eventually they became worse
than the gangs they were protecting their neighborhood from.
I'm against vigilanteism but all for protecting those in need when they need it.
edit on 31-7-2011 by seeker1977 because: (no reason
given)