What’s missing from the Trayvon Martin tragedy? [New]
Digby on Markos’ interesting thought:
Think about it. Every other situation in which an innocent person gets gunned down there is a cacophony of gun nuts screeching that if only this person had been armed he could have defended himself. It’s been the basis of every concealed and open carry argument for the last couple of decades.
And yet, in this case, nothing. No impassioned appeals for loosening the gun laws so that ordinary Americans could go to the store in the evening to buy some candy and an iced tea without getting stalked and shot by some unhinged vigilante. No solemn op-eds about the dangers for average Americans when venturing unarmed into the streets of their own neighborhoods. No fiery speeches from Wayne LaPierre insisting that if only everyone in the neighborhood had been armed with submachine guns they could have run outside and started firing immediately upon hearing the screams for help. Nada. Why do you suppose that is?
What Do You Think?
One Response to 'What’s missing from the Trayvon Martin tragedy?'
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
David [New]
Sunday, 25 Mar, 2012 at 7:12 pm
Not on point, exactly, with the diary, but one thing. In the aftermath of the Civil War, after slavery was ended, before the passage of the 14th Amendment. Armed gangs rode the South, attacking African Americans, to ensure their actual status did not reflect their new legal status as citizens. Law enforcement, when it was not directly involved, were unwilling to protect them.
This was the primary reason behind the 14th Amendment. It was designed to ensure the federal government would step in in cases where private violence was left without a remedy. That is what the equal protection clause was all about.
This case is paradigmatic example of an equal protection violation.