I don't want to like Rick Scott, but you CAN make me

I did not vote for Rick Scott and had never thought I would even consider voting for him when he seeks re-election.  However, as is probably apparent from my recent posts and the fact that the history of this blog will chronicle a shift in my willingness to consider conservative alliances, the liberal media and their fervent anti-firearms rhetoric has made me what I said I was not; a single issue voter.  So I am more likely to support a man who I think is really not a good governor.  I will not sacrifice a right that is important to me for the sake of others who would take it away.

Yes, I have said it before; until such time as my rights become important to such people, I will not act in support of their rights.  If that means voting for a governor who would deny them those rights, but who will protect and preserve mine, then so be it - I have no choice.  What most "liberals" don't realize is that their movement needs people like me who are not all liberal or conservative, who are libertarian in nature, to support it; those who believe that "rights are rights" and all need protection.  But, throw me under the bus (as a white, straight, upper middle class male with no need for gay marriage, abortion, food stamps, etc.) and I will move on (catch that reference ;<)?).  I will not stand with you as you seek to disarm me.  Frankly - molon labe.

Thankfully, for those of us who are law-abiding firearm owners and carriers who want nothing more than to exercise our right and protect ourselves, Scott met with protestors in Tallahassee and renewed his support for Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law (which, any rational person knows, is and was irrelevant to the case).

I will not launch into another description of my view of the Zimmerman/Martin tragedy, but it is clear that Zimmerman was defending himself.

Yes, there are those who want to claim that Martin was defending himself by throwing the first blow - but that is not how the law works.  If that is what you are teaching your children (or are not dissuading them from), black, white, or brown, then you are setting them up for the very tragedies you abhor.  Black and white writers have talked about "The Talk" - spun in their own way - that they may need to give their children - but the version of it that needs to be had would note that verbal provocation is never justification for violence, any more than someone cutting you off on the road or honking their horn at you justifies road rage.  Questioning a stranger walking through your neighborhood may seem foolish (I have noted I would not have done as Zimmerman did), but it is not illegal and, to some, it is an exercise of good citizenship and responsibility.  Physically assaulting someone who questions you is illegal and initiates an action that can end with lethal self-defense.  Those who keep insisting that such an action was reasonable need to read the law and have that "Talk" with their children.  It is such tacit acceptance of the idea that if someone gets in your face you can punch them that lead to this tragedy.  And that was not what I was taught as a teen.  The talk of my youth was "You respect everyone".  The talk today seems to be "You deserve respect, but do not need to give it. Lash out for your right to respect."

Damn - said I wasn't going to go through all that again.  Anyway, I applaud the Governor for standing firm (standing his ground?) in the face of attempts to change policy that was irrelevant to this case.