Florida's "No Retreat" Self-Defense Bill: pt 2

I'll give you a couple of sides on this issue. The linked page is from the American Spectator and is from the point of view of a Jewish commentator Jay Homnick. He speaks to Talmudic law and the right to self defense.

Then we have this bit of logic in an op-ed by Howard Goodman:

People who say we'll be safer if more of us carry guns obviously are not watching HBO's Deadwood, which shows the corpse-ridden consequences of a Hobbesian world where the only clear law is every-armed-man-for-himself.

Ah yes, the use of a fictitious town in a fictional society as the basis for reality in modern America. Goodman can't even bother to use real history to back up his distorted sense of reality. Even the worst of the lawless places in the old west didn't fall into the situation of Deadwood. And his assumption that a modern society, with multiple layers of police enforcement would come to this because of this bill, is a leap into stupidity. I'd say he is playing at propaganda, but that assumes a level of intelligence I can't quite bring myself to attribute to him.

If you read his full irritating article you'll get to the point of him mutilating the accepted legal view of the second amendment. I still fail to understand why these commentators fail to even do the least research into the accepted legal norms on this subject. Probably the reason has to do with its working against his point of view and thus wouldn't be relevant to "debate."

I also find it fascinating that the railing on the subject is only about guns. The law allows you to use force to protect yourself. Why is it that guns are seen as the only protection?