Thought v. Action

http://www.allproudamericans.com/woman-protects-her-privacy-by-any-means-necessary.html


The above news spot talks about a woman in Texas who pulled a gun on a public service employee over the installation of a power meter.  She invokes the Constitution in her defense of private property, but I have to disagree.  As always there is two sides of every argument and when you bring the Constitution, The Bible, or any other governing document there will be.  One person wants to use a particular part of the Old Testament to condemn behavior  while others use the New Testament to condone that action.  Liberals use a more rhetorical interpretation of the Constitution where Conservatives don't.  This issues whoever, in my eyes, is a case where a person want their cake and to eat it too.

Understandably this is not a black and white issue, but at its simplest form it is.  I see this case as battle between thought and action.  Neither is better, neither is worse.  The homeowner wants to use action (pulling a gun) to solve her problems rather than thought (The Constitution). Yes, her action is backed up by thought, but over-arching principle at play is action.  Action over thought is a plausible solution to many problems.  My hand is burning, I pull it out of the fire.  My Congressman sits by and lets a major bill pass that hurts me, I vote him out.  If our society had no laws (say no Constitution), and we could do what we wanted, the homeowner would probably be given a medal, but she might be hung for pulling a gun too.  She'd not have a Constitution to fall back on.

The problem lies in the fact that the homeowner is using the Constitution incorrectly, thus her actions (supported by thought) are fallible.  The Constitution gives us the right to bare arms..for a militia..and it gives us the right to private property...from the government...No government agency was involved (that I know of) in placing the power meters on the house in question, thus she has no right to defend herself with a gun.  Seem too simple..it is..  Scratching your head yet?  Both parties are at fault

The action of the power company employee were illegal.  The employee trespassed on private property, thus he should be punished under due process of the law (also in the Constitution).  The homeowner is guilty of pulling a gun in an unlawful (or at least Unconstitutional) manner.  Still with me? Let's take this instance apart and see if that helps

Case One
I have  NO TRESPASSING signs all over my house.  Someone unconstitutionally breaks in my house.  I have no gun.  They take my TV and my beer bottle collection.  What are they guilty of? Trespassing and burglary. This is the same thing the power company employee did. This employee trespassed, and you could say was going to take away someone's property.

Case Two.
I am sitting on my front porch.  I see an Alabama fan wearing a Bear Bryant hat walking down the street.  I hate Bear Bryant and I pull a Constitutionally protected gun on the person.  What am I guilty of?  Depending on where you live it could be endangering the life of a citizen, or something like creating a public disturbance.  This is what the homeowner is guilty of.  This isn't a lawless society and that Bama fan is due their unalienable right to life.

The case at hand is a combining of both of these cases.  All points are covered under the Constitution, but they were put together improperly by someone who lacks a sound understanding of the Constitution.

What gets me is when people try to use the Constitution. It is not a one size fits your needs document.  In many cases it will even rule against you when you try to use it incorrectly. Of course you have the right to private property.  The homeowner was within her rights to not want someone on her property. She was even within her rights to have a gun.  At the same time she has no right to pull a gun on someone.  She let action win the battle between thought on an incorrect assumption.  What should have taken place was the police were called, the power company employee arrested, and then the power company sued over invasion of privacy or even plain ole trespassing.  We have laws in place for this very reason, and they have been carefully thought out. The legal system is where thought beats action, so my question to the homeowner would be: Who do you have to face in court? A judge, and the judge uses thoughts to governed his actions.

If this homeowner does not like the fact that she is at fault too, she can write her Congressman (which is elected by rules laid out in the???? You guessed it Constitution) and see if he cannot pass a law (for which must be ruled Constitutional by the??? Supreme Court. That same Supreme Court is appointed by rules laid out in the Constitution..Ok I have carried this side conversation on too long) The homeowner in question simply allowed action to rule over thought, which is something I would argue (at least in this case) was not a good idea.  We have a system in place that is designed to handle this very problem.  It's time more people realized that instead of taking the law into their own hands.