Posted on 04/30/2016 2:23:11 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I have no idea what to make of this. The Huffington Post is arguing that Americans have no legal right to shoot a violent attacker because it violates the criminal’s right to a fair trial. I feel confident in saying this is by far the dumbest attempt to subvert our gun ownership rights ever and that’s saying a lot considering how insanely stupid gun grabbers are.
Justin Curmi is a dyslexic guy with a degree in philosophy. According to his bio he is, “A blogger that seeks to engage people in thought and conversation through presenting new views to matters, new or old.” Writing for The HuffPo, he presented one hell of a view concerning our right to not be murdered by a maniac killer.
Oddly enough, this thing starts out very un-HuffPosty by acknowledging that the 2nd Amendment does protect private gun ownership:
The Second Amendment is highly contested. There is no doubt that people do have the right to carry and have a stockpile of guns (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms”) and a state has the right to organize a well-regulated Militia. But, the main issue is on the right to self-defend with a firearm.
It’s still worded sarcastically, but that does seem like the author reluctantly agrees with the people’s right to keep and bear arms. Now here is where things become unhinged:
The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial. Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights.
There are an awful lot of flaws with this argument, the first being that a violent attacker hasn’t been arrested or charged yet when they are trying to commit a terrible act. They aren’t due their day in court until they are formally charged. In addition, a person committing an unlawful act forfeits certain legal protections.
Second, the Bill of Rights only limits the power of the federal government, not the people. The Constitution doesn’t lay out all of our rights, just the ones the feds can’t mess with. We have other rights besides what is in the document, and one of those is the basic human right to live.
Third, nothing in the Constitution forbids the people from defending themselves against a deadly attack. There is no clause in the 6th Amendment that says a person cannot defend himself or herself with deadly force because it interferes with a criminal’s right to a fair trial. There have also been no Supreme Court rulings in this area.
And if you thought that was idiotic, check out the other reasons why the author thinks we can’t use guns in self-defense:
Therefore, if we ponder and meditate on the recent events in news about guns, it would be obvious that the current state is incorrect. A gun for civilians is a weapon for a revolution and not for ordinary use. The belief that a gun is a useful tool to protect one is counterintuitive because guns get into the hands of people who use them for horrible reasons.
That’s almost like a cohesive thought, I guess. Basically this guy is saying that guns are only for overthrowing the government so they cannot be used for defense or hunting or target shooting. Plus, since criminals use guns for crime, law-abiding people can’t use them to stop crime.
The only thing I can conclude here is that the Huffington Post paid Justin Curmi with psychedelic mushrooms and gave him a big advance for his writing. This isn’t even normal gun-grabber ignorance and misrepresentation of fact. This is balls-out/tin-foil hat insanity. The only thing thought provoking about his argument is; why isn’t he in an institution where he can get the help he needs?
The entitlement is to a “fair AND SPEEDY” trial. Shooting on sight gets him at least 50% of his rights. That seems to be more than they want to give us, don’t you think?
Self defense is racist
Oooops. Meant to say “self defense” not “shoot on sight”. Ugh.
Obviously.
The person being killed is denied their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those 3 rights trump the 1 right to a trail.
The attacker has voluntarily nullified his rights the moment the attack begins by virtue of the attempt to infringe upon and/or deny the attacked person’s rights.
Your right to swing your fist ends just before you make contact with any part of my body.
To even engage in a discussion with Justin Curmi about this would be a form of perverted mental masturbation of the absurd. His contention is insane and any consideration of it legitimizes him even more.
If you do indeed shoot someone, make sure it is a legal self defence and shoot to kill.
Avoid being sued for damages or injuries.
So what this guy is essentially saying is that his right to a trial is more important than my life, because if he is willing to break into my home, he may be willing to take my life.
One can only hope that brian anderson or a family member is violently accosted and we will see a change in him and if we dont he is mentally ill
You mean Justin Curmi, not Brian Anderson.
Rights are balanced against each other not equal.
E.g., you can’t deny my right to shoot somebody because it denies my free speech - I am expressing my displeasure with them.
In that case, the victim’s life is more important than your speech. If you don’t believe that, shoot somebody you don’t like and see what happens.
What I missed in those debates is that the Bill of Rights is what the government cannot take from you. It dies not govern the conduct of individuals. If you’re in my home, I have every right to not respect your rights. If I’m in your home, you can do the same to me.
The Left never defines the term, 'justice.' If they did, their irrational, bumper-sticker fallacies would disintegrate. The ambiguity surrounding their use of 'justice' lets them get away with an assortment of dangerous fuzzy ideas, such as social justice, environmental justice, racial justice, . . .
OTOH, we conservatives should regard justice as compliance with Natural Law, the Law of Reason, meaning "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Armed with truth, we can slap Leftists down every time.
“Those 3 rights trump the 1 right to a trail.”
Happy trails to you!
This latest liberal pipedream-—to place violent killers on an equal footing w/ law-abiding citizens-—showcases the liberal mindset at its most bizarre.
We need to turn our attention to getting these liberals declared non compes mentis.
Locking up cockamamie liberals seems to be more rational than incarcerating murderers, felons and child molesters.
Philosophically a criminal is not responsible for his actions because society caused him to be a criminal and his acts are irrational i.e. he can't help it. One who defends himself from the criminal is a rational actor because it is rational to not want to be robbed, hurt, or killed. Thus self defense is a considered rational act and is deliberate inflicted harm to the assailant making it the greater or the only crime.
This has to be satire...right?
Not quite correct, but you're close.
"White people defending themselves against blacks/browns/hispanics/other minorities/special "protected classes" attempting to commit violent crimes against them is racist/a hate crime."
That would be a more accurate view of the current SJW thinking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.