LEFT WING LOONS
See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles
Title: HuffPo: Shooting Attackers in Self-Defense Denies Criminals a ‘Fair Trial’
Source:
Breitbart
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendm ... e-denies-criminals-fair-trial/
Published: May 3, 2016
Author: Thomas D Williams, PhD
Post Date: 2016-05-07 17:14:44 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 1957
Comments: 10
If the reasoning sounds convoluted, that’s because it is. Although author Justin Curmi declares that the Second Amendment is highly contested, he also states that there is “no doubt” about citizens’ rights to keep and bear arms; it’s using them that’s the problem. In fact, he believes it is illegal. “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,” Curmi declares. Since everyone has the right to a fair trial, Curmi argues, it must therefore be illegal to curtail an attacker’s right by using lethal violence against him to defend oneself. He seems to assume that the crafters of the Second Amendment believed that citizens should be able to keep and bear arms without intending that the weapons ever be used, which stretches the imagination to the breaking point. He also seems to assume that the violent criminal’s right to a fair trial supersedes the victim’s right to life itself, since the logical alternative to self-defense is letting oneself be killed. There seems to be some confusion in Curmi’s mind regarding just why the Second Amendment was adopted in the first place. If not for self-defense, then why keep and bear arms? “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,” Curmi asserts. In point of fact, the “belief that a gun is a useful tool to protect one[self]” has nothing to do with what other people happen to be doing with guns. The belief in a gun’s usefulness for self-defense depends solely on the effective benefit it provides to a person wishing to defend himself, and on nothing else. There is nothing “counterintuitive” about a firearm’s utility to stave off attackers, since this has been factually demonstrated on countless occasions. The strangest thing about this essay is not the author’s opposition to firearm use. It is rather the Huffington Post’s willingness to publish an article that wouldn’t be accepted in a seventh grade writing class. Rife with grammatical errors, the piece wanders from one non-sequitur to another without ever making a serious case for anything. Which leads one to conclude that as long as a writer is touting the politically correct position, it’s good enough for the Huffington Post. Journalistic standards and logic be damned. 
In a recent essay, a Huffington Post writer makes the incredible argument that while the Second Amendment guarantees U.S. citizens the right to carry and stockpile arms, it does not give the right to shoot violent attackers in self-defense because to do so would deny assailants a fair trial.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: cranky (#0)
Fair trials aren't fair. They represent collusion by police, lawyers, and judges to show how brilliant they are by suppressing or twisting evidence and obscuring the obvious.
Hey Thomas, F*CK YOU ! I guess your Phd is in DumbAssology. Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. There are no Carthaginian terrorists. President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood "I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur
If you think that's strange,you haven't been reading Huff and Puff very often. Besides,the left CELEBRATES being victims,so why would you think they would object to the point of this article,which is to make everyone into a victim? Hell,being victims is practically a religious belief for the left. BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
Not strange so much as infantile. It's the kind of logic I expect from a two year old. There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
This article gave me such a headache, i still don''t understand how a rational person would come up with this crazy crap. Hell, even stoned this article makes no sense at all.
If it is not the attacker's intention to give me a fair trial, a premptive reversal of the situation is not unfair. I am constant perturbed as to why some leftist asshole with a law degree always finds ways to argue my life less worthwhile than someone else's.
It's how leftists are programmed to think. BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
You're a leftist freak. Go marry your son. Freak.
You're a leftist freak. Go marry your son. Freak. Getting a little hysterical again,ain't you? Take a Midol and chill. BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
Since everyone has the right to a fair trial, Curmi argues, it must therefore be illegal to curtail an attacker’s right by using lethal violence against him to defend oneself. He seems to assume that the crafters of the Second Amendment believed that citizens should be able to keep and bear arms without intending that the weapons ever be used, which stretches the imagination to the breaking point. That ones easy. Following that logic neither police nor (any) federal police agents would be able to use guns. But you can bet he's not for that.
Shooting Attackers in Self-Defense Denies Criminals a ‘Fair Trial’
#2. To: cranky (#0)
" Author: Thomas D Williams, PhD "
#3. To: cranky (#0)
The strangest thing about this essay is not the author’s opposition to firearm use. It is rather the Huffington Post’s willingness to publish an article that wouldn’t be accepted in a seventh grade writing class. Rife with grammatical errors, the piece wanders from one non-sequitur to another without ever making a serious case for anything.
#4. To: sneakypete (#3)
If you think that's strange
#5. To: cranky (#0)
#6. To: cranky (#0)
Shooting Attackers in Self-Defense Denies Criminals a ‘Fair Trial’
#7. To: calcon (#5)
This article gave me such a headache, i still don''t understand how a rational person would come up with this crazy crap.
#8. To: sneakypete (#7)
It's how leftists are programmed to think.
#9. To: A K A Stone (#8)
It's how leftists are programmed to think.
#10. To: cranky (#0)
“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,” Curmi declares.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]