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.
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.
#1: rlk 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.
rlk posted on 2016-05-07 17:51:23 Reply Private Reply
#2: Stoner To: cranky (#0)
Hey Thomas, F*CK YOU !
I guess your Phd is in DumbAssology.
Stoner posted on 2016-05-07 18:05:46 Reply Private Reply
#3: sneakypete To: cranky (#0)
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.
sneakypete posted on 2016-05-07 19:07:56 Reply Private Reply
#4: cranky To: sneakypete (#3)
Not strange so much as infantile.
It's the kind of logic I expect from a two year old.
cranky posted on 2016-05-07 19:29:47 Reply Private Reply
#5: calcon To: cranky (#0)
Hell, even stoned this article makes no sense at all.
calcon posted on 2016-05-07 20:03:54 Reply Private Reply
#6: rlk To: cranky (#0)
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.
rlk posted on 2016-05-07 22:25:14 Reply Private Reply
#7: sneakypete To: calcon (#5)
It's how leftists are programmed to think.
sneakypete posted on 2016-05-07 23:46:00 Reply Private Reply
#8: A K A Stone To: sneakypete (#7)
You're a leftist freak. Go marry your son. Freak.
A K A Stone posted on 2016-05-07 23:56:04 Reply Private Reply
#9: sneakypete To: A K A Stone (#8)
Getting a little hysterical again,ain't you?
Take a Midol and chill.
sneakypete posted on 2016-05-08 01:15:37 Reply Private Reply
#10: TrappedInMd To: cranky (#0)
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.
TrappedInMd posted on 2016-05-09 13:46:19 Reply Private Reply