Yes, you read that correctly. Apparently your life doesn’t matter as much as the violent criminal who is attacking you and trying to kill you.
I have no idea what to make of this. The Huffington Post , There it is the huff is behind this, nobody even a pea brained idiot could say this and not know that they are STUPID but now I am some kind of racist , bigot, hater of the left, is arguing that Americans have no legal right to shoot a violent attacker That’s right , you need to ask this person politely if his intentions are to be violent or peaceful because it violates the criminal’s right and we would not want to violate his right and we have to check with black lives matter or move on . org. or the muslim brothhood before we shoot surely he will wait till then and let him have a fair trial . I am dead now so I really do not give a damn about his 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 forThe 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. Perfectly said. You must understand that they can’t leave it alone, it’s their way only.
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:Here we go twisting words and facts.
The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, so we are not given the fact that we can be self defending for everyone has the right for a fair trial. Of course this is true, here is where it gets interesting. Therefore, using a firearm ( so if you don’t use a firearm) to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights. We really would not want to screw up their rights mine does not matter
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. But the one who does the attacking has rights ahead oF the VICTIM .
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 counter intuitive because guns get into the hands of people who use them for horrible reasons. Makes perfect sense to everyone but them. OOOPS. LEST we forget it’s all about————