This is the type of journalism to expect from the Huffington Post. This reminds me of Howard Sterns’ shock-jock style media. The insanity of the language and reasoning used here, good or bad, is going to command attention.
Oh, those crazy Liberals! They’re just too funny.
And where would you find someone writing an article against self-defense and pro-criminal?
The Huffington Post, of course!
Surprisingly, the article titled, ‘A Revision on the Bill of Rights, Part III’ by Justin Curmi begins reasonably well. It actually acknowledges that the Second Amendment actually protects the rights of Americans to own their own firearms.
Shocking, I know.
Don’t worry, it quickly goes downhill into the gun-grabbing nonsense that you would expect from HuffPo:
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. In addition, one’s mental capacity is a major factor in deciding whether a man or woman has the right to have a firearm. There are two reasons for ensuring mental capacity. First, one of the Five Aims is to ensure domestic tranquility and there can be no tranquility if one does not have the capacity. Second, if one’s brain is distorting his or her reality, they do not have the proper reasoning and deduction skills to use a firearm…
…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. In addition, there are reasons why cops are trained to use a firearm in stressful situations. It is not to keep their mind at ease or anything of that sort, but to be able to fire accurately at the target in the correct location. It is immensely difficult to fire when under pressure.
Read more: Huffington Post
So the premise of the author is to let the possibly violent criminal commit the crime, get caught, and then face a jury of their peers.
And in the process of committing the crime, the criminal could hurt/maim/kill you.
But hey, that’s just the way it goes. No need to defend yourself, your loved ones or your property.
It’s such a bizarre argument.
The next point is even more strange.
Guns are for overthrowing the government, not to protect your property.
And private citizens shouldn’t own guns because guns get in the hand of criminals who then commit crimes with them. So, it’s obviously much better that the average citizen not be armed to protect themselves from armed criminals.
This guy has some seriously flawed arguments.
Even for HuffPo.
What do YOU think?
QUESTION: Should Shooting Attacker Be ILLEGAL Because It DENIES Violent Criminal A ‘Fair Trial’?
YES or NO ?