Not allowed to use gun for self defense; denies attacker right to fair trial

[Sam1]

For real.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-curmi-/a-revision-on-the-bill-of_3_b_9772428.html

 

 

 

 

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.

 

[Omega]

I think he is a might late for an April's fool joke,  Oh wait wait, it was supposed to be in a purple font.  If the right to a fair trial was more important than defending yourself they would of made it the 1st or 2nd Amendment instead of the 6th!

[Sidecarist]

The attacker forfeits the right to a trial by peers by trying to take the life of an innocent.

The difference between justifiable self defense and murder is intent.

Life, Liberty, & Pursuit of Happiness. These words are in this order for very good reasons.

[A.J. Holst]

And the next logical statement should be,

If someone feels the need to use a gun for self defense, their reality, in fact, is distorted, thus disqualifying them from gun ownership based on mental capacity.

[DaveTN]

A blogger that seeks to engage people in thought and conversation through presenting new views to matters, new or old.

So you just make up any kind of a stand on any issue and write about it. :screwy:
You would think that a writer that was any good would be able to find something worthwhile to write to about.

[Monkeybat]

The writer is a special kind of stupid.


Sent from the Fortress of Solitude.

[JAB]

Well, this is just the idiotic direction in which some, other countries (one-Great Britain, for instance) seem to have gone and in which these 'murderers and rapists aren't bad people, they are just misunderstood' limp-wristed, bleeding heart idiots would like to take us.  Screw the rights of the victim - we have to make sure that the rights of the victim's attacker are guaranteed at all cost, even if the victim has to die instead of defending himself or herself to do so.

 

Honestly, it should be legal to kick this guy in the balls until he pukes.  If he tries to defend himself then obviously he would be violating his attacker's right to express their opinion via a physical outlet.

[Randall53]

The rights of the criminal already far outweigh the rights of the victim. This just takes it off the chart of the progressive liberals. 

[K191145]

they have a right to a decent burial.  :)

[No_0ne]

From the article: "A gun for civilians is a weapon for a revolution and not for ordinary use."  Seems like he does have some glimmer of understanding about the Second Amendment, albeit probably not in the context in which he intended ...

[ReeferMac]

 Screw the rights of the victim - we have to make sure that the rights of the victim's attacker are guaranteed at all cost,

 

Agreed.

Reminds me of the current political hot-potato surrounding the bathroom debate.

To hell w/ the millions of normal people, we need to infringe on their privacy so that 0.3% of the country's population isn't potentially offended.

(Yes, it is THAT small a percentage, I looked it up).

 

- K
 

[10-Ring]

The more liberals talk the more I believe liberalism is a mental disorder. I'm not even going to waste my time arguing with idiots like that.

[Ugly]

The more liberals talk the more I believe liberalism is a mental disorder. I'm not even going to waste my time arguing with idiots like that.

It took me years to figure that out. Complete waste of breath!

The author has a point though. It's as useless as tits on a bull. Their new bill of rights will have to be written in pencil since they never stop the madness. Edited April 30, 2016 by Ugly

[Wingshooter]

The attacker also has the right to remain silent. The victim is just accommodating him :)

[Jonnin]

This is just indication of the idiot left gone to seed.  Its the kind of thing you get when people haven't had a course in logic, lack common sense, and have been raised in a vacuum.    Its like a millionaire politician trying to explain how in touch he is with the common working man, only on a grander scale because the author has a triple helping of head-up-assedness.

 

I could write just as senseless a paper explaining how a violent criminal that is stupid enough to attack armed victims (which should be all of em) is simply committing suicide, just like suicide by cop.   It may or may not make much sense, but I could certainly write it and bend it towards a logical outcome of being armed.    Come to think of it, I would make more sense than this guy, at least, even if written as a joke.