Wednesday, May 4, 2016

HuffPo: Self Defense Violates Criminals' Rights




Yes, that is exactly what an editorial in Huffington Post is saying.

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.
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.
 If a criminal steals the property of a victim, then it violates their property rights. If a criminal rapes, tortures or murders their victim, then they have violated their right to life, liberty and happiness. The right to self defense is a pre-existing natural right, and the 2nd Amendment is its written form.

4 comments:

  1. As usual huffpo gets it bassackwards - self-defense ONLY comes into play AFTER the criminal (can we still call them that?) commits a crime against an innocent victim - the victim's right to life and property have been violated first, any response they make is warranted under law. Period.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Disarmament Cabal and its advocates have always had a hate-on for self defense. Usually they disguise it but Huff Poop said it straight with this article. It is surprising.

      Delete
  2. Self defense takes away from the State being the only arbiter of justice and control of protection. Can't have that....otherwise next thing you know, cities will even start thinking for themselves....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The state has gotten good at convincing people not to think for themselves. Many disarmament advocates (or rather, useful idiots) think that only the police should have guns, while simultaneously thinking that those same police keep minorities down.

      Delete