Look what liberals want to happen when you shoot someone… in SELF-DEFENSE

When it comes to evaluating certain positions, statements or stances of liberal ideology, sometimes its impossible to know whether to laugh or cry.  After reading the latest bit of lunacy regarding Second Amendment rights from the Huffington Post, the decision just got harder than ever.

Justin Curmi, a writer for the HuffPo, has offered a new position on citizen’s rights of self-defense that is so outlandish it has to be read to be believed. And even then you won’t. The title of the piece is “A Revision on the Bill of Rights, Part III.”

Mr. Curmi is claiming that Americans have no legal right to shoot a violent attacker because doing so violates the criminal’s right to a fair trial. Yes, you read that correctly. So if someone is assaulting you, burglarizing your home, holding up your place of business or whatever, and you pull out your piece and drop him or her and they die, clearly they won’t make a court appearance and since we’re all constitutionally allowed a trial before a jury of our peers, you’ve just robbed that robber of his/her rights. Go figure.

“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.”

Of course if you ventilate them and they survive, well, then you’ve made yourself judge, jury and (almost) executioner which is also a violation of their right to due process. So essentially what he’s done is make the criminal the victim and the innocent citizen the criminal.

But the idiocy doesn’t stop there. Curmi provides more reasons why you and I should not be allowed to use firearms in self-defense:

“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 counterintuitive because guns get into the hands of people who use them for horrible reasons.”

In what universe does this make any sense at all? So since guns sometimes make their way into criminal hands, those of us who are not criminals shouldn’t be allowed to have one? And based on this the notion of law-abiding citizens having firearms for self-defense is somehow counter-intuitive? You can’t follow that line of thinking if you try.

Someone needs to inform Mr. Curmi that his version of reality exists all across the United States and world.

In Chicago it’s darned near impossible to own a firearm and be legally able to carry it concealed. How’s that working out?  In 2009,  at Fort Hood Texas law-abiding soldiers and civilians, among the most well-trained on Earth, were not allowed to carry firearms for self defense, but a maniac bent on murder did have one. Remember that outcome?

This is liberal thought. Whether to cry or to laugh is up to you.

[Note: This article was written by Derrick Wilburn]


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here