|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
HuffPo Blogger: Using Guns in Self-Defense Is Unjust, Ought to Be Illegal
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Blogger Justin Curmi actually begins with a fairly conservative view of the Second Amendment, saying, “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, despite having the right to have arms, he goes on to say they shouldn’t have the right to use them in self-defense.
“The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial,” he argues. “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.” |
| Comment by:
jac
(4/29/2016)
|
| PO S liberal. By his logic, it is better for the miscreant to be tried for murder than for you to shoot him in defense of your life. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
