The Second Amendment shouldn’t cover self-defense, says a typical “progressive”, because it violates the accused’s right to a trial.
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.
Which I’m sure will be important, after you are DEAD.
The American left – where the right to a trial is more important than the right to live (presuming you’ve been born at all).
This seems like a typical Left idiot who believes that the right to self defense allows you to kill people at random. This is what they are told, this is what they believe. Gullible lot.
I wonder if a drug crazed miscreant were giving him a beat down or raping his wife, he would worry about the thug’s right to a trial?
Anti gun loons just boggle the mind.
The right to a trial protects you from the State.
The right to a gun protects you from other citizens.
Seems like an elementary difference.
DMA, let me add:
The right to self-defense protects you from being dead.
And, no. There is no difference if you are a progressive intellectual (an oxymoron).
DMA:
The right to a gun protects you from other citizens AND the State.
+ a bazillion for Loren, and wonderful point given that Yom HaSchoach (sp?) was just observed–it’s set according to the date of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Thugs of the individual or government varieties agree; acute lead poisoning is not part of what they wanted to sign up for.
It is shocking what one would conclude if one assumed this illogic by the left. More or less, it’s that your life is at the beck and call of governing elites. I’m sure that’s why the Founding Fathers declared independence from King George III.
And of course, no trial = no trial lawyer!
Clearly when individuals go out of their way to be judge, jury and executioner, they are depriving their victim of due process, and often using greater force than allowed law enforcement.
And that is not only unfair, it is dangerous to those around the self-defender.
There is just very little use for self-defense; it is a bullshit pretext for people who need to compensate for their deficiencies by swaggering around with a gun to feel adequate.
Greater force than allowed law enforcement? So the snub-nosed .38 specials often carried by permit holders are a more lethal weapon than a Glock chambered in .40 S&W or a fully automatic M-16? Or, for that matter, there’s a carry pistol out there that trumps an armored personnel carrier?
Seriously?
But let’s go with the logic a minute. If it’s a violation of due process for a private citizen to shoot his assailant, it would be as well for a police officer to shoot his assailant….obviously we should start sending the police out unarmed! Let’s see how that works out. And it would be wrong for prison guards to shoot an inmate during an uprising or escape attempt. That would be acting as judge, jury, and executioner.
I’m thinking there might be a weakness somewhere in that logic. Maybe.
(for the uninformed, and on the tiny chance DogGone might read and learn something; the rules of engagement are tighter for carry permit holders than for the police, who have no duty to retreat….and who are allowed to routinely carry weapons prohibited to the rest of us)
Gee, I hope no one ever shoots Curvi and dg in the face and leaves their corpses in some filthy ally for homeless bums, reprobates, perverts, drug addled welfare recipients and trollops to urinate on.
That would be aweful.
Night writer for the #Win!
Just for reference, Curmi has written an interesting book called “The Communist”, and other parts of his series on the Bill of Rights include an interesting redefinition of the 1st Amendment. Other columns of his in the Huff indicate that….let’s just be polite and say he’s an interesting character. Probably one with enough income from somewhere to live in one of the safer parts of Gotham.
DG,
While I’ve come to stop bother responding, I’ll answer this for the benefit of anyone who doesn’t know the subject:
Clearly when individuals go out of their way to be judge, jury and executioner,
Then they fall outside the bounds of “self-defense”, for which the rules are pretty clear: you have to be in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, can’t be a willing participant, the force used has to be reasonable, and – in MN, outside one’s home – you need to make a reasonable effort to disengage.
The scenario you spell out is, as usual, fiction.
There is just very little use for self-defense; it is a bullshit pretext for people who need to compensate for their deficiencies by swaggering around with a gun to feel adequate.
No, DG – it saves hundreds of lives a year.
Your blog, and all of your comments here, on the other hand, are a bullshit pretext for someone who needs to compensate for her deficiencies.
There. Maybe that’ll get a response.
Doggy, you are a great illustration of an ignorant libidiot with absolutely no common sense. You argue your bogus points just to argue. You need serious professional help and your hate filled rants and unwillingness to discuss things rationally, prove it. You are a sniveling coward!
The author is one of those people who can see only rights, not morals.
Thug attacks Citizen, Thug has rights. Citizen should not defend himself because that would violate Thug’s rights. And it would cause a breach of the peace. Citizen should die quietly.
Idiocy.
Just one more sign that shows DG (and by extension the left) has absolutely no respect for human life whatsoever. They’re more concerned about an ant, or a blade of grass, than they are a human heartbeat.