Get ready for the most ridiculous argument ever.
Justin Curmi, a young columnist for the Huffington Post, wrote a piece on the Second Amendment where he argues that it’s unfair for you to use a gun for self-defense against an attacker.
Curmi begins by acknowledging the right to bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, but then says, “The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial.”
This causes him to conclude that, “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 other words, if you kill someone who is attacking you, you’re stripping them of their right to a fair trial for attacking you.
What Curmi fails to address is that if the attacker kills you as you stand there and do nothing to defend yourself, the attacker has now taken away all of your rights — because you’re dead.
Perhaps he subscribes to the liberal notion that society creates all of its criminals, so the person attacking you isn’t really at fault for their actions. Perhaps you deserved to be killed, because Curmi is apparently putting the criminal’s rights above yours.
He also argues that, “A gun for civilians is a weapon for a revolution and not for ordinary use.”
And adds that, “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.”
And that mentality, folks, is how you create a defenseless society ripe for being taken over.
What do you think about this? Comment, react to, or share this on Facebook.