Seriously, I’m not sure if this is serious or just troll bait. Justin Curmi wrote in the Huffington Post that not only should the Second Amendment of our Bill Of Rights be revised, but also that self-defense is somehow unjust. He concedes that there is a right for people to “carry and have a stockpile of guns,” but the issue for him is defending oneself with a firearm. I’ll just leave this here:
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.
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 addition, there are reasons why cops are trained to use a firearm in stressful situations. It is not to keep their mind at ease or anything of that sort, but to be able to fire accurately at the target in the correct location. It is immensely difficult to fire when under pressure. Moreover, one may argue this is an analogous argument and yes it is because the United States government is lobbied to not study or fund research that observes the effects of guns. This cripples the chance of evaluating a proper policy to deal with gun violence. But, there was one study by ABC, which observed using guns in a classroom. All the participations poorly performed at the mock situation.
You know what really sucks: getting killed. Getting killed because we need to have some half-baked debate about not using a firearm, or any weapon for that matter, to defend oneself because it somehow perverts justice. When you try to murder someone in this country, and the would-be victim has a gun, they have every right to use it. For goodness sake, murder, or the attempt of it, goes against the fabric of any ordered society. And we have laws that permit justifiable homicides should some unhinged member in the community decides to make a conscious decision to murder someone else. We all know this, so what’s the debate? Going by figures, violent crime is at record lows, while more than 100 million guns have been since the outset of Obama’s presidency. Yet, gun homicides dropped 3.9 percent between 2014-2015, and were cut by nearly half between 1993-2010. And gun homicides haven’t spiked commensurately with the rise in gun sales. So, America isn’t a shooting gallery, more guns are in circulation, and more Americans, especially women, are lining up for their concealed carry permits and firearm training courses. The overwhelmingly majority believes in defending oneself from grievous physical harm or death. This question is the embodiment of progressive nonsense, which is so far beyond the realm of seriousness that I truly doubt whether the author is sincere. If it is troll bait, then well done, sir. If not, then civilization is crumbling.
Self-defense is unjust…dude, really!?