bizarre view of the 2nd amendment.

[o2gt]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-curmi-/a-revision-on-the-bill-of_3_b_9772428.html?


This is so strange to me. I can't even understand the thought process this person has. I have read so strange anti gun articles. I tend to read them just to understand the thought process of the other side. but I have to say this guy takes the cake when i comes to rationalizing why someone should not have the right to self defense.

 

[MovingZen]

Stopped reading at-

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.

I'm not interested in anything after that.

 

[thomas91169]

That's called being a ****tard.

Its a disease in today's society.

 

[helloWorld]

I didn't read the entire article, but what is that person's stance on if your attacker is killed with anything other than a firearm?

Does this person believe that no one should be able to defend themselves at all?

 

[Blackoyote]

I read it this morning and sent to a few friends...unsurprisingly, they all had the same thing to say. They wanted to slam their heads against board full of nails after reading the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph.

It baffles me that there are people out there that truly believe that defending themselves is infringing upon other's rights.

 

[o2gt]

I just don't understand the mind of a person like this. its as if he believes the right of self defense is an American creation and thus evil. the Idea goes back very far in recorded history. At some points in time it was look at as not only a right but a responsibility. the author clearly has little understanding of our legal system today or the views of many who helped with the founding of this county. The supreme court made it very clear in Heller that self defense does not violate an attackers rights. this is a silly article. At the same time is worries me that people really think like this. do they really believe what they are writing? Do they do it just to get articles printed? I have no idea, I would never want to rely on a person who thinks like this.

 

[tistan]

I would use the same argument against the author of that bull shit. They are mentally retarded and should not be allowed to practice their first amendment due to being mentally stupid as ****.

 

[thomas91169]

This type of person would not survive in a world without civilization based around such values to protect him.

In other words, if SHTF, he would be among the first sheep to fall.

 

[Branhammer]

Stopped reading at-

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.

I'm not interested in anything after that.

That's literally the exact same sentence I stopped at. What a shocker that this article is on the Huffington Post

 

[oldmodman]

I guess that under his worldview I should not use my axe on an intruder in my house.

Unless I use the flat of the blade to just knock him (or her, must be politically correct) out so the intruder can then be turned over to the police for a hearing, then bail, then trial.

I wonder if it is possible to train one of Mother Natures Creatures as a guard and punisher to protect my property?

I was thinking about a few thousand Bald Faced Hornets.

 

[Blown 89]

This way of thinking is more prevalent than you think. Many people would rather die than take someone else's life in self defense. That's fine except this guy's logical process that arrives there is disturbing.

 

[Blown 89]

What a shocker that this article is on the Huffington Post

That's the first thing I though when I saw the link. Vox and Salon are even worse. I've blocked both of those sites completely on all of my devices.

 

[Silverstrike]

He should go and move to the wonderful paradise for criminals known as the UK. As that nation has all but made it illegal to protect yourself if attacked, even if they go and use a weapon on yourself.

 

[Machdup1]

Let me quarterback this for you:

1. You want to get rid of guns, but they are protected by the 2A
2. Create multiple alternate interpretations of the 2A
3. Continue to discuss the interpretations to blur the lines
4. Appoint judges to the Supreme Court who are open to an alternate interpretation.
5. Elect officials who will vote to change gun laws.
6. Wait for a violent event to occur.
7. Ban and confiscate guns. Court votes to uphold change.

Get it.

 

[2000gt4.6]

This way of thinking is more prevalent than you think. Many people would rather die than take someone else's life in self defense. That's fine except this guy's logical process that arrives there is disturbing.

It's absolutely fine to hold this opinion for yourself. It's a moral choice. Enforcing it on others is the issue.

Like it or not you can, by your actions, forfeit your "God given" rights. Attacking an innocent person is one way to do it.

 

[BrunotheBoxer]

Liberals are ****s. Why read and try to understand that shit?

 

[ssj4sadie]

I don't think the author of that article understands that life is finite. There was a huge push that violent video games make people violent not too long ago. I would argue it has distorted people's views of life; as one only has to press "continue" after ****ing up. Therefore (an ode to the author) people don't know life ends.

 

[01SVTSnake]

Good lord I need a memory enema after reading that article. What a ****ing twat waffle

 

[bglf83]