PDA

View Full Version : A Revision on the Bill of Rights, Part III



Banacek
05-03-2017, 01:59 PM
The Second Amendment is highly contested. 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, the main issue is on the right to self-defend with a firearm.

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

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

SVPete
05-03-2017, 03:23 PM
Ummmmm ... a fair trial is an obligation of the state, and is conditional on the accused being alive when taken into custody and when placed on trial.

That is not an obligation binding on someone whose home has been invaded, who is under physical attack, who is defending another person who is under attack, or who reasonably believes a deadly attack is imminent.

Nor is it an obligation binding on police when they are under physical attack, defending another person who is under attack, or who reasonably believe a deadly attack is imminent.

The writers of the Second Amendment could, hypothetically, have made this explicit, but they probably didn't think anyone would be as stupid as this HuffPo writer.