Progressive Philosophy Denies You The Right of Self-Defense
The Huffington Post recently published an article titled, "A Revision on the Bill of Rights, Part III".
The article’s author, Justin Curmi, took a progressive view of the Second Amendment to say that an attacker’s right to a fair jury is taken away by using a firearm in self-defense.
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.
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.
Once again, if there is an argument in the reasoning of this amendment and others, one must filter it through the Five Aims of the USA and the Bill of Rights. This is to ensure that any argument can be answered, avoiding a political divide.
In response, Andrew Durkee left a thoughtful, well-thought out comment:
This is one of the most peculiar pieces I’ve read on the subject. After all, self-defense is one of the most easily defended legal notions in modern society. You’re all over the place, but I’ll take your views point by point.
"The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial."
We cannot assume that "justice" always means a fair trial. Otherwise, every action would need to be deemed appropriate by a judicial body before it can be affected. Instead, Justice in a purer sense simply means "just treatment." Self Defense is defined as the reasonable use of force to a threat from the attack of an aggressor. In other words, if someone threatens violent action upon you, appropriate just treatment would be to respond with violent action, until the threat of force ceases.
Additionally, to assume that killing in self-defense denies a fair trial (through the 4th amendment) is absurd. The 4th amendment does not apply to individuals. You or I cannot deny someone a fair trial, only the government. I will also point out that killing is not the goal of self-defense. The goal is to stop the threat (i.e. If the threat runs away, I cannot chase after them).
Lastly, Self-Defense is not a legal loophole, or get-out-of-jail-free card. There are plenty of legal mechanics in place to identify and prosecute those who misuse the right of self-defense (its called a murder trial).
"one’s mental capacity is a major factor in deciding whether a man or woman has the right to have a firearm."
Mental capacity has no bearing on ones rights. Do you believe that a test should be administered before someone can exercise their religion or speak their mind? How about a written test before you’re allowed to vote? After all, "there can be no tranquility if one does not have the capacity."
Now, I am not saying that one who has been deemed to be mentally unstable and a danger to others should be allowed to have a firearm. However, adding requirements before a right can be exercised (versus curtailing a right) is exceedingly dangerous to the notion of liberty.
"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."
Again, the government must prove this. Not the individual.
"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."
These two are not mutually exclusive. How someone else uses a tool does not qualify how I use it. A similary false statement would be: The belief that a car is a useful tool for commuting to work is counterintuitive because cars get into the hands of people who use them to drive drunk.
"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."
And that is what training is for. There is nothing magical about a badge that makes a police officer shoot better under fire. Additionally, there is nothing unique at a police academy that gives them the proper training. In fact, my local civilian range contracts its space out to local police and military for small arms training. And the vast majority of civilian firearm instructors are prior police and military.
"the United States government is lobbied to not study or fund research that observes the effects of guns."
Incorrect, the law specifically outlaws the funding of research with the express purpose of promoting gun control. In the 90’s the higher ups at the CDC got caught producing bunk research. There is no blanket ban on gun violence research.
The CDC recently contracted a study on gun violence that indicated guns are used to prevent crime more often than they are used to commit violent crime at a rate of at least 10:1.
"But, there was one study by ABC, which observed using guns in a classroom. All the participations poorly performed at the mock situation."
This was a poorly conducted "study" that was produced purely for ratings. The "carrying" students were set up for failure, in that the mock school shooter knew exactly where they were sitting and shot them first. Nobody cites this "study" as any kind of proof because its scientifically terrible and, frankly, terrible television.
Well written, Mr. Durkee.
* The views and opinions expressed on this web site are solely those of the original authors and contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of Guns & Tactics Magazine,
the administrative staff, and/or any/all contributors to this site.
