JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
- Messages
- 4,160
- Reactions
- 19,335
Geez... everytime I think that the Huff n' Poop's contributors can't get any more moronic, they yet again manage to discover another level of idiocy.
The idea that a murderer's right to a fair trial is denied if the intended victim kills him in a successful self-defense, proves the writer has lost his sanity and jumped from the Cliff of Stupidity...
...On the bright side, given his low opinion of self-defense, he's probably wearing a parachute designed to open on impact.
The idea that a murderer's right to a fair trial is denied if the intended victim kills him in a successful self-defense, proves the writer has lost his sanity and jumped from the Cliff of Stupidity...
...On the bright side, given his low opinion of self-defense, he's probably wearing a parachute designed to open on impact.
- Messages
- 2,794
- Reactions
- 2,489
The author of that piece is evidently lacking a grasp of logic and knowledge regarding the concepts of justifiable homicide, which goes back to 1600's England, and he reverses the original purpose of the US Militias, which was not to revolt against its own (American) government but to protect the colonies from Spanish and French settlers, native American rebellions, and the British themselves by asserting that Militias exist to overthrow the government.
He ignores about 350 years' of judicial precedence and displays an appalling misunderstanding of American history.
In 1688, British lawmakers adopted a declaration of rights, listing such basic liberties as the right to petition, and banning practices such as cruel and unusual punishments. The English Declaration of Rights also asserted: "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence (sic) suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law."
With the U.S. Supreme Court ruling of District of Columbia v. Heller, the majority held that the Constitution protected the right to the possession of firearms for the purpose of self-defense "and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home".
In the (I won't give legitimacy by referring to it as "an article") series of paragraphs that was posted, the "blogger" makes no sense, and is marginally over the line of sanity. Shame on HuffPo for publishing it.
But to paint all Liberals with a brush dipped in this guy's garbage is not fair and is gratuitously inflammatory. I know a few meat-eating, gun-toting "liberals" who would not for a moment agree with anything the "blogger" wrote there.
What's more, to compare the "blogger" to morons demeans morons. Most of them are sane and some actually hold elected office (OK I couldn't resist the easy shot.)
He ignores about 350 years' of judicial precedence and displays an appalling misunderstanding of American history.
In 1688, British lawmakers adopted a declaration of rights, listing such basic liberties as the right to petition, and banning practices such as cruel and unusual punishments. The English Declaration of Rights also asserted: "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence (sic) suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law."
With the U.S. Supreme Court ruling of District of Columbia v. Heller, the majority held that the Constitution protected the right to the possession of firearms for the purpose of self-defense "and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home".
In the (I won't give legitimacy by referring to it as "an article") series of paragraphs that was posted, the "blogger" makes no sense, and is marginally over the line of sanity. Shame on HuffPo for publishing it.
But to paint all Liberals with a brush dipped in this guy's garbage is not fair and is gratuitously inflammatory. I know a few meat-eating, gun-toting "liberals" who would not for a moment agree with anything the "blogger" wrote there.
What's more, to compare the "blogger" to morons demeans morons. Most of them are sane and some actually hold elected office (OK I couldn't resist the easy shot.)
- Messages
- 871
- Reactions
- 1,131
Verbal diarrhea is all I read. It shouldn't have been published as stated above.
Stacy
Stacy
- Messages
- 3,565
- Reactions
- 6,638
Personally, I love Penn and Teller.
- Messages
- 2,234
- Reactions
- 2,551
Fortunately, it looks like common sense is prevailing based on the comments section of the article. My completely unscientific conclusion of the commenters' general consensus is that the author is a clod.
- Messages
- 247
- Reactions
- 289
This is the choicest lapse of reason I found:
"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."
The way to see if a statement or idea is just or reasonable is to follow the logic to its conclusion. By his statement that tools or objects are inherently evil because someone may get ahold of them and cause violence the logical assumption is that all objects that fall into this category of being commandeered by criminals for violence against society.
A short list of other objects that are in the same group as firearms and can be used for violence:
• Automobiles
• yard tools
• gasoline
• computers
• voting
• government
• religion
• intelligence/education
• male sexual organs
All these evil objects, groups or activities have no place in a just and polite society. They are all to be turned in or disposed of accordingly. All males are to report for castration, everyone with higher than a highschool education or who has taken an IQ test and scored over 120 is to report for a lobotomy. As soon as the government performs these duties they are to be disbanded & all buildings and offices filled with concrete.
All that will be left is a perfect anarchist utopia of eunuchs and the mentally disabled. Welcome to paradise.
"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."
The way to see if a statement or idea is just or reasonable is to follow the logic to its conclusion. By his statement that tools or objects are inherently evil because someone may get ahold of them and cause violence the logical assumption is that all objects that fall into this category of being commandeered by criminals for violence against society.
A short list of other objects that are in the same group as firearms and can be used for violence:
• Automobiles
• yard tools
• gasoline
• computers
• voting
• government
• religion
• intelligence/education
• male sexual organs
All these evil objects, groups or activities have no place in a just and polite society. They are all to be turned in or disposed of accordingly. All males are to report for castration, everyone with higher than a highschool education or who has taken an IQ test and scored over 120 is to report for a lobotomy. As soon as the government performs these duties they are to be disbanded & all buildings and offices filled with concrete.
All that will be left is a perfect anarchist utopia of eunuchs and the mentally disabled. Welcome to paradise.
- Messages
- 13,095
- Reactions
- 46,637
Too much floride... There's no other explanation for the rotten brain syndrome...
It's either that or a public education brought to you by the federal government...
- Messages
- 658
- Reactions
- 1,002
Fluoride has been banned in Portland, hasn't it? I guess that leaves the other option.
- Messages
- 6,597
- Reactions
- 19,383
He's a Huff-Po kinda guy, through and through.
After all, he wrote this too:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Communist...=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B010R0WV7M
When you want to take everything away from the people, you have to start with their guns, or other means used to defend themselves.
After all, he wrote this too:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Communist...=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B010R0WV7M
When you want to take everything away from the people, you have to start with their guns, or other means used to defend themselves.
- Messages
- 6,072
- Reactions
- 15,023
- Messages
- 225
- Reactions
- 472
"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"
----Justin Curmi
Liberalism is a mental disorder. Fair trials and self defense have as much to do with each other as apples and tires.
So what about the cops? They react defensively and shoot to defend themselves; just like civilians, so are we headed for the prototype for Judge Dredd?
What about liberals 3rd favorite victim group; female victims of stalking by men. Are they going to all need to become judges so they can "adjudicate" a self defense encounter?
Attackers do not assume some sort of "super-legal" status by becoming attackers. They are entitled to the same rights as everyone else. The attackers are not "devoid" of rights; they are attempting to deprive someone of their right to life, liberty, or private property without the benefit of due process of law using extra legal and unlawful means. The right to "life" is the most important right of all; because from it all other rights proceed. Self defense does not "impose" on justice; it hands down a fair ruling to someone attempting to deprive the victim of their own most important right (without trial). So the attacker gets what laymen in the law call "just desserts."
See Justin, not all of us gun folks are dumb hicks with pickup trucks. This is what happens when only you and your mommy think you are smart.
----Justin Curmi
Liberalism is a mental disorder. Fair trials and self defense have as much to do with each other as apples and tires.
So what about the cops? They react defensively and shoot to defend themselves; just like civilians, so are we headed for the prototype for Judge Dredd?
What about liberals 3rd favorite victim group; female victims of stalking by men. Are they going to all need to become judges so they can "adjudicate" a self defense encounter?
Attackers do not assume some sort of "super-legal" status by becoming attackers. They are entitled to the same rights as everyone else. The attackers are not "devoid" of rights; they are attempting to deprive someone of their right to life, liberty, or private property without the benefit of due process of law using extra legal and unlawful means. The right to "life" is the most important right of all; because from it all other rights proceed. Self defense does not "impose" on justice; it hands down a fair ruling to someone attempting to deprive the victim of their own most important right (without trial). So the attacker gets what laymen in the law call "just desserts."
See Justin, not all of us gun folks are dumb hicks with pickup trucks. This is what happens when only you and your mommy think you are smart.
Last Edited:
Similar threads
Upcoming Events
New Classified Ads
-
Promoted Radian Model 1 11.5 build. For Trade/Sale
- Started by MrChunkyMonkey
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
Handcrafted Leather Wallets. Made to Last from Full Grain Cowhide. Great Price. $20 to $50- Started by ddjchemist
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
