images

“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 in A Revision of the Bill of Rights, Part III [at huffingtonpost.com]

BFG-Long-Logo-Blue-JPG-220x39

110 Responses to Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: Armed Self Defense Deprives Perps of Their 6th Amendment Rights

  1. Wow. What about the 6th Amendment rights of the perp’s victims? The stupid runs strong in this one.

    • Exactly. They gave up their 6th amendment rights when they decided to illegally impose their will or force upon another individual.

      • On a brighter note, looks like even the lefty HuffPo crowd took him to task in the comments.

        • I’ve been reading more of HuffPo recently, and it’s not all Left in the comment section by far.

        • Doesn’t surprise me. Faux has like the most liberal comment section ever. So why wouldn’t HuffPo become a gathering place for people wanting to know the enemy?

    • I guess the police can’t shoot anyone in self defense either. Does the author also ignore the hundreds of thousands of DGU’s annually that occur without a shot fired? Forgive me, as I refuse to click on a HuffPo “article”.

      • Alex – that’s right. By his argument, every police shooting is summary execution without trials, appeals, due process, etc. and the widespread application of the death penalty! How can liberals allow the police to have firearms at all, given this argument?

        • The Palestinians have a term for this — assassination in the field. When an Israeli stops a terrorist before he can accomplish his mission it is said he is assassinated in the field.

      • You are right, of course. But that isn’t the way this guy thinks. He’s a collectivist. In his world, you don’t own your life. You have no right to determine whether you live or die in any situation. That’s for the State to decide. He, as one of the Enlightened, would be entitled to defend himself, as would police as representatives of the State. But you or I would not.

        • You are giving him too much credit. He is merely engaged in reductio ad absurdum.

    • Neither the victim’s nor the attacker’s 6th amendment rights are being violated by the attack or by self-defense.
      The 6th amendment restricts the government and its agents, not individuals.
      So by his “logic”, a cop shooting a perp would be a violation of the 6th amendment, but not a regular person shooting an attacker.

      • ^^^^THIS! Thank you.

        His argument is bulls**t for the same reason that you don’t have the right to say whatever you want in a private residence – the Bill of Rights is a list of RESTRICTIONS FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, not private individuals.

        You have no Rights per-se in a private domicile. If I don’t like what you’re saying (1st-A), or don’t like that you’re carrying a gun (2nd-A), or don’t like that you own’t let me look through your purse (4th-A), I can tell you to leave and that’s that.

      • I of course understand this, but he doesn’t. For regulating the behavior of government we have a constitution and a bill of rights. For regulation the behavior of individual citizens we have laws (and sadly, regulations). Big distinction, but if his logic is that by defending yourself from a potentially lethal attack you are violating the rights of the attacker then he is by extension denying that you, the law abiding citizen have any rights at all, even to life. Only criminals would have rights. And government of course.

        • “Only criminals would have rights. And government of course.”

          That statement is redundant over and over again according to the Department of Redundancy Department.

    • Author is a snot-nosed pseudo-intellectual piece of excrement.

      He should feel bad, and the fluffpost should feel bad for publishing him. They won’t, though, because misinformation is their only chance.

    • Victims don’t have rights in leftyland unless they are an ethnic, religious, or sexual minority, and white lefties are perfectly fine with that until they have their first couple near-death experiences.

    • You are right. He is definitely clueless. He is talking as if the Bill of Rights grants positive rights. All it does is limit the government’s power to infringe on citizens’ pre-existing natural rights. The 6th Amendment limits government power, and doesn’t limit self defense anyway. It has absolutely no effect on a private individual’s natural and fundamental right to self defense. He should stick to his useless philosophy, and leave legal analysis to lawyers.

    • An attention seeker got some attention. Reminds me of Bryan from family guy; always taking the opposite view just to be different.

      • He also has the same lack of understanding of the subject, and terrible writing skills.

        Maybe he’s an alcoholic dog from RI, too.

    • This article only furthers the assertion that journalists should have to pass a competency class and obtain a license before they are allowed to publish articles in a recognized news forum. Crazy guy spouting this dreck on his blog is one thing – most people will never read it – but stories published on a site like the Huff Post are read by a great many misinformed people and an article like this only serves to misinform them further.

      “Journalists” should be required to take a test demonstrating their proficiency on the subjects they wish to publish. If they can’t demonstrate basic understanding of the topic, they should not be allowed to publish.

      This article was written by someone so dumb and so misinformed that the only way it got published was because it advances the anti-gun agenda of the Huff Po and its readership.

        • It is. Its a running joke that hinges on the fact that the leftists and State media would NEVER in a million years call for the same kind of restrictions on the First Amendment as they do on the Second.

      • Don’t forget the universal background checks for anyone buying a newspaper or magazine, or accessing a news website.
        …and maybe a waiting period before the reader gets the story.

  2. An attacker should be denied his civil rights. He’s an attacker. Case closed.

    People need a better understanding of what a civil right is and what it is not. Just because you have the right to something, doesn’t make it society’s responsibility to fulfill that right for you. By the progressive definition, I should be able to walk into an ATF office and declare “Gi’ me a gun because I got it comin’ to me.”

    • Blammo, I’ve tried to make that argument for years. When liberals try to claim that healthcare is a “right” and therefore the government should provide it to everyone, then how about the government provide a firearm for every household since that is an actual protected right.
      They don’t like to hear that.

      • There would actually be a pretty sound constitutional basis for the federal government distributing guns. Article I section 8 explicitly gives Congress the power “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia”.

        • Whoa whoa whoa. Now don’t you get crazy and start thinking the constitution was actually meant to be followed. It makes my generation cringe and retreat to their micro-aggression-free safe space.

        • @Anner LOL! You forgot to call your safe space “gender-neutral” you raging homophobic sexist.

      • You know it would be a Jennings that hadn’t been cleaned or oiled since the Nixon administration, right?

    • “Just because you have the right to something, doesn’t make it society’s responsibility to fulfill that right for you.”

      110% correct. Your rights are meant to be protected by the government, not by private citizens. An offending party that forcefully or nonconsensually seeks harm or deprivation against another party of their life, liberty or property forfeits any rights they had such that the defender may be able to defend their own rights by any means necessary. Whether they justly defended themselves or not is a matter for their peers and the judicial system to decide.

      Furthermore, I have no obligation to provide anyone with anything without my consent and due compensation for it, but you are in your rights to seek whatever you please so long as you are not a violator of the aforementioned. You have a right to bear arms, I have no obligation to arm you. You have a right to free speech, I have no obligation to hear you out. You have a right to a fair trial, I have no obligation to represent you.

  3. I didn’t think that a citizen/civilian could deprive another citizen/civilian of their rights. I thought that only the government and government agents could deprive you of your rights.

  4. Must be nice to live in his ivory tower where he has the time to focus on upholding a violent criminal’s right to a fair trial.

    • That’s what I was thinking: this guy has never been attacked in any way, nor has he ever set foot inside of our court system to seek any “justice” after being victimized. Must be nice—until a heavy dose of reality sets in. I won’t wish that kind of evil upon him, but perhaps he would finally get it after such an event.

  5. This is what the left is reduced to. The argument that ‘you’ll shoot yourself’ has been debunked. The argument that ‘they’ll take it away’ has been debunked. The argument that ‘you’ll never hit the target and you may even hit the wrong guy’ has been debunked. The argument that ‘it’s a collective right’ has been debunked.

    All they are left with is increasingly desperate attempts to try and create phony ‘rights’ that somehow nullify the second amendment right to self defense of person and property.

    What this imbecile fails to realize is that the sixth amendment protects you from the STATE, not from somebody you’ve just personally wronged.

    • Exactly. I actually find it quite heartening to see our opponents taking these kinds of wild swings. It means we’re winning, and they’re getting desperate. Some, like this guy, are more depressingly stupid than others, but all the anti-gunners are starting to resort to some real Hail Mary shit now.

    • Obviously, I thought it was drugs too, but after reading some of his other posts it now appears to me that he is sadly mentally defective. I am not saying that to be mean or for ad hominem purposes. I feel sorry for the kid and am surprised that even the HuffPo would publish him rather than being honest with him.

  6. This guy is talking WAY above his pay grade.

    He has a degree in Political Science, he lists a bunch of classes in his linkedin, and none of them are constitutional law. Outside of blogging and retail he has only had internships so no real jobs. And the cherry on top is that he wrote a book that says Communism is just misunderstood.

    Personally I am of the opinion that every time some liberal makes some absurd claim based on constitutional law we should find their linkedin profile to see if they have anything that shows they any experience on constitutional law that warrants them to make such off the wall claims.

    • Go to Amazon and read the “Look Inside” preview of his little Communism book. It’s breathtakingly awful. I mean, it’s cool that modern technology now means that simpletons can self-publish, but can’t we still have some minimum standards?

      This is his intro sentence:

      “Karl Marx is dead and has been for some time. This is not to say that his ideas are dead, but for the most part they are dead due to the fact he is dead.”

      The Dunning-Kruger effect is real, ya’ll.

      • You have just permanently damaged my brain by reposting that snippet…. thanks for nothing.

  7. Wow, this is the dumbest person in print. Self defense isn’t the dispensing of justice. He must think of violence as punishment, what a neanderthal. What about the victim? Self defense is about stopping the threat to your life. Violence can be a byproduct of that.

  8. If that’s one of his personal principles then good for him. The thing with principles is you have to apply them in EVERY situation or they’re just a neat idea.

    I don’t wish violence on ANYONE, but I’d be willing to bet if this kid were ever attacked this becomes just a neat idea.

  9. As senator Moynihan once said “your rights end at the bridge of my nose”. And their rights end when they are assaulting others. And we don’t have a justice system we have a legal one. And he’s in the wrong legally.

  10. What’s with some of these writers pictures…

    Drinking a glass of ice water, wearing a grandma sweater, denim shirt, and tie, while likely ogling some dude’s taut a$$ in a pair of skinny jeans, probably in some lame hipster bar, which is upscale and overly priced, yet pretends to not be upscale and overly priced.

    Is he trying to be artsy fartsy, or like his understand of self-defense, is he clueless on how pictures work?

  11. What in pluperfect hell did I just read? This is Timecube-level stuff. It would require extensive editing and re-writes before it could even be coherent enough to be considered wrong. This guy gets published in the Huffington Post?

  12. Does this clown think that those who are in prison/jail retain their 4th amendment rights? You lose alot of your rights when you commit a crime.

  13. The Constitution was not written, nor was it ever intended, to protect us from one another. It was written to protect us from the government.
    [W3]

  14. This person typifies the totally ignorant, brain-dead morons being manufactured in America’s Colleges and Universities nowadays. And just think someday these illiterate cupcakes will run the Country!

    • True Story:

      Back in the late 70’s or early 80’s, I worked with a dude that was a bit more “hippie” than me. He mentioned something to me one day…essentially: “As they get older, my friends will be the ones in power.”

      (“Friends” here meaning those with his political ideology).

      His prediction has come to pass. So too will yours, I fear.

  15. A trial is to determine if an individual is guilty. If an individual is killed while that individual is perpetrating a crime (i.e. armed robbery), the guilt is not really in question. If, for argument’s sake, the victim is charged, then during their trial it should be determined who the true guilty party was.

    And yes, the stupidity does hurt.

  16. OK, he wants to go down this road, let’s help him to his destination.

    How about someone starts massaging his face with their fists, and then we ask him to expand upon his thesis while so engaged?

  17. I guess he didn’t get the word about not eating the brown acid…

    He’s just explicitly admitted what I’ve been saying about the anti-gun cult for DECADES.

    They seek to create a RIGHT to rob, rape and murder… IN SAFETY.

    They are well and truly OSHA for rapists…

    • That is a good point.

      This guy’s thesis is insane and utterly devoid of intelligence. It is just stunning someone could actually attempt to morally equate ‘immediate defense of self during attack’ with legal ‘due process.’

  18. “… 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

    What about the victim who is devoid of his or her rights during/after the attack (especially if the victim dies in the attack)? What gives during such an “impasse”?

    In my world the attacker gives.

    • Not today, it doesn’t! Every fruitcake lib thinks the DOI guarantees happiness, instead of the pursuit of it. And the Bill of Rights directs the government to distribute free stuff and allow any and all manners of destructive behaviors (I was just watching TV of demonstrators jumping up and down on police cars, and wondering why they were not arrested.)

  19. A white male is victim blaming; the feminist should be all over this guy…

    Calling him names, attacking him, yelling about white male privilege, snorting like pigs at the feed trough, pierced nostrils flaring in a fit of rage, arm fat jiggling and swaying whilst shaking protest signs…

    I guess, finals are coming up in their gender studies courses, so they couldn’t make it this time.

    • So, you saw the Triggly Puff video also. I almost threw up twice after reading your post and thinking of that SJW freaking out at what I think was a Milo Yiannopulos event.

      • But have you seen the ‘Aids Skrillex, and Carl the Cuck’ video? Priceless…

        Though to be honest, if one has the intestinal fortitude, and the temperament to not get angry watching people say insanely stupid things, one could watch SJW vids all day long. The scary part is one day, they’ll be in charge.

      • Milo is good people.

        An effeminate, conservative, b*tchy, gay male, who has jungle fever…

        He is feminist kryptonite.

  20. This is just more failed logic from a spineless skinny jean wearing beta male hipster. This guy WANTS to be dominated by a violent felon….

  21. Here are the facts regarding a violent attack on a victim:
    (1) The victim did NOT choose to be “devoid of their rights”.
    (2) The attacker DID CHOOSE to assault another person’s rights.
    (3) A possible outcome of the attacker’s choice to attack someone is the attacker being “devoid of their rights”.

    I don’t see any problems here. What am I missing?

    Why does Mr. Curmi have an issue with the above? Is he a violent criminal who wants less risk to himself when attacking other people?

  22. And Jesus wept. It’s guys like this that are responsible for civilizations collapsing. Regrettably it seems like they’ve got us outnumbered.

  23. Yet another person who does not understand that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution governs the interaction between the citizen and the state, not the interaction between citizens. If a store owner asks you not to bring your gun into his store, he has not violated your 2nd Amendment rights. If your boss tells you that you cannot talk about religion, sports, politics, or whatever at work, she has not violated your 1st Amendment rights. Likewise, if I am in fear for my life and I shoot my attacker and he dies, I have not violated his 6th Amendment right to due process because I do not owe a constitutional duty to him. Moreover, as a matter of principle, if killing someone in self defense was was a violation of the 6th Amendment, the issue in point would not be the tool that was used, but that someone died. It matters not if a gun, knife, baseball bat, or fists and feet were used. If anything, this is an argument against police carrying any form of weapons (lethal or otherwise) because as representatives of the state, it could be construed that their actions ARE a violation of the 6th Amendment and due process. What, so if police are trained that means they can violate a persons 6th Amendment rights? Or, is he making the case for disarming the police?

    His reference to the target accuracy in police shootings, the poorly designed and biased ABC “documentary” on guns in classrooms clearly indicate a superficial understanding of the relevant facts. Lastly, the most offending part of his half-a’d article is the implication that if you haven’t been “trained” then you deserve to be helpless and die. Idiocy.

  24. I donned my Hazmat suit and went to the article. Happy to report this dimwit is getting torn apart in the comments.

    • Thank you for doing this, and for the good news that he’s getting ripped. I just ate breakfast, and could not bring myself to go to the article. Your sacrifice is appreciated. 😉

  25. Due process applies to to the government’s imposition of punishment for a crime. That right there is different from a private party exercising self defense. Neverthless, even in such a case, the attacker’s rights are legally respected. Self defense doesn’t apply if you consented to the fight. It dies not apply if the attacker breaks off the engagement and retreats. Regardless what applies, the shooter will be investigated and the vase presented to a Grand Jury. These and other measures protect the attacker’s right to due process.

    Moreover, self defense is not punitive, it’s preventative. It’s preventing (further) injury to the defender.

    Philosophically and ethically, this falls under what’s known as the “Doctrine of Double Effect.” It holds that causing harm or even death as a repercussion to bringing about a positive outcome (preservation of the defender) is allowed.

    Note well, the doctrine draws a fine line. You may not cause that harm directly to bring about the same positive outcome. For example, bad guy breaks into your house and comes at you with a knife. You may blow him away.

    Now, ten minutes before bad guy breaks into your house, you see him walking up and down your street and you recognize him from police sketches of recent home invasion suspects. You may NOT charge out into the street and blow him away preemptively, even though he actually is planning to break in and attack you.

  26. The modern preponderance of minds like this, completely unburdened with logic are the reason we don’t ever want to consider revising the Bill of Rights.

  27. I would like to drop this guy off around 1AM on the south side on a nice summer day with a gun and see if his perspective changes.

    That out of the way, he seems to believe the sort that thinks criminals are victims. Give me a break. It’s really funny when a bunch of the people you hear about are on bail, probation or parole for some violent crime when they kill someone. The one thing I’ll agree with Hillary on is there are “super predators.” It’s not a racial thing at all but until people stop defending the wolves in their communities and acknowledge their “baby angel who’s turning their life around” is a punk, thug, crook, mugger, murderer, addict or whatever and makes strives to remove them from their society they will always be poisoned.

  28. This person has a comical misunderstanding of the constitution. The 6th Amendment is there as a check on government force, pretty much like the rest of the bull of rights. That is its function. It has nothing to do with an individual’s right of self-defense or self-preservation.

  29. OK, I’m gonna do it y’all, I’m gonna click the link and read the article. Lunch time is coming up so I can read the article quickly and then have an hour to rest before coming back to work.

  30. This fool does not appear to realize that the Bill of Rights lists proscriptions of government action. Individual actions cannot be “unconstitutional”, only legislation can.

  31. “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 in A Revision of the Bill of Rights, Part III [at huffingtonpost.com]

    Hilarious statement. Totally not surprised it originated from Huffpo.

    An attacker assaults another individual. That individual defends themselves against grievous bodily harm. And … we want to talk about the attacker’s rights? He forfeited those rights, the moment he decided to assault someone.

    Lets take the gun out of the picture. This helps some liberals. A burglar breaks into your house and stabs your wife to death and then while holding the knife looks up at you and starts running towards you. Are you going to:

    A) Allow him to stab you to death, the police to catch him, and him to have a fair trial?

    or…

    B) Pop him in the head on his run towards you in attempts to take your life?

    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.

    Liberals have a problem accepting reality. Should we deprive them of guns? All jokes aside, if a crazy person is loose and is clearly insane – why are they running around loose? Guns aside, are we not concerned about them assaulting and stabbing people, or hurting themselves?

    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.

    It is definitely for ordinary use. Mainly because:
    A) Liberals released the crazy people from asylums
    B) Liberals are deeply concerned about the rights of criminals assaulting good people
    C) Criminals don’t care about the laws liberals legislate
    D) The US has lots of criminals for one reason or another and with more prisons than any other nation on earth.

    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.

    Again. Criminals are going to kill people. Some of them will have firearms, some of them won’t. Criminals don’t care about laws. Laws like: Don’t kill people. Don’t buy guns when you are a felon, etc. A firearm for the innocent moral decent american is the best protection they currently can employ. What seriously is wrong with that?

    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.

    Come on man. There is zero empirical evidence of such. There is zero logical evidence of such.
    1) A police officer can fire at a person and with even the slightest evidence of self defense, they will get a paid vacation – immunity man.
    2) A CHL holder will face tremendous financial burdens even if they validly employ a defensive gun use if the DA decides to prosecute. The risk for the CHL holder is tremendous in comparison to the police officer. As a result, most CHL holders are not looking to defend themselves unless the situation is absolutely, direly requires it.

    http://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/cprc-in-fox-news-police-are-extremely-law-abiding-but-concealed-handgun-permit-holders-are-even-more-so/

    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.

    There are many private companies/organizations researching this. Most of which are funded by anti-gun biased individuals. The CDC attempted to research this with great consequences because they were researching bogus anti-gun propaganda garbage. This basically says it all:

    “We are going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We are doing the most we can do given the political realities.” – P.W. O’Carroll, MD, Head of the division of injury control – CDC.

    Again, Liberals… using the CDC to push political agenda’s with tax payer money. So yea… the government has historically shown they are not capable of providing unbiased research.

    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 didn’t provide a link to the study. Why not??

    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.

    Did you read the second amendment of the bill of rights? Really straight forward. People didn’t like the second amendment, but rather than try to change it, they just ignored it. This has been going on for decades – almost a century. Legislators are not going to “filter” anything through your “Five Aims of the USA” (i.e. the preamble) or the bill of rights. Why don’t you start a discussion on that?

    • Doesn’t your suggestion of popping him in the head assure that his mental capacity is vastly increased, or do you need a caliber check?

  32. I hope this poor dumb basted never has to learn the idiocy of his legal ramblings.

    You can’t fix stupid.

  33. How does this jackass justify police officers using firearms to stop attackers — which would “devoid the attacker of his rights”?

  34. “A gun for civilians is a weapon for a revolution and not for ordinary use.”

    That is a least half true – the part about a weapon for revolution. The 2nd Amendment enables Americans to carry out the only Duty mentioned in the Declaration of Independence: “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    Defending yourself from a thug is a happy benefit – the right to self-defense is the most basic human right – the right o keep your life. If you are killed by a criminal, you have no rights.

    Curmi is a prime argument for retroactive abortion – he is definitely form the back side of the bell curve. And I wonder – does the HuffyPost require all of its writers to be dweebs?

  35. Self defense is NOT a violation of your 6th amendment rights because self esteem defense is NOT punishment. In self defense you are only stoping the threat, punishment would be a shooting a perp how was no longer a threat to “finish them of.” The later is highly illegal under all self defense laws.

  36. OK guys, I respectfully request that read what I am going to say about the author of this Huff Post article.

    Before you go read this Part III article you need to go back to read he previous articles to put in context what he fails to to understand about the roll of government, thUS constitution, and the Amending Articles called the Bill of Rights.

    to this date, April 29, 2016 he has written THREE articles on the Bill of Rights.
    He is so far in outer space it makes me question what kind of education he acquired.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-curmi-/

    He makes several mistakes you need to pay attention to.

    Mistakes as I see them.

    A Revision on the Bill of Rights, part I
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-curmi-/a-revision-on-the-bill-of_b_9750282.html

    1. While his articles are on the Bill of Rights he begins with the Preamble to Main body of the Constitution.

    It is funny that he uses the Preamble to the main body of the Bill of Rights WHEN HE IGNORES AND SKIPS
    OVER the Preamble to the Bill of Rights itself.

    This is a common mistake because few people realize there is a separate Preamble to the Bill of Rights.
    Many copies of the constitution do not include it or liberals ignore it because it puts a little crash in their
    political philosophy.

    2. His use of the Preamble to the main body starts out using “We the People” and makes the common mistake that the “People as a whole” created the constitution.
    That is an error.
    The People of the Respective States created the US constitution and NOT the people as a whole.
    That is a subtle, yet critical mistake.
    Those who push for a more central government claim the US constitution was created by the people as a whole.

    For those who have studied about the development of the drafting of the US constitution in the Federal Convention of the Summer of 1787 and the subsequent State Ratification Conventions would truly know this.

    Also the writings of St George Tucker, John Taylor, and Abel Upshur confirm it was the people of the respective states.
    Article 7 in the constitution itself says that the constitution is agreement “between the states”.
    It is NOT a compact among the people as a whole.
    The people as a whole myth was started by Joseph Story in the 1820’s or 30’s.

    3. He says, These rights [in the Bill or Rights] give certain powers to an individual and withhold certain powers from the person.”
    WRONG.
    Obviously and educated idiot.

    The BOR does NOT GRANT nor TAKE AWAY any individual any rights.
    That was not the context nor the intent of the Bill or Rights.

    The Federal Government was not granted the powers to grant any rights.

    More to this later.
    Or maybe I should just put it in a blog myself.

  37. Someone who puts another in mortal peril, or fear of mortal peril, forfeits the right to invoke due process with respect to the manner in which the victim chooses to defend himself. Or, as the 5th DCA put it:

    That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook.

  38. Self-defense is a natural-borne civil right enumerated in the Constitution as the Second Amendment. The theory and acceptance of self-defense was part of Roman law and in the English law starting in the 17th century. Other Countries have lost their way and we, as US Citizens, need not care.

    And this guy can STFU.

    • I know a guy with a daughter who has Down’s Syndrome. If you made his argument to her, she’d probably call you a retard and walk away…

  39. It’s funny, I have always thought that the lack of a trial had MANY benefits, and that’s why self defense shootings were so…beneficial. Benefits like the lack of tax money for a defense lawyer, because, let’s face it, these idiots rarely can provide their own. The lack of tax money for court fees. The lack of tax money to house and feed these animals for the length of their sentence. Not having to worry about them doing it again when they get out. Probably the most important, though, not having to worry about them suing you WHEN they lie about what happened. Screw this justin curmi, I hope he becomes a victim of a home invasion sooner than later, and then I’ll be looking for his retraction.

  40. I read the article with an open mind and WOW, even with the most open of minds this guy (Justin Curmi) either wrote the article to just stir people with a completely ridiculous argument or is seriously a complete and total moron. Even a brainwashed individual couldn’t agree with the article….Human nature derived from our most primal DNA wouldn’t allow for it. The one thing that I’ve got to laugh at is how other posted statements in support, citing how it is illegal in other country’s to fight back against your attacker. To my amazement this is actually true! Though I wonder how many criminals are simply buried in a deep whole in the country side. I just don’t see an Aussie farmer letting a criminal rape and murder his family while on the phone with police, especially when the police response time is an hour or more….you do what you need to do to protect your family! Kill the criminal, never call the police since you might wined up in jail, and the next day simply dig a deep hole with your tractor, put your fertilizer at the bottom and plant a nice fruit tree. Heck maybe a law system that ties your hands so much that you would might seriously do the above might work. Criminals just start disappearing….and what policing agency is going to spend more then 10 minutes working a case where a known criminal disappears. Inmate populations go down, and most importantly the crime rate goes down.

  41. Despite the absurdity, it’s worth noting that this is an argument against not guns per se, but self defense in categorically. You cannot defend yourself with your hands, a bat, a knife, a gun, or a frying pan, if defending yourself prevents the person voluntarily giving up his own natural and civil rights and attempting to deprive you of natural rights from having his civil rights (day in court). (You can see the logical absurdity when phrased this way.)

    While the person being quoted might be a transgressive looking to take away your gun rights, he’s actually trying to categorically take away your human/natural right to not be killed (i.e., a criminal’s civil right to a trial trumps your human right to not be killed).

    Of course, transgressives (Bloomberg, Soros, Hillary Clinton, Sanders, et al.) are foolish and opportunistic and just want to end “inequality,” but remember that Lenin and Kaganovich were “progressives” who just wanted to end “income inequality” before they achieved state power and began to slaughter Christians, land owners, and farmers in Russia and ethnic Germans in Eastern Germany.

  42. My expectation is he’s one of the people Heinlein was thinking of when he wrote “A “pacifist male” is a contradiction in terms. Most self-described “pacifists” are not pacific; they simply assume false colors. When the wind changes, they hoist the Jolly Roger”
    Were someone to break not his house and attack his family…his wife would savage the attacker while he screamed like a little girl, wetting his pants.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *