Free Markets, Free People

Guns rob attackers of their “right to a fair trial”. No. Really.

Yesterday, the Shark said: “Every time I think we’ve reached peak stupid, something new comes along to prove me wrong.”  Well, to prove Shark’s point, I found this:

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.

To say this is probably one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read would be an  understatement.  It is certainly an indicator of how far the left will go in it’s “reasoning” to deny you the use of a gun and your basic right to self-defense.  I said “basic” but self-defense is indeed an inherent right.  You need no one’s permission to exercise it because you own your life and without protecting it, you would obviously cease to exist.

That apparently is lost on this statist rube.  Let’s lay this out a little differently.  This Huffington Post writer is attempting to persuade you that a civil right (an actual societal construct applicable only to a particular society) is somehow superior to an inherent right (a right that is yours without anyone or anything granting it.   It is your existence and its requirements for survival that “grant” it.  The right is applicable to all mankind without exception. It can be violated, but it can’t be taken away.).  We have an idiot here who claims that if you defend yourself your action “imposes on justice”?

Wtf?  Your action, especially if you successfully defend yourself, IS justice!  And how you do it or with what is irrelevant!  Gun?  Knife?  Crowbar?  Throat punch?  Each and every one of those may “impose on justice”, as he defines it and is your right.  But this dolt tries to sell that as a primary reason to restrict the ownership of guns.  Only cops should have guns and you should defer your “self-defense” to them!

This is a person that has no concept of inherent rights, what they mean and why they’re necessary.  So he writes slop like this!  And it gets worse as his “reasoning” stays in the ditch and hits a concrete culvert several times.  No airbags deployed because his ideas weren’t worth spit to begin with and certainly not worth saving.

So Shark … suck it up bud.  We’re not even close to “peak” stupidity.  The stupid machine keeps on churning and the manure keeps on plopping out.


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

19 Responses to Guns rob attackers of their “right to a fair trial”. No. Really.

  • Okay, I guess I need to finish up the posting on ‘militia’ that I started researching a while back.

    In short, most states have at least 2 kinds of militia on the law books.
    One is usually referred to as the ‘organized’ militia.
    It usually consists of state residents, in some cases specifically males, between the ages of about 18 through (depending on the state) the mid 50s who specifically volunteer for ‘militia’ service with the state when the guvner calls it out.
    There has been so far in my research NO mention on how these militia members will be armed by the state.

    There are some states with two or more types, recognizing the National Guard as a form of the militia, however inaccurate that may be since that’s actually part of the standing Army, but they are quantified in the books because the need to distinguish between the National Guard forces which would answer to the Army directly and the ‘state militia’ forces, in theory, controlled by the state.

    Then there’s the ‘unorganized’ militia – and guess who is officially classified as the ‘unorganized militia’
    usually it’s every other resident in the state of reasonable military service age, including old farts in their 50’s and older.

    Now those definitions have probably been on the books of state laws since the books were written, though obviously some states have amended them removing specifically ‘men’ from the rules to be gender neutral in cases where it said, as it STILL does in Californian – males.
    So when the founders were talking about ‘the militia’ they were talking about everyone.


    The people who think ‘the militia’ is some magic group within the state that excludes certain people, need to shut up and go look into their state law books to find out who their militia IS legally.
    No thing exists without a foundation, the Constitution assumed people were literate so they didn’t outline the details that composed the common sense foundations of the document.
    For example when they specified the word ‘people’ they didn’t figure they had to outline who ‘people’ were that were forming the more perfect Union because they didn’t figure you’d think they meant cows and chickens.

    So too, they didn’t bother to define ‘militia’ because they figured it was like using the word ‘people’.
    But states recognized that they’d have to define the organized militia, and the unorganized militia, for the purposes of control, organization and civic responsibility and they did.

    And so far for all the look ups I’ve done (with the exception of Pennsylvania, which evidently has so many militia groups that it’s hard to find the damn laws using Google and the word ‘militia’) every state has specified
    the militia is in fact EVERY ONE in one way or another.

    All of the pin heads who are trying to get around the fact that the various States had absolutely no intention of keeping arsenals and undertaking the initial cost of arming all their peasants need to see what the states think the word militia means before they go throwing around the idea that only ‘the militia’ is allowed to have guns like that will prohibit people from owning firearms.
    It doesn’t because all the people are ‘the militia’, by state law, even in firearm restricting crap-holes like Massachusetts.

    • Massachusetts example – Title V – Chapter 33 General laws

      Section 2. The militia of the commonwealth shall consist of: (i) all able-bodied citizens and all other able-bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, between the ages of 18 and 45, and who are residents of the commonwealth; and (ii) such other persons who, upon their own application, enlist or are commissioned pursuant to this chapter, subject to exemptions created by law.

      Section 3. The militia shall consist of two classes, namely, the organized militia, composed and organized as provided in this chapter, and the remainder, to be known as the unorganized militia.
      The unorganized militia shall not be subject to duty except in case of war, actual or threatened, invasion, the prevention of invasion, threats to homeland security and the assisting of civil officers in the execution of the laws.

      Section 4. The active or organized militia shall be composed of volunteers, and shall comprise the aides-de-camp of the commander-in-chief, the state staff, the armed forces of the commonwealth, as defined in section 10, the National Lancers and the retired list. The organized militia shall constitute the military division of the executive branch of the commonwealth.

      Section 10. The armed forces of the commonwealth shall consist of the active national guard, army and air, the inactive national guard, army and air, and, whenever necessary, a state defense force or similar organization composed as the commander-in-chief may prescribe.

      Section 55. When necessary to call out any part of the unorganized militia for duty, the commander-in-chief shall issue a proclamation directed to the mayors or city managers and selectmen, who shall forthwith, by written order or oral notice to each individual, or by proclamation on their part, appoint a time and place for the assembling of the unorganized militia in their respective cities and towns, and shall then and there draft as many thereof, or accept as many volunteers, as are required by the order of the commander-in-chief, and shall forthwith forward to the adjutant general a list of the persons so drafted or accepted

      • Section 55

        Just like all those westerns where the sheriff forms a posse from the unorganized militia. For “assisting of civil officers in the execution of the laws.”
        BYOG (Bring Your Own Gun).

        • The image now would be hilarious, but was once deadly serious –

          send the dispatch riders!
          Have the town criers read the notice through the streets!

          Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye!
          All able bodied men between the ages of 17 and 45 who are not currently in the organized militia to appear with their arms and accoutrements on Lexington common on Saturday April 30th at 10:00 in the morning for militia selection!
          Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye!

    • And as a final note – the 2nd Amendment doesn’t say GUNS, or firearms, or machine guns, or hunting rifles, high velocity ballistic projectile weapons or death rays.

      It says ‘ARMS’.

      For consideration in that regard up until about 1870 pikes (big spears kids) were still ARMS for some armies – swords continued to be military ARMS for much longer and pikes live on in the bayonet.

      So the right to keep and bear ARMS is not specifically about GUNZZZZZZZZZZZ any more than it’s about the “right” to hunt animals or go skeet shooting.

      Jesus what a stupid country we are.

  • Now you have gotten me curious. But I am also lazy, so if you have the sites or the google search terms that worked for you I would appreciate it.

    It’s amazing, isn’t it, how many people are wrong when with just a little effort and/or curiosity they could find out the truth on the internet.

    • I started with Massachusetts – mainly because of the grilling I recall as an 20 year old when I went to the PD to get a permit to touch (literally, perhaps it’s changed, but at the time if you didn’t have a permit you shouldn’t have even been holding, let alone owning ) a fire arm. A surly asshat in the local PD demanded my age, my place of residence and my reason for wanting an FID (not a gun mind you, a permit!) – once he was done dicking me around he informed me that they didn’t issue FIDs on Saturdays…..nice.

      Anyway – I’ve been using a variation on – which was a total disaster in Pennsylvania since I ended up with all kinds of whacko militia sites and their friggin by-laws. Most of which I ain’t accessing because I don’t need to be on any more lists than I might theoretically be on.

      I’ll try and get you some more from actual state law sites that I’ve looked into when I get to the house.

      California I found entertaining because it still specified “males” whereas, as you can see from the Masswachusetts codes, it’s “persons”.

      It would be equally entertaining to see if that’s always been that way, which likely means they would have meant that only males are technically persons (but why go looking for more fights).

      I keep meaning to go through 3/4’s or at least 2/3’s of the states but haven’t done it. So far it’s looked a lot like states just carbon copied other states in this regard.

      • “I’ve been using a variation on – ”
        Heh – don’t use the (greater than) (less than) when you make lists Alan you dumbass….

        (state) (militia) laws –

  • First time that came into my mind …

    In the Star Trek episode “A Taste of Armageddon”, people who were deemed war casualties by the government of Eminiar VII were required to enter suicide booths.

    • … but really, given Warren v. District of Columbia, why do we allow policemen to have guns ?

      • They’re the militia!
        They must be, because in the Constitution it says only a well regulated militia has the right to carry guns and it doesn’t say anything about police departments.

        Do I win the internet?

  • ” But, the main issue is on the right to self-defend with a firearm.”

    Then this would be okay if the guy drowned after I smacked him with the giant fish and knocked him into the canal, yes?

    No gun, no problem.

  • The article on Puffington Host was pretty sloppy. The argument was poorly written and the logic was “all over the place.” When you then go to the comments, except for a very few “true believers” they were almost entirely calling BS to the author. So, even though the piece itself is excrement and cause for some concern I take some solace in seeing the vast majority of commenters slamming the piece. There may be hope for humanity after all.


  • What you said, plus: The person attacking you is in the midst of trying deprive you of the your rights as well. I don’t think the attacker is giving you a fair trial.

  • I wonder what BLM thinks of only cops having guns?


  • Pat on April 28, 2016 at 12:37 said
    “What you said, plus: The person attacking you is in the midst of trying deprive you of the your rights as well. I don’t think the attacker is giving you a fair trial.”

    Well THAT’s my personal take on it, too. According to the “Social Contract” that *I* signed on to: some fraggin’ yahoo tries to rob me, or burgle my house, or smite me with a cudgel nullifies his own alleged “rights” the EXACT SAME MOMENT that he violates MY “rights”.

    The bleeding-heart Lib-Progs seem to believe that I should be required to pause and determine his intent (“Oh, he only wants to seize some of my possessions; he insists he has no intent to harm me; therefore I am morally constrained not use any kind of force that might be construed as “deadly” in my effort to retain possession of my belongings…”) Bee.Ess.

    Under Natural Law, he loses his damned “rights” the moment he attempts to violate mine. Period. Anything else *IS* injustice.

    Yes, I recognize that the whole point of this country’s current “justice system” is to arrange things so that some preferred constituents have “extra” and “superior” rights; while other constituents have “inferior” and often “nullifiable” rights. I find this state of affairs disconcerting and disheartening.