Liberal Logic: Self-Defense Contradicts Justice
Let me preface this with an apology for perusing on a liberal trash heap blog (Huffington Post). But every once and a while you need a brief glimpse into the dysfunctional minds of the people who are behind Obama’s fundamental transformation of America.
Today, I stumbled upon an “article” that attempted to argue that defending oneself (with a gun) contradicts justice.
Feel free to read the entire article—it’s quite short. But here are a few of the author’s pseudo-intellectual gems:
(TRIGGER WARNING!!)
“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.”
“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.”
If you take some of the article’s arguments to their logical conclusions, you are left with a society of helpless victims.
Consider the statement,
“The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial.”
Evidently, the author does not concern himself with the reality that “self-defense” implies an attack, and criminals don’t regard “justice.”
Only a liberal could ignore the fact that a “criminal” has abandoned his right to due process when he chooses to attack a fellow citizen, and that law-abiding citizens would be the only victims of his imagined utopia.
The scariest part of this article is the title, “A Revision on the Bill of Rights, Part III”—I wonder what other liberal tweaks he has in mind?
Category: Guns, Liberals suck
Everyone has a right to a fair trial. I agree. That is, if they make it to trial. If they endanger my life or that of my family’s, then it’s two center mass and if they even wobble instead of hitting the floor, it’s one in their melon. In such an event, they chose to put their fate, their lives and their fair trial into my hands. They will lose their decision by a jury of one, me.
I kind of agree..if a liberal doesn’t use a gun and becomes a dead victim, let’s face it, there is some justice in that LOL…..
AK – if you need brain bleach and SOS pads from you visit, I’ve been told that they are available at the Gift Shop at TAH worldwide HQ.
Oh, the stank from Huffpo tends to linger for a few days… just be sure to use extra Right Guard so you don’t offend your friends
😉
Ha, I think I’ll watch a good John Wayne movie to regain perspective.
Just don’t watch it in California, lest you be labeled as racist.
If you haven’t seen “Black Robe”….it can still be seen in full lengthif you know how to get it.
Great flick that accurately portrays native American culture and the conflict with European colonists, instead of the fictional noble redman bs put out by Hollywierd. Read “Captured by the Indians” by Drimmer for 15 first hand accounts, for confirmation.
Geeze, did Lena Dunham and Barry Soetoro co-write an article for their high school newpaper? regards, Alemaster
“Liberal”? Did you perchance mean libidiot, AK? (smile)
I prefer “Libtard” but to each their own.
“Barking Moonbat” has it’s place as well.
Jesus H. Christ on His holy cross, what the actual fuck did I just read??!!!
Somebody actually believes this horseshit? Are you fuckin’ shittin’ me right now? Holy Mother of God, there are no words…
So, according to this cockfuck, if some asshole broke into their home in the middle of the night and went after their kids, or some prick tried to carjack them with their kids in the backseat, or any number of all-too-common scenarios involving some human animal piece of shit committing violence against the author’s innocent and defenseless loved ones, especially children, this self-righteous assdouche wouldn’t lift a finger and would just let it happen. Because the murderer/rapist/kidnapper/whatever has rights that must be respected. Do I have this straight?
What about the victims’ right to keep themselves from harm? I guess that doesn’t matter, huh? This libtard fucksticks have taken that one Dostoyevsky quote to the absurd extreme, so evidently the criminal’s rights trump those of his victims. Well, fuck me, if that’s how it is, why in God’s name do we even have laws at all?
How can anybody find this in any way logical? This shit almost makes Lars look intellectually average by comparison. I’m beyond appalled at this.
I’m gonna take my beautiful wife to the range. I’ll feel better after we spend the day shooting things and the night having sex, while this nutless brainless dickless ratfuck libtard queef-slime douchebag scumfuck ass-monkey lump of snakeshit from HuffPo sobs his eyes out because Hillary Clinton won’t violate his cornhole with a strap-on.
Thankfully, most people don’t. Even most liberals don’t. Sadly, there’s enough idiots in the world that it’s statistically impossible to avoid coming across them from time to time – this is one of those times.
LC, I don’t usually agree with you, but I pray you’re right in this case. I fear you may underestimate the problem, but I pray you’re right.
You have to get off the fence and tell us how you really feel, TOW.
Yes, there are people who are really that stupid. Either that or they get paid by the word by liberal rags such as HP. In this instance, my money is on being paid by the word. Why? Because it is difficult for me to wrap my mind around the fact that there are people this stupid. I pray they are incapable of procreation. Life is difficult, but it’s much more so if you’re stupid. Jeez
On the bright side the fewer of these idiots defends themselves the more will be taken out of the gene pool.
I just returned from a walk with my imaginary friend; she was quite surprised to see me after all it’s been over 50 years since we last talked. I told her I had to bring her back; not bringing her back would violate her rights. She then made me promise to hide her from liberals lest they make her pay taxes.
Well, they may not make her pay taxes, but they’ll certainly register her to vote.
MEH, I’m sure she’s been registered and voting demo-rat “via proxy” in Chicago, LA and NYC since they last met.
They get a trial, it’s a medieval concept called trial by fire….
Justice is not a term to be bandied about casually or recklessly. It is, on the hand, and ideal and an abstract concept and, on the other, a real and measurable thing. The latter embraces procedural fairness and has nothing to do with outcome. A good example of this is a defendant who is tried and convicted of murder. If all the procedural requisites were met, from Miranda warnings, for instance, to notice of charges, to speedy trial, to this, that, and the other thing, justice is done. Then comes the post-conviction review and opportunities to test the fairness of the trial judge’s rulings and other matters. The whole enchilada is to ensure the process leading to conviction was just. It is this notion of justice that the unemployed, self-described philosopher has in mind, I guess. I shouldn’t have to guess, of course, but his ability to express himself in our native tongue is clearly impaired. The lover of wisdom posits that if a person kills another in self defense, the person killed has been denied the real and measurable justice described above. And that’s true. It’s difficult for a corpse to acknowledge that he understands his Miranda rights and dragging a corpse to jail, from jail to a bail hearing, a preliminary hearing, a trial, and so forth, can be a bit of a sticky wicket. In point of fact, the corpse will no longer vote, exercise his 1st Amendment rights, or contest the charges that are never lodged against him! And therein lies the issue for the unemployed philosopher. You see, the corpse was never WITHIN the criminal justice system at all so none of the aforementioned rights ever accrued to him. It’s that simple. When he was killed, he wasn’t executed by the state. He was killed by a private individual whose life was at stake. The method of dealing with the threat is irrelevant. The would-be victim could have used his bare hands, a lamp, a steak knife, or a firearm. So why is this tied to the 2nd Amendment exclusively? The short of it is… Read more »
One minor correction, A/C, the corpse will undoubtedly vote democrat, at least until the Progressives get their way and abolish voting.
I accept the correction.
That kid is a blithering idiot. I hope he saves that piece so he can read it in about twenty years. He’ll never believe he could have been that damned stupid.
Of course, being a lib, he may never grow up, like so many of ’em.
Yes, he is. I see that he has spent years as a volunteer for Habitat for Humanity. He reports no employment and claims to have analytical ability(!). Just another unemployed Lib Arts major who mistakes feelings for thoughts. He is to be dismissed out of hand. He hasn’t a clue but inasmuch as he occasionally writes for the clueless, that’s just dandy.
A Philosophy and Poli-Sci graduate, no less.
waitaholdit, I majored in that…those are the most common pre-law majors.But everyone takes something different away from education.
My first reaction to reading this was that his basic argument was bullshit…. a perp does not forfeit a fair trial, he just gets a very very fast one….about an 800fps trial.
Indeed
I don’t know what I find more disturbing……the fact that this liberal shill wrote it, or that he may actually believe it makes sense. This is just so much pseudo intellectual blathering.
“guns get into the hands of people who use them for horrible reasons.”
Yes, lambchop. These people are referred to as criminals. Feel free to put their rights above YOURS. Those of us with functioning brains and spines have different priorities.
Can someone please translate that shit into standard English for me? I’ve been making cookies all afternoon after spending 2.5 hours on the phone with a friend, discussing things that were really important. It’s nice to be able to have a coherent conversation that makes sense with another adult.
I am, therefore, unprepared to try to translate gibberish mindbabble into English. So could someone please translate that craptwaddle for me?
Thanks!!!!
Yeah – you have no right to defend yourself under any circumstances because in doing so you may deprive whoever is trying to deprive of your right to continue breathing his due process of law.
Or it might just be blah, blah, yadda, bzzzzzzzz, gulp, racist BS, crapola, you bad, me good.
Oh, now I get it: he’s British. Self-defense is a crime in the UK, even if someone is trying to kill you. You might hurt your attacker.
Thank you!
“Hi. I’m Justin Crumi. I’m stupid. The end.”
That about sums it up for ya.
Yeah, definitely a Brit trainspotter.
If dimwit wants to never defend himself – who am I to argue with his “right” to act stupidly. His right to be ignorant applies only to himself. He has no right to insist that anyone else disregard a basic instinct to survive.
Rather like all our other rights – they are individual things. We each have the right to express ourselves, but not to demand that anyone else listen to our expression. Peaceable assembly would be another one. No one is forced to pay attention to your message, but we do have the right to stop your assembly when you start breaking other laws in the process. Or fail to acquire the necessary permits for your little demonstration. Riots aren’t peaceable assemblies.
One of the oldest belief in criminal justice is that criminals remove themselves from the protection of the law when the commit a crime hence they become an outlaw. Once outside the law, they are fair game.
But if a nut attacks a Hollywood Lib “celebrity” (I know, redundant), and the special person’s well armed security detail kills the perp, is that then ok?
Just trying to understand
sj: Agreed. But I believe it is not possible to ‘understand’ what some of these buttwipes say. Besides, the liberal twinks believe the rules do not necessarily apply to them. For instance, many believe citizens should not have access to firearms. Except, of course, themselves and their guards. Then it’s OK. Why? Because they’re ‘special’ and deserving of not having the laws apply to them. The hypocrisy is knee deep.
“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.”
So? To me this seems to be the desired outcome. There is a certain degree of stupidity in this country which cannot be properly described. How stupid must one be to actually make this argument?
In the UK, it is a criminal offense to defend yourself against someone who is attacking you, even if he’s trying to kill you. You can be charged with a crime if you hurt your attacker. This is not a joke. This asinine law came into effect under the current UK prime minister, David Cameron.
His position is pretty ridiculous.
While he is clearly a liberal I do not think his view is even close to representative of the “liberal” view.
That is evidenced by the fact that the comment section is full of posts by readers (most of them liberal) that flat disagree with him and question his reasoning.
Most liberals recognize the right to self defense. Most just do not agree with the calculus that gun ownership saves more innocent lives than it takes.
I am an advocate of the second amendment so I am constantly involved in discussions/debates with my liberal friends on the issue and I have heard pretty much the entire spectrum of liberal views on guns.
This guy’s position is bizarre even among liberals.
Wow, that was really coherent…was that really Lars?
Yes, it was. Give him a break.
Yeah-today is one of Lars’ high holy days so he probably won’t be around to defend himself.
The comments u dear the article are pretty funny, but for a real treat you should read his other pieces.
Even HuffPo readers think he’s an idiot.
Did anyone else see what book he’s written (at the bottom of the article). It’s called “The Communist”. No wonder he doesn’t want an armed populace. His casual comments about ‘revolution’ should probably also be a hint about why he doesn’t want an armed populace.
There are three reviews of the knucklehead’s masterpiece, The Communist. Each is a scream.
1) “I fully support people with mental disabilities attempting to become published, but this is unreadable. If it teaches us anything, it’s why Communism always fails.” (Adam)
2) “LoL… Really?? Wow…. There are no words. Dont waste the memory on your kindle.” (Chris)
3) “The ‘Take a peak inside’ pages of this book read like this tome was originally written in Urdu, then translated into Mandarin, thence into Esperanto, then finally into English. I found it physically painful to read the first two paragraphs. The grammar is unbelievably terrible. I hope Amazon didn’t actually pay anything for the publication rights to this train wreck.” (J.W. Grace)
The guy thinks the gun’s only legitimate purpose is to effect revolution. Another CUNY success story.