HuffPost Wants You To Know That Dangerous Criminals Have More Rights Than You Do

And the long, arduous march to rewrite the Constitution continues. CNN got it started this morning, and now we find the HuffPost (the newly-branded “a**crack of the internet”) is determined to be part of the action.

There is a series of articles up on HuffPost called “A Revision on the Bill of Rights” (oh, THAT sounds promising) wherein some hipster weirdo decided to re-interpret our basic God-given rights into something a little more palatable for modern-day progressive sensibilities. In that progressivism treats regular people as too stupid to be left to their own devices, so they need the government to come in and tell them what to do with every tiny detail of their lives.

This particular installment deals with the Second Amendment. Which, you can kind of guess what is coming from this pile of ill-educated dreck. I took a stab at guessing before I even read the article: “militia” in the Amendment means the actual military and there’s no reason that ordinary citizens should ever have a gun.

And it is precisely that kind of gun-grabbing logic that helped me decide that I wanted to own a gun in the first place.

I will note that that looks like this piece was originally published last year, but the time-stamp on the article also indicates that it was updated less than a week ago. Since it’s hard to tell what parts were included in the original and which were updated, I’m going to treat this as an all-new thing. Because – HOLY CRAP – this is beyond stupid.

The author of the piece, Justin Curmi, isn’t content with telling people that they don’t need a gun to defend themselves against someone breaking into their home or attacking them in the streets. Because your attacker has the right to a fair trial. And if you shoot and kill your attacker, you automatically take away that right. And who made you judge, jury, and executioner all in one?

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.

Riiiiiiight… because if some psycho is coming after me and I have the means to defend myself, I’m going to be super-worried about infringing on his right to a fair trial. So, I should just let him just rob and rape and possibly even murder me, because I’m such a good person who’d never take away someone else’s rights, even when they’re in the middle of taking away mine.

ARE YOU HIGH?? Do you have ANY idea how stupid that sounds?

Basically what this says is that my rights end where a criminal’s begin. And a criminal’s rights begin a whole lot sooner because some beta male writing for the HuffPost said so.

Yeah, no. I have the right to defend myself. Whether that’s from some creep who thinks I’m an easy target, or some jackboot thug from the government.

Oh right – Justin did say that weapons are useful for citizens to rise up in revolution, though he’s a bit fuzzy on what that would entail exactly –

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

So, there’s that one small brownie point going for him.