Defending yourself with gun deprives attacker of his rights!

[Aldebaran]

A Revision on the Bill of Rights, Part III | HuffPost

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.

Apparently, the writer of this piece in the Huffington Post is more worried about the "rights" of your attacker than your right to live while your attacker is in the process of depriving you of that right. Do think you should have to give up your right to live so your attacker can his right to a trial?

 

[-V-]

I'd say that article is nonsense.

It's been pretty well established in multiple courts, including the US Supreme Court, that some rights take precedent over other rights. In this case (self defense) the victim's right to life would take precedent over the assailant's right to a trial.

 

[Aldebaran]

I'd say that article is nonsense.

It's been pretty well established in multiple courts, including the US Supreme Court, that some rights take precedent over other rights. In this case (self defense) the victim's right to life would take precedent over the assailant's right to a trial.

Nonsense? The Huffington Post putting out nonsense? Nah!

 

[WolfGate]

Hard to take anything so poorly written seriously. Not sure how the blogger got into Huffington Post, but he did - which doesn't give his idea any more credibility. His logic is pretty poor too, because without saying it directly his theses is that the right to life is below the right to a fair trial - even if the right to a fair trial causes the loss of another life.