A Revision of the Bill of Rights, Part III

[GilpinGuy]

This is from last year, but updated April 26th. This guy...holy cow.

A Revision of the Bill of Rights, Part III
By Justin Curmi

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

[buffalobo]

One very large crock of shit. Somebody needs to check this guy's mental health. Zero intellectual integrity in his arguement.

If you're unarmed, you are a victim

[ray1970]

F**k that dyslexic mother f**ker.

[BushMasterBoy]

Just a lil background and insight written by the author hisself....




Justin Curmi is a graduate from Baruch College in Manhattan, New York. He received his Bachelor's degree in Philosophy and Political Science. His college career was a battle due to personal battles with dyslexia. These battles have forced him to learn how to teach himself difficult subject matters. Through anguish and painful moments, he has overcome major hurdles that dyslexia presented to him. Now, he is looking towards unorthodox thoughts and methods to analyze political matters. His thoughts can be viewed on his blog, My Head Hurts, https://fromayoungphilosopher.wordpress.com/.

[motoboy]

OMG !

[Zundfolge]

Keep in mind this kind of crap is written by people that believe silly things like not wanting to have sex with a tranny (a "chick with a dick") makes you a transphobic bigot or asking someone who's obviously foreign where they're from originally is a "racist microaggression" or disagreeing with someone is the exact same thing as physical violence against said person.

Postmodernists would be funny if they weren't so damn dangerous.

[jhood001]

Let's put a pistol on a table in a room with Mr Curmi. Then put a loved one in there with him. Lastly, we'll add a violent criminal with a machete who is intent on doing terrible things to his loved one.

The buzzer sounds for 'go time' for the violent criminal to do his thing -

Feel free to post your questions for Mr. Curmi that he gets to answer before he can defend himself and his loved one in those next few seconds.

Be sure to ask him as to whether or not he should be allowed to use the pistol in the room due to his lack of training (the training the 'cops' get) and possible issues with accuracy.

And be sure to ask him how accurate, realistic and meaningful that ABC hit piece, errr... 'study' was.

And ask him if he is concerned about the attacker's right to a free trial.

And... and... and...

Is the scenario I mentioned something based on reality? No. But neither is whatever the hell it is Mr. Curmi is writing about.

[Gman]

If one brings violence to another, and the victim uses deadly force to protect themselves, the attacker has forfeited his right to trial. This is dictated by natural law, not the Constitution.

[Bailey Guns]

This is dictated by natural law, not the Constitution.

Yeah, that's just not fair. All that reality is really gonna confuse the guy.

[Gman]

This guy's hubris is epic. He thinks he knows more than those that went through vast research, study, and understanding human nature. The founders certainly understood natural law.