Liberal Logic (in itself a contradiction of terms) - Huffington Post @ it's Best

[cc]

In a recent essay, a Huffington Post writer makes the incredible argument that while the Second Amendment guarantees U.S. citizens the right to carry and stockpile arms, it does not give the right to shoot violent attackers in self-defense because to do so would deny assailants a fair trial.



From the article ...

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

......



.........

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-curmi-/a-revision-on-the-bill-of_3_b_9772428.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-cu ... 72428.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-curmi-/a-revision-on-the-bill-of_3_b_9772428.html



Sorry - I just thought this was funny - If the reasoning sounds convoluted, that's because it is

[RW]

In a recent essay, a Huffington Post writer makes the incredible argument that while the Second Amendment guarantees U.S. citizens the right to carry and stockpile arms, it does not give the right to shoot violent attackers in self-defense because to do so would deny assailants a fair trial.



From the article ...

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

......



.........

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-curmi-/a-revision-on-the-bill-of_3_b_9772428.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-cu ... 72428.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-curmi-/a-revision-on-the-bill-of_3_b_9772428.html



Sorry - I just thought this was funny - If the reasoning sounds convoluted, that's because it is

Interesting point in the realm of philosophy of law.



What was the purpose of the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment?  It was for militia purposes to secure a free state.  



There is point to be made about the delivery of justice.

[Anonymous]

In a recent essay, a Huffington Post writer makes the incredible argument that while the Second Amendment guarantees U.S. citizens the right to carry and stockpile arms, it does not give the right to shoot violent attackers in self-defense because to do so would deny assailants a fair trial.



From the article ...

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

......



.........

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-curmi-/a-revision-on-the-bill-of_3_b_9772428.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-cu ... 72428.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-curmi-/a-revision-on-the-bill-of_3_b_9772428.html



Sorry - I just thought this was funny - If the reasoning sounds convoluted, that's because it is

Well, it IS funny.  It's goofy, in fact.



But wait...from HuffPo's site:

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 without help. Through anguish and painful moments, he has overcome major hurdles that dyslexical 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,

Evidently his presence on the HuffPo staff is either a joke or some sort of ridiculous "inclusiveness" gesture.



But also....check this quote:

In a recent essay, a Huffington Post writer makes the incredible argument that while the Second Amendment guarantees U.S. citizens the right to carry and stockpile arms, it does not give the right to shoot violent attackers in self-defense because to do so would deny assailants a fair trial.

No, ceec...I'm not quoting YOU.  I'm quoting Thomas Williams, who writes for Breitbart and from whom you STOLE the front end of your OP without giving the poor guy any credit.  

http://www.breitbart.com/tag/justin-curmi/">//http://www.breitbart.com/tag/justin-curmi/

For shame.

[Twenty Dollars]

     

[Anonymous]

In a recent essay, a Huffington Post writer makes the incredible argument that while the Second Amendment guarantees U.S. citizens the right to carry and stockpile arms, it does not give the right to shoot violent attackers in self-defense because to do so would deny assailants a fair trial.



From the article ...

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

......



.........

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-curmi-/a-revision-on-the-bill-of_3_b_9772428.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-cu ... 72428.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-curmi-/a-revision-on-the-bill-of_3_b_9772428.html



Sorry - I just thought this was funny - If the reasoning sounds convoluted, that's because it is

It is for sure.

[cc]

Peachy: Wrong AGAIN.



You have fucked up on this very thing so many times before, this may be  the last time I will bother to reply to such silliness.



YET AGAIN, I will NOT credit sites that I feel likely did not write the ORIGINAL



Suck it up. Get used to it. Grow up



Whatever a  Breitbart is, it ain't my source (see attachment) .. . Now IS IT? ...



  Yet Again, you are so obsessed that you missed the windmill and got smacked by it.  ... If you wish to keep tilting imaginary meaningless windmills on your own, be my guest

[Renee]

Why is this thread in the reject pile?

[cc]

I started it here - Should have put in the prime time



It is classic lib illogic

[Anonymous]

Peachy: Wrong AGAIN.



...



  Yet Again, you are so obsessed that you missed the windmill and got smacked by it.  ... If you wish to keep tilting imaginary windmills on your own, be my guest

I haven't missed anything, you goose.  Nor have I been smacked.



This is the third or fourth time I've busted your chops for posting someone else's words as though they were your own.  My first week here I had three or four posters, including you, up my ass for supposedly doing the same thing.  I include your pal Herman in that list.



You are perfectly at liberty to keep doing it, and indeed it appears to be a life style for you.  And I'm at liberty to point it out every time.  In this case, I even told you whose words you had swiped.



And you have the nerve to claim they aren't his words because you don't trust the site and you saw the words elsewhere?  You can argue with me about where, and I'll be happy to deconstruct the matter for you.  But unless you credit an actual source, or at the very least make it clear you copied and pasted...you're a thief.

It is classic lib illogic

So you say, yet no other person I know of has ever attempted to make such a stupid argument (other than this dyslexic kid.)  I won't bother to explain what sort of illogic you've shown.

[The Donald]

The Huffington Post is such a loser.

[RW]

Peachy: Wrong AGAIN.



You have fucked up on this very thing so many times before, this may be  the last time I will bother to reply to such silliness.



YET AGAIN, I will NOT credit sites that I feel likely did not write the ORIGINAL



Suck it up. Get used to it. Grow up



Whatever a  Breitbart is, it ain't my source (see attachment) .. . Now IS IT? ...



  Yet Again, you are so obsessed that you missed the windmill and got smacked by it.  ... If you wish to keep tilting imaginary meaningless windmills on your own, be my guest

Peaches has a valid point here cc.  The start of your original post does not come from the Huff Post link, nor the author in said link.  It comes from Thomas Williams.  What was your source of his words?  He writes a very decent rebuttal found on Breitbart.

[cc]

I've already shown where I copied it from with a graphic  ... ... then I already demonstrated that above



YET AGAIN, I will NOT credit sites that I feel likely did not write the ORIGINAL and I have no way to know the original  ... then I already stated that above



I don't even know wtf a  Breitbart is because I've never seen one   ... so how the fuck could I credit it? ... then I already stated that above



And I should not need to say it all twice ... and never will again



cc out!!!

[RW]

I see what you're saying.  I should not post when I'm this brain dead.



Mic drop for cc!

[easter bunny]

I don't even know wtf a  Breitbart is...

Well, breit means wide, so a breitbart would be a wide beard.  

[Anonymous]

Why is this thread in the reject pile?

The choice (by the original poster) turned out to be prescient.