So a criminal’s right to a fair trial is worth more than your life?

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.

If the reasoning sounds convoluted, that’s because it is.

Although author Justin Curmi declares that the Second Amendment is highly contested, he also states that there is “no doubt” about citizens’ rights to keep and bear arms; it’s using them that’s the problem. In fact, he believes it is illegal.

“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,” Curmi declares.

Since everyone has the right to a fair trial, Curmi argues, it must therefore be illegal to curtail an attacker’s right by using lethal violence against him to defend oneself. He seems to assume that the crafters of the Second Amendment believed that citizens should be able to keep and bear arms without intending that the weapons ever be used, which stretches the imagination to the breaking point.

He also seems to assume that the violent criminal’s right to a fair trial supersedes the victim’s right to life itself, since the logical alternative to self-defense is letting oneself be killed.


Keep reading…