Is there really a right to self-defense? by Amanda S. Green

Is there really a right to self-defense? by Amanda S. Green

I thought I’d seen it all when it comes to the anti-gun movement. There are those who interpret the Second Amendment as meaning that only the government can have arms because of the use of “militia”. There are those who grudgingly admit we have a right to own guns but they want to limit the kinds of guns and the ammunition we can buy (not only the type of ammo but the quantity). There are those who say the Second Amendment is outdated and needs to be repealed because we should all just love one another or some such thing. Nothing new in any of those arguments and you can go onto any aspect of social media and find folks who will enthusiastically advocate for either side of those arguments.

What I’d not seen until the other day was the argument that the Second Amendment doesn’t allow us to protect ourselves with a firearm.

Yep, you read that right. According to Justin Curmi in The Blog on HuffPo, “the main issue is on the right to self-defend with a firearm.”

Thank about that for a second. I warn you, it gets better.

“The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial.”

So, before he even gets into the issue of firearms, he has declared that there is a problem with self-defense because it imposes justice and that is wrong because everyone has the right to a fair trial. I don’t know about Curmi, but I believe a person has the right not to give up her life when in a situation where a reasonable person would believe the only reasonable action is to defend themselves.

It would appear Curmi believes we don’t have the right to defend ourselves or others because it might deny the guy trying to harm us the right to a fair trial. But let’s read on. Maybe he’s fooling us and is going to start talking sense soon.

“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.”

Or maybe not. Surely he can’t be saying we have to give up our lives, or the lives of our loved ones, in order to insure the person trying to harm us gets a fair trial. Maybe he thinks we all need to live in private cells, with no contact with the outside world except through the internet. Either that or he has never known a victim of violent crime or been one himself. I can imagine no other reasonable explanation for why a grown man – or woman or cabbage – would think it reasonable not to be able to protect oneself from danger.

“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.”

Oh, how many ways is this statement wrong? First of all, I assume Curmi is referring to the Five Aims of Socialization. Of course, if you do a simple Google search, you’ll find all sorts of different responses to what those are and whether there are three or four or five or who knows how many. The fact he can’t be bothered to give the concrete “aims” or a link to them means either he is lazy or he doesn’t want to risk his readers actually looking up what he’s referring to and coming back to tell him he’s full of it.

Then there’s his comment that “there can be no tranquility if one does not have the capacity.” That’s one of those statements that drive me absolutely bonkers. The capacity for what? For making rational decisions? The capacity to consider the possible consequences of their actions? Or maybe the capacity to keep their emotions in check? Who knows and he sure isn’t going to tell us because the answer wouldn’t fit the narrative.

Then there’s the whole question of what he means by “domestic tranquility”. Is he talking about peace in the home or something on a grander scale?

And, for the most important question of all  — why does this only apply to the person defending himself? You’ll note that Curmi makes no mention about how wrong it is for the perp to be doing whatever it is that forces the Average Joe or Jane to defend themselves. Funny about that, isn’t it? Everything centers on the victim – THE VICTIM – and how he doesn’t have the right to defend himself. Sorry, but that just ain’t gonna fly.

As for the last sentence of the above-quoted paragraph, that argument could be used to prohibit people from using just about anything. If your brain is distorting reality, you don’t have the “proper reasoning and deduction skills’ to operate a motor vehicle, use sharp instruments or any number of other things. Heck, if your brain is distorting reality, should you be allowed in a kitchen where there might be a gas stove, dangerous chemicals as well as sharp implements?

I know. Maybe we should just tell the attacker we are about to defend ourselves from that we need a time out to call our psychiatrist to get a certificate proving we were in a non-altered reality state before we get our gun and use it to protect ourselves. Yeah, like that’s going to happen.

“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.”

Wait, what? We’ve gone from it is illegal to use a firearm for self-defense to “a gun for civilians is a weapon for revolution and not for ordinary use”? My, my, my, Curmi not only moved the goal posts, he changed fields.

And showed what he really meant with all his proclamations about how the use of a firearm for self-defense was a violation of the perp’s rights. He wants to take away our guns. Still, he’s moved the goal posts once. Let’s see if he stays on this path or not.

“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.”

So, let’s punish those who obtain their weapons legally, those who are careful about their training and the care of their weapons because if we ban guns no one will have them.

Riiiight. ‘

Has this guy been living under a rock. Heroin is illegal and it is still easily available on the streets. Or, better yet, look at Prohibition. That really stopped the production and sale of alcohol. Not.

Wow, I will give him credit for making one accurate statement. It is difficult to hit a target in a stressful situation if you haven’t been trained on the proper use of your gun. Of course, he goes on to none-too-subtly allude to the belief that no one who doesn’t train like a cop can do so. After all, you can’t let the Average Joe or Jane have a firearm. They might find themselves in the situation where they need to use and, in doing so, deprive some poor perp of his “right” to kill them – oops, of his right to a fair trial.

There’s more but I will leave you with just one last note. At the end of his post, Curmi finally gave enough that I could figure out what his Five Aims were. It seems he’s written another post about how we ought to revise the Constitution and lists his own five aims:

Does is promote Justice?
Does it ensure domestic Tranquility?
Does it ensure the common defence?
Does it promote the general Welfare?
Does it secure the Blessings of our Liberty and Posterity?

So let’s go back to the issue of whether it should be illegal to use a weapon to defend oneself. What do you think? Do you think banning guns, or simply outlawing their use for self-defense meets any of Curmi’s so-called Five Aims? Me? No way. Allowing someone to harm me or my family does not promote Justice nor ensure domestic Tranquility. It doesn’t ensure the common Defence or promote the general Welfare. What it does is allow for crime to run rampant because the criminals will know their intended victims can do nothing to stop them without risking jail or worse.

I don’t know about you but I will do whatever it takes to keep my family safe in any situation and I guaran-damn-tee you, my actions would meet the “what would a reasonable person do in this situation” test.



479 thoughts on “Is there really a right to self-defense? by Amanda S. Green

  1. Actually, Amanda, his 5 Aims are pretty directly drawn from the preamble of the Constitution. The fact that his ideas would achieve none of them is another conversation.

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    1. You said it better than I did. He took the basic, that were also rooted in the entire document, and perverted them to his own ideals.

    2. Yea, as soon as I read the list of them I knew that’s where they came from. Nice of the guy to believe in his own interpretation of the preamble, but (practically) none of the rest of it.

      This is why I liked Scalia so much. I don’t always think he got it right (he was human, and human = failable), but at least I felt that I could trust that he was looking for what the writers of the document MEANT rather than how to twist it to mean what he wanted it to mean. Hopefully Gorsuch will do the same.

  2. The minute you said “From the blog at HuffPo” I knew it was going to be full potato. I swear the writers there have kept their minds so open that their brains have fallen out.

    1. LOL. Agreed. That was my first thought when I saw the article, but it was just too stupid not to snark at. At least those writers will have a defense when the ZA occurs. They won’t have any brains for the zombies to eat.

      1. They’ll be bleating about how shooting zombies in the head denies their right of due process? 😉

        1. But of course. How dare they not have brains to feed the poor zombies. Oh, wait, do you think they’ll condemn themselves? Surely not. (considers for a moment) Who am I trying to fool? Of course they will. In fact, there will be a stampede to be the first to self-condemn. VBEG

      1. uh.. just now then? they went full retard when Huffington was still writing for them, before she sold out to AOL.

        That’s ok, at least the ‘columnist’ that wrote this drivel was likely paid in ‘exposure’.

        1. “Exposure” – that’s what you eventually die from when you don’t get paid. (not my own witticism – borrowed from Bernadette D.)

          *note to self – buy more 9mm ammunition next month and schedule some range time…*

            1. That’s a popular choice. If you’re planning on carrying it, you’ll next embark on the Holster Quest…

          1. I was thinking “exposure”, what some of us only do in private and with those who at least consent and usually want to see it not in public at the Puffington Post.

      2. Actually, I think this article has reached the point where people at full retard are looking over and going, “Dude, really?”

        1. Actually, it had me looking to see whether The Onion is a stock company – I’d be shorting the heck out of them… (Darn, they aren’t. But I did see an interesting no-stock french onion soup recipe, so not a total loss.)

    2. *chuckle* That statement, “so open minded their brains fall out” was a dire warning in anthropology circles about the danger of “going native,” or rather put, losing your focus so bad you are totally unable to translate culture and history anymore (and thus losing your job and grant money). This is from way back in the days where there were anthropologists worth the name, who did real research… Unlike the wishcasting on display in that linked article.

  3. > Does it secure the Blessings of our Liberty and Posterity?

    Does it save us from goobers who capitalize random nouns?

    Web-chic, circa the 1990s..

    1. And that another thing? Secure the blessings of our posterity?

      I’m afraid to ask what he thinks posterity means.

      Hello? It’s secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. You know, our kids and grandkids, and more generally, the following generation of Americans.

        1. You mean he is a product of public education? You know, that whole word reading thing?

      1. Yeah, I thought about that for a moment, then went and looked up “posterity” to make sure I had the right definition, then gave up.

        The only thing I could parse it to came out as “for the children!”, which would then be stepping off the slipper slope…

        1. That would make sense. The Dems do have a rather nasty habit of standing on the corpses of children when it fits their agenda and ignoring them if it would negate their agenda.

      2. Maybe he meant property? I heard that it was originally life, liberty & property, but got changed because property was a sticky issue.

        1. Life, Liberty, and Property were from John Locke, whom Jefferson cribbed his inalienable rights from.

          1. You sure? I seem to recall Jefferson cribbed them from the … George Mason’s draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which had cribbed them from Locke.

            A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government.

            Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

            Section 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all times amenable to them.


            Section 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other. Written by George Mason, and adopted by the Virginia Constitutional Convention on June 12, 1776.

            1. I guess I forgot a step in the proof, as it were.

              Just remember, mediocrity borrows, genius steals.

              1. Sometime/where this last year I read an argument claiming that in Jefferson’s time it was the style to write derivative works — it was evidence the author had studied History and absorbed the material. Supreme compliments were granted those who adapted such works to current circumstances and who managed to improve the phrasing.

                Meh – it’s a theory.

                1. Argument is a sort of science– you take what has worked before, and if you can’t disprove it, you work to improve it.

                  Contrast with the fad today where great honor is given to someone who claims that their theory is like totally the thing, maaaan, and they don’t have to give any evidence– just say “the old way is wrong.”

          2. Of course a progressive wouldn’t want list property as an inalienable right. Someone having a right to keep what is theirs gets in the way of “fairness”. After all, how could it be fair for one person to own more than another person? If you have strong property rights, it gets hard to take your stuff and give it to someone else in pursuit of their idea of fairness (equality of outcome, as opposed to equality of opportunity).

            I have heard the argument that pretty much ALL rights can be boiled down to property rights. Life? You have the right to life, because you own yourself. Somebody killing you would in effect be damaging your property. Liberty? Not as direct, but with the right to property you own yourself and your stuff, so you have the right to do with your property what you wish.

            1. Blackstone talked about “Life, liberty, property…which culminate in the pursuit of happiness” in his Commentaries on the Laws of England.

              I have heard a rumor that property was explicitly skipped over because the Founders didn’t want to address the issue of slavery…and some of them were afraid that if they specifically called out “property”, it would leave the door open to slave owners having the Declaration of Independence supporting an explicit right to owning people.

              Having said that, the right to property is nonetheless implied, and that the wording of both Commentaries and the Declaration imply that we have more rights than just “life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness”….

              1. More than implies; it out right states there are others, specificially it says “…that among these are…”

  4. Actually I have heard almost that exact argument from a cop. Strangely enough the cop in question thought that the argument didn’t apply to them, because they were law enforcement and that gave them the right to defend themselves and superseded the right of the perp to a fair trail.

    It is amazingly hard to argue with someone who thinks that is logical.

        1. But Amanda, if we disarmed the military, we’d have no more wars!

          1. Awwww, you’re so cute. VBEG

            That’s like saying if women were in charge of all the governments, we’d never have war. Excuse me now while I go laugh hysterically.

              1. We even have historical examples to prove that, look how peaceful things were under Catherine and Elizabeth.

                Wait, What?!

                  1. And Sarah, Kate, Amanda and Cedar are such peaceful examples of femininity . . .

          2. Well…. We’d have one more war. And it would be relatively short. [Giant evil grin, followed by taking cover from the incoming ballistic carp!]

            1. I have to agree with you, there.

              Note for future – the second daughter has all of my mind-set, and none of my social “brakes.”

              She is seriously planning to run for President when eligible. I figure we have about fifteen years to find our sites, and build the bunkers…

              1. From the description, she sounds like a first rate candidate. Has she started developing platform positions yet?

                1. So far, the base platform appears to be “Kill them all, God and Satan will do the fiddly work of sorting them out. That is their job description, am I right?”

                  1. One the one hand I am terrified at that level of thinking in one so young.
                    On the other hand I am wonder what has prompted that level of brutality.
                    On the gripping hand, I am tempted to start campaigning for her.

                    1. Thinking about it, here… I’d say it is genetic – but her two siblings look askance at her (and at me).

                      Actually, I think it may have to do with the most formative years for one’s world view, along with a bit of predilection from the family environment. I had those years during the Nixon/Ford/Carter disasters – hers were during the Obama regime. For those who actually do grow up (which is not the case for all too many), twenty-five is not all that young, even if it sure looks like it from my vantage point of close to sixty.

                      I think that it may moderate some as she gets out of college where the toxins are constantly present. Mine did – I’m now willing to limit my mayhem to however many lampposts there are in DC…

          3. Lizzie Warren, Senator, MA, says that our military’s strength is its diversity. So we don’ need no steenking guns, we will diversify the enemy into submission!

            1. So… we send them out diversity czars, our liberals, our multi-culti’s all cryin’ out for diversity, we win? Works fo rme.

              1. Yeah, we win because all those we send out will most likely wind up slaughtered by their fellow members of the Family of Man(tm) that don’t subscribe to that kind of thing.

                They don’t win, of course, but who cares? They won’t be around to complain unless zombies actually exist outside of fiction. 😛

                  1. Our current prime minister said something almost exactly like that, “ISIS wins when we kill them” or something close to that.

                    1. Sooooooo … Hiroshima & Nagasaki were great victories for the Japanese and should not be considered a source of shame for America?

                      I s’pose the Carthaginians only wish they had so defeated Rome earlier.

            2. Tomahawks, MOAB, M240, M4, Bushmaster, 155mm mortars, M1 Abrams… yup, I never thought I’d agree with Warren; but she’s right, our military’s diversity is its strength.

            3. Actually, I had an uncle, who participated in D-Day, who said something similar without using diversity. He believed one of the things that threw off the Germans was the lack of a good site for unloading the material necessary for a massive invasion. The Allies handled it by making an artificial harbor. He believed that the Melting Pot gave us different ways of thinking of things from the mix of people.

              His idea wasn’t going around preserving differences. He had curt words for PC. But it was that the differences were inherent simply from the mix of people. He saw the melting pot not as a pot of gray goo, as the diversity folks seem to thing, but like a stew or alloy, each adding something to the mix.

              1. Yep. That’s what the sane version of “diversity is our strength means.”
                Unfortunately, most of the people who say things like that don’t mean an alloy, they mean a patchwork quilt.

              2. I seem to remember an awesome stand-up routine about the US being a big ol’ pot of gumbo…which actually works really well, since it’s got a lot of different meats in it….

        1. In a completely unrelated item …

          Sex crimes prosecutor accused of committing a sex crime
          A Brooklyn prosecutor trusted by sex-crime victims to handle their sensitive cases couldn’t control his own urges — and sexually assaulted a woman in her car, law-enforcement sources said.

          Chrismy “Chris” Sagaille surrendered to NYPD Special Victims cops early Wednesday for allegedly forcing himself on the woman as she drove him home from a party Sunday night.

          “For him to victimize someone else, that’s quite heinous,” a police source said. “I guess he’s now going to know first hand what it feels like for all those other people he prosecutes. The tables have now turned.”
          [END EXCERPT]

    1. Same here and I always go back to my basic premise: am I to stand still and let myself or my loved ones be hurt or killed by someone just so they get their right to a fair trail? Then, when the person advocating not using self-defense is still sputtering, I turn it around on them and ask what they would do in that situation. It’s always fun to see them trying to dig their way out of the hole they thought they’d dug for me.

      1. I don’t understand why the “Teach men not to rape” principle doesn’t apply here.

        Being robbed or killed violates one’s rights to life an/or property, and we can’t blame victims, so obviously the solution is to teach robbers not to rob, and murderers not to kill, and then they wouldn’t need a trial at all because they wouldn’t have committed a crime.

        …It must nice living in a world where intellectual consistency is for other people.

        1. But but but, if we just gave them what they wanted, they wouldn’t have to rob us. So it’s all our fault for not bowing down to their “needs” and “wants”.

          Gag. I’m going to go wash my mouth out now.

          1. There was once a book about this. If you give a moose a muffin. Maybe they need to read this as opposed to reading Harry Potter again.

          1. It’s what you get when people were raised on the principle of “Swiper no swiping!” and it works… on a kids’ show.

            From The Great Cookie Monster Thread (actually, one of the spin-offs):
            Travis Beck: Remember that crazy Latina demo chick? You never knew what she would pull out of that rucksack. She was practically psychic. One time she planted a charge at the base of a minaret and we’re all like, WTF? Later, though when we started taking fire from that position she just squeezed the clacker and whispered, “Sniper no sniping!”


        2. But if by exerting self-defense, the victim is thereby accused of depriving the perp of justice — isn’t that a form of victim-blaming?

          Let’s put it another way: By not opening her legs, a woman deprives her rapist of justice.

          Okay, so some of ’em actually think that way…

          (I’ll go bleach my brain now)

        3. “It must nice living in a world where intellectual consistency is for other people.”
          It must be nice living in a world where reality doesn’t intrude.

      2. Amanda, yes, that’s exactly what they mean. And when the person turns to you to beat you to death too, you can only respond in kind. So if he is 6’2″ and 300lbs and using his bare fists, you can only use your bare fists, because fairness.

        1. Well, as long as I, too, get to be 6’5″ and 300 lbs for the duration, then sure.

        2. So, if you only use a baseball bat on a would-be burglar instead of a firearm,is that a violation of his right to a fair trial, too?

          1. Only representatives of Oppressed Castes deserve fair trials. Beneficiaries of privilege (e.g., members of the Duke Lacrosse team) deserve a good swift beating in the media.

      3. It’s special rights all over again. If criminals get must get special rights, that means the natural rights of *other, law abiding citizens* have to be restricted. Have to. That’s the only way it could “work,” for certain values of work.

        And when you reward a certain behavior…. you get more of that behavior, whether it is desirable or not. See War on Poverty, single motherhood, etc…

      4. I’ve actually seen it a looooong time ago – where yes, the ‘more moral thing to do is allow yourself to be harmed, because it’s better than hurting someone else. And yes, that means letting your family, children, etc, get hurt, because at least you are MORE MORALLY PURE than the person choosing to do violence and crime.’

        I hate pacifists.

        1. There’s a passage at the end of Ensign Flandry by Poul Anderson, in which a veteran officer discusses this philosophy. And his conclusion is that it not just mistaken, it is evil – it denies that we have any duty to act in this world. Because how can we, if we renounce the ability?

          1. Hilariously the same people who screech that victims should not defend themselves to make them more ‘moral’ in the eyes of the screechers are the same screechy hypocrites who demand ‘their’ rights be protected at ‘all costs.’

          2. In CITIZEN OF THE GALAXY, Thorby had some elderly relatives who were (gently) horrified to learn that he once nuked a pirate ship (as a “gunner,” not the captain who ordered it). They should have surrendered, and thus defeated their enemies’ purpose, as the immortal Ghandi had taught us.

        2. Yep. On Tumblr, I once saw a thread that said if you protected yourself, you were essentially allowing other girls to be raped.

          1. Not if you kill the —

            Oh, I remember that one. Blaming people for trying to reduce their risk by avoiding dangerous situations…. *facepalm* Some people.

          2. Yeah. That strange point of view showed up a few times. Why is the girl who takes care of herself supposed to make herself more vulnerable for the sake of a woman who isn’t? Why should a woman who is armed allow herself to be hurt for the sake of a woman who is all eeeeew guns are evilbad?

            It all boils down to ‘as long as its the lesser stupid right wing non-human female that gets hurt, its aaaaall okay!’

          3. I think I may have seen that once when saying that meant teaching women self-defense was not actually fighting rape culture.

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

    While this statement is ridiculous, I will note that the second amendment was written into the constitution shortly after we successfully revolted against our government. It was written in by the people establishing the new government with the expressed purpose of insuring that if another revolution ever became necessary that the people would have the means at hand to pursue such an action successfully.

    This does not mean that a gun should not be used for “ordinary use” but it very specifically does mean that guns* should not be outlawed in order to preserve the citizens ability to revolt.

    *the specific language actually states “arms” not “guns”, while that is commonly construed to only mean guns today, at the time arms held by private citizens and used in the war against Britain included cannons and privately owned warships as well as small arms. By looking at history and the circumstances surrounding the writing of the Constitution it is fairly obvious that the writers intended exactly what they wrote. That “arms” did in fact mean the dictionary definition, and not; only guns smaller than half inch diameter bore, with a minimum sixteen inch barrel if they have a shoulder stock, and semi-automatic or manually operated action, etc.

    1. During the colonial period, arms also consisted of swords, axes/hatchets/tomahawks, stout knives, and occasionally, spears.

      The U.S. military continues to use variants of Bowie/hunting/survival knives for members going into combat; and have even been recently used during battles in Afghanistan.

      1. Yep and , in the case of self-defense, his argument could be used to preclude using any implement that might be considered a “weapon” in that context.

        1. “took shovels and rakes and implements of destruction and headed on toward the city dump.”

          Thanks Arlo!

          1. “You know, I was going to sing this song this year….or decade” – Arlo in a live version from around 2000.

      2. For a bit we had one of the modern sword makers reading and posting here. He has written that while he sold some longer pointy things to deploying troops, he never got any confirmed user reports back.

        On the other hand, I recall seeing photos of Rangers with various modernized tomahawks easily accessible on their web gear, though that was early on in Iraq.

        Likely the JAG effect caused COs to prohibit such over time, as it looked too scary. Can’t have scary looking infantry.

        1. Gah. I remember what a pain in the tuchus it was just to carry a rock hammer.
          Starting with bluing the tool steel and blackening the handle so it was “tactical”. (There wasn’t a regulation against it, and it wasn’t primarily a weapon, but they managed to come up we a number of arbitrary hoops nevertheless.)

            1. What about bayonets? Can’t Marines use their swords actively as well as ceremonially? Somebody needs to explain that the point of infantry is to break things and kill people? Dunno if this is current. Isn’t the aim of war to break the enemy’s will to resist?
              Can’t you use whatever works that isn’t NBC?

              1. Technically you can use NBC to, if that is one of the weapons in your arsenal, it is just that a rather limited number of people have that in their arsenal, and they generally tend to be very high in the chain of command. It just isn’t an infantry tool, any more than an F15 is.

            2. I remember a rip-roaring discussion in the comments of Rusty & Co about the military use of shovels as weaponry. (While Maddie was armed with one.)

      3. I remember someone mentioning that the arms available to ordinary citizenry included cannons in some areas. *grin*

        Wasn’t there a (relatively recent) story of a unit that ran out of ammo, their commander had them affix bayonets and attack – which so scared the rag-head terrorists that the terrorists fled or surrendered?

          1. Those “Brits” were members of one of the Highland regiments. Don’t piss off “The Ladies from Hades!”

        1. UK troops (Scots, IIRC) assaulted, with bayonets set, into a cemetery. The opposition ran away. Gulf War II, I think.

          During Gulf War I, Salvadoran Cpl. Samuel Toloza resorted to pulling out a knife and assaulting some Iraqi opponents, the Salvadorans having run out of ammunition during a close in fight. Said opposition backed off briefly, just as a relief column arrived to the Salvadoran’s aid.

        2. The Constitution provides for letter of marque, so the United States expected citizens to own cannons.

      4. That’s why some states, lately, have been repealing “scary knife” and knife concealment laws. It’s the natural outcome of a broad 2A mindset.

    2. There you go, using logic again. I thought you knew better than that. VBEG

      You also hit on one thing that kept tripping the author of the HuffPo piece up. He would talk about guns then he made a blanket statement about self-defense, then he went back to guns. He simply couldn’t make his mind up about what the 2nd applies to. But boy did he get his virtue signaling in.

    3. During the war of 1812 US privateers both out numbered and out gunned the US Navy.

      1. And during the Revolutionary War the majority of the cannons Washington’s army had were on loan from private owners.

        1. Iirc Revere’s ride was to prevent confiscation of an armory including two cannon.

    4. It is certainly correct that arms are ALSO for revolution, if needed. The writings of the Founding Fathers make this very clear. But they aren’t only for that purpose. The legislative history of the 14th Amendment illustrates that nicely (as cited by Halbrook in “That every man be armed”).

      1. Indeed. There is a wealth of information out there for someone who actually wants to know what the Founders *intended* when they spoke of arms and the individual’s natural right to self defense. If rights were able to be created by government, they could be taken away by the same. The intent was to avoid that completely.

        1. The Romans throwing out King Tarquinius and establishing a republic was a much studied example by the founders.

    5. To paraphrase Coxe: Their swords . . . and every terrible instrument of the soldier is the birthright of an American.

      And of course the Miller decision by the SCOTUS in ’39 states, contrary to the bloviations of the hoplophobes and the 4th Circuit, that the 2nd Amendment applies *directly* to military weaponry, in that the firearm in question (a short-barreled shotgun) did not have a military use as far as the Court could determine. They shoulda sent somebody across the street to the War Department and grabbed a veteran of the trenches of the Great War to tell them how effective those things could be in close-quarters combat.

      1. They shoulda sent somebody across the street to the War Department and grabbed a veteran of the trenches of the Great War to tell them how effective those things could be in close-quarters combat.

        The reason that didn’t happen was that Miller had died before the case reached the Supreme court. His co-defendent was “missing, presumed dead.” only The government was represented and heard.

        Practically a case tailor made for the state to get everything they want but instead they got “we don’t have legal notice that this weapon has a militia utility” and a sending it back down to lower to assess that, which lower court review did not happen because, again, only the state side was represented so there was nobody to push it through.

    6. You don’t understand. It’s a weapon for Revolution, man. You know, like Che, man. *Real* Revolution, y’know? All those bourgeois types with guns hurtin’ the People, it’s just WRONG, man, y’know what I’m sayin?

        1. Because you went straight to an image that conveyed the correct clarity of thought?

          I will admit, my image had a different accent, but the level of drug use was about the same. And so was the quality of logic. And I fear it was an accurate summary of this, um, “writer’s” thought processes.

  6. “there can be no tranquility if one does not have the capacity.”

    It’s simple. The higher the capacity of the magazine, the more tranquil one is apt to be. ♉

      1. Not necessarily. You can have rude individuals in a totally armed society. It’s just they have to be a bit more circumspect about when and who they are rude to.

        1. And if they pick the wrong person, they often won’t get further opportunities to be rude.

        2. It was found in Florida after they went “must issue” that politeness increased among people carrying. They realized that while before, if they got in a fight, the worst that would happen was bruises, but now there was the potential for dead bodies on the floor, so they made certain that they were not going to get into an unnecessary fight, not because they were afraid of dieing, but because they did not want to kill if they did not have to.

          1. Very good point. I don’t want to kill anybody if I don’t have to. But I’m prepared to do so if necessary. While it may weaken my argument supporting self defense, even an apparently murderous scum may actually have a valid legal reason to be so that I’m not aware of at the time. But he’s drawing a bead on me, or my own, I’m not about to give him he opportunity to finish pulling that trigger if I can beat him to it.

          2. That works with even those people who wouldn’t have a problem with the killing itself, at least anyone with any sense, due to the hassle you end up having with law, and the possibility you might very well be deemed guilty even if was real self defense in the end, at least if it looks likely you either started the confrontation or escalated it (and even if not – just think what happened to certain Mr. Zimmerman some years back).

            While when it’s “just” fists too many people too easily assume that nothing serious can happen, with guns everybody knows that there could be corpses. In that way guns may really lead to more polite society.

            1. For what it’s worth, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report for 2014, shows hands fists, feet, etc were used 660 times to kill people, while rifles were only used 248 times, and shotguns only 262 times. While you might draw an incorrect conclusion from that that unarmed combat is more lethally efficient than long arm combat; I think it shows just how lethal a single unarmed person can be; and if they are coming after you, it doesn’t matter if they’re armed or not.

              1. I poked around a little and found the one that breaks it down by weapon and reason, although it’s for 2015:

                Note, “other arguments” is going to be greatly inflated because some reports will just say they were arguing, not why– and there is often reluctance to write down “this was a gang fight” on the initial report.

                1. Digging around a little more, I’m always struck by something in this chart:


                  There’s some 6.2k murders recorded.
                  2.3k of those are known to be black males killed by a black attacker; there’s 2.66k total black murder victims, and 2.38 were killed by a black criminal.

                  I’d draw a direct connection between the “how dare the victim have a gun to fight back” mindset of some areas with very high black populations and the survival of the predators, which allows them to keep racking up victims.

                  Imaging being the neighbor of one of these families, and when he comes through your bedroom window you shoot him. Not only do you have to deal with the fact that you shot someone, but you’ll probably have to move– think those cowards would pause for a second before destroying anything they could reach?

                  1. Do you remember the studies a few years back that found a significantly high percentage of teen pregnancies in the Black Community are fathered by older, adult men — the men who ought be protecting the community’s young girls, not exploiting them?

                    This sort of behaviour was not happening prior to the Sixties. It would be simplistic to argue that Liberal programs posited to help end that have had the opposite effect, but we all know that never happens with government policies.

                    Currently reading about Ulysses Grant’s 1868 presidential campaign, when the Democrats’ convention in NY had as its slogan, “This Is A White Man’s Country; Let White Men Rule. During the campaign they had such slogans as “We Go For [Former NY Governor and 1868 Democrat presidential nominee Horatio] Seymour As We Went For Lee” and “Let All Good Men Vote No N _ _ _ _ r.”

                    Were a leopard to change its spots it would yet remain a leopard.

                    1. Do you remember the studies a few years back that found a significantly high percentage of teen pregnancies in the Black Community are fathered by older, adult men — the men who ought be protecting the community’s young girls, not exploiting them?

                      Yes, I keep pointing to them because they’re proof that the Left doesn’t care about rape.

                      A 15 year old in a “relationship” with a 35+ year old, who not infrequently was previously in a “relationship” with her mother or aunt, riiiiiiight…..

                    2. It’s been known to happen, but is pretty dang rare. I’m thinking specifically of a woman (I know here parents somewhat well) who left her second husband for her stepson, before he was eighteen. She has kids by all three husbands (the first husband was unrelated to the second two) which must make for rather interesting family get togethers.

              2. I would have thought that people around here would have understood that last part, given some of the common reading proclivities of those following Sarah’s writings.

                “There are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous men.” – Starship Troopers, Robert A Heinlein

      2. And thus a heavily armed society is heavily polite.

        And an unarmed society is unpolite.

        Straightforward logical corollaries.

        1. So in his time, a Hoplite was heavily polite?

          Or is it that you’d necessarily be heavily polite to a Hoplite?

  7. “The fundamental belief behind Gun Control is that a woman raped and murdered in an alley is morally superior to one who killed her attacker with her handgun.”

    1. Unfortunately, there are all too many who actually believe that way. Sorry, if I see someone in trouble, I am going to do whatever I can to help them. Just as the perp has the right to a fair trial, his victim has the right (one that overrides his right to a fair trial imo) not to be killed.

      1. Yes, I suppose there are a lot who believe that way. But it’s good to cast the issue in those terms because it will give food for thought to those who are willing to think. In other words, put people on the spot: do you *really* prefer having the woman killed by the rapist?
        I’ve seen it phrased a bit more bluntly:
        “Victim disarmament types are sick, sick people, who’d rather see a woman raped in an alley and strangled with her own pantyhose than see her with a gun in her hand.” — T. D. Melrose, as quoted by L. Neil Smith

      2. The right to a jury trial is not a limit on the rights of the people, it’s a limit on the power of Government.

        1. Unfortunately, folks like the HuffPo writer want to limit our individual rights until we have few, if any. And, yes, you’re right. That is exactly why we have the right of a trial by jury — a right we can waive.

          1. It’s a funny twist, that the Progressive doesn’t see the zero sum of rights that exists (the more the governments gets, the less you have, and vice versa) and wants to presume the existence of zero sum economics that does not. *shakes head*

          2. What can you do for people who are scared of guns and want to defend themselves with a baseball bat? A cast-iron frying pan would be better.

            1. Problem with those is that they are usually rather short-handled; not much leverage. And my arthritis means I have to use two hands these days. So a baseball bat is better – although one of the cooking knives is even better.

              (Now, if I happen to be deep-frying when some idiot decides on an invasion of this home, the tactics will be rather different…)

        2. The right to a jury trial is not a limit on the rights of the people, it’s a limit on the power of Government.

          That’s something I keep explaining to people who just can’t seem to understand it. Juries actually determine what the law is, not judges, not legislatures. If the people don’t like a law, they have the power to refuse to convict.

          1. Actually that is incorrect, juries do not determine what the law is, they only determine whether the accused is convicted or not. They don’t even truly determine whether the accused is guilty, as you say they can refuse to convict because they don’t like the law, this doesn’t change the law, nor does it make a guilty person innocent, it simply means that a guilty person is not convicted. By the same token juries can convict innocent people, this does not mean the accused becomes guilty of a crime they didn’t commit, it just means they are being punished for the crime the jury convicted them of.

            As a lawyer once told when recommending a bench trail (not for me, but discussing a case he was defending) ” a judge is required to rule according to the law, with a jury trail it doesn’t matter whether you are guilty or not, it simply matters whether the prosecutor can convince a jury that you might be guilty.” A jury is not actually required to rule according to the law, while a judge is*.

            *notably activist judges that do not rule according to the law are never held accountable, but according to the written statutes they are supposed to be, and can be disbarred for not ruling in accordance with the law; juries cannot be held accountable for such rulings.

            1. You should read “An essay on the trial by jury” by Lysander Spooner (ca. 1850 — on It explains the history of juries in detail, and makes it very clear that the job of juries is to judge both fact and law. The FIJA movement makes the same point. So does Neil Smith in his writing on the subject.
              Apart from that, you don’t have to give your reasons for voting “not guilty” (except for one or two totalitarian jurisdictions in the past year or so — and even there, you can just pretend).

        3. A limit on Government powers, indeed. Neil Smith pointed out “Bill of Rights” is a confusing nickname, a better one would be “Bill of Limitations”.
          Which reminds me: we’re often told that (apart from the 14th amendment, if that is admitted into the conversation) the Bill of Rights only limits the Federal government. That’s false — if you read the plain English text you will find this applies to a few of them (the 1st, 3rd, 9th, and 10th Amendments, and perhaps the 7th). All the others are general restrictions, the 2nd in particular. Usually courts aren’t interested in plain English and ignore this obvious fact, but not always; Stephen Halbrook quotes an antebellum decision by the Texas Supreme Court that recognized the 2nd amendment limits the state.
          Then again, even after the 14th Amendment was adopted for the specific purpose to apply the Bill of Rights explicitly to the states, it was *still* claimed that they do not. The reality, documented as early as 1803 (St. George Tucker is that all branches of the government treat the Constitution with the utmost contempt and ignore or trample it whenever they can get away with it (which is most of the time).

  8. Well, I was going to make a comment about the Five Aims, but I see that @snelson134 has already addressed it! 🙂

    I like to say that we should treat the core of the Declaration (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness; That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”) as a “Vision Statement.”

    The preamble to the Constitution–including the Five Aims–is more akin to a “Mission Statement.”

    The body of the constitution is like the corporate charter. But in no event should either the Declaration nor the Preamble be treated as any sort of operating manual.

    1. True, but the Five Aims as set out in the Constitution also look at the document as a whole. The drafters did not mean for those to be taken out of context and used to tear away the rights the Constitution grants us. And that, unfortunately, is what the HuffPo writer wants to do.

    2. The Preamble lists what they wanted to do, and the rest of the Constitution outlines the limits on what they can do to accomplish that.

    1. You beat me to it. 😀

      Of course, I’d add “May he survive being a victim and have to listen 100 times to his earlier words on why he can’t defend himself with a gun or otherwise”. 👿

      1. Unfortunately, these kool-aid drinkers would never get it. They would then write an essay on how they deserved to be victim and it shouldn’t be fair to prejudge their victimizer. :/

        1. Some folks might think you’re wrong here but you aren’t. I’ve seen it. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if a number of us here haven’t. There is a mentality going around right now that promotes the feeling that it is not only right but what we deserve to be a victim. I don’t get it and I pray I never do.

          1. The “victim mentality” is sometimes just another way of being a Special Snowflake.

            I passed on my copy of Eric Byrne’s “Games People Play” some years ago and no longer remember if he listed that as a social game.

            It’s a very old book (1964), and very much a product of its time (the pop-psych era), but Byrne’s “game” descriptions map well to how people seem to follow programmed behavior patterns/

            1. I need to see if I still have a copy of the book. It’s been too long since I read it to remember for sure what he said.

              1. There may have been others who made is point before, and I’d bet money others have said it better since, but he’s where I first heard of it.

          2. It’s happened. Was a post on one of the flagellant blogs about how the author deserved to be mugged for her white privilege.

            1. That doesn’t surprise me, not when so many of the “right thinking folk” are spewing that very same thing every chance they get.

            2. Something close to 40 years ago I saw this made for TV movie. A woman was a big proponent of how criminals are just misunderstood and deprived, not really “bad”. Then, one day, she got mugged on her way home (maybe raped as well? I don’t remember very clearly; it’s been a long time.). This was near the beginning of the movie. Most of the movie consisted of the woman angtsing over what had happened and about her pre-mugging values, oh, and people second guessing her about it.

              Then, at the very end, she’s giving a TV interview about the mugging and she starts out with “there were two victims that night.”

              The disgust in my household that night was palpable.

              1. I’m somewhat ashamed to admit that I hold no sympathy for either. And exponentially more disgust for her vs the attacker. At least attacker had desire to improve his lot while she is waste of food and O2

              2. There’s a cartoon of two men in suits standing over a bloody body in an alley. One is saying to the other, “The person who did this needs our help!”

                1. Well, the person does need their help. In order that he might not have more deaths on his conscience, his capacity to kill or injure another should be withdrawn from him ASAP, by whatever means that are necessary and proper.

              3. Then, at the very end, she’s giving a TV interview about the mugging and she starts out with “there were two victims that night.”

                That is… sort of correct, but so utterly wrong….

                Yes, doing wrong DOES hurt you. The old movie cliche about how there’s no coming back from a battle unchanged was written by folks who knew first hand, after all.

                But being a victim isn’t some sort of holy thing, it just means someone who’s been harmed. You can fall victim to your own lack of forethought.

                1. Anyone remember that supposed rape-hotline-counselor who showed up on Larry’s site some years back, who was pushing the ‘it’s rape if it felt like rape’ POV, and was trying to paint herself as more moral by giving examples of how she didn’t shoot her attacker when he forced himself into her house to …yell at her? threaten her? and then try to simultaneously gain sympathy because he’d terrified her because of his threatening behavior and yet somehow her experience was how ‘the line of rape could be blurred’ because ‘she didn’t desire sex but didn’t say no or show other signs of disinterest, but she definitely didn’t want it’ proving that ‘rape is rape if it feels like rape’ or some such tangled reasoning?

                  Believe me, she was doing the ‘I am a VICTIM, don’t you DARE question me on ANYTHING it is SACRED AND HOLY and IMPORTANT’ to push her POV, which was utterly wrong. I also hated how she basically browbeat every. single. man. there and it took women to tear apart her bullshit.

                  1. Setting aside shadowdancer’s excellent observation on victimhood-appropriation: Did anyone else get tangled up in the many three letter acronyms on this subject and get stuck in a loop pondering what POV rape was supposed to be?

                    1. She went into how “a man could not know he committed rape.”

                      Basically, a man could have every reason to believe he had consent but still be a “rapist” and charged as such.

                      Sexbots are going to be big. Invest now. I’m not even joking any more. We’ve just about reached the point where there’s nothing a woman can do for a man in the bedroom that can justify the risk of what she can later do to him in the courtroom. Not quite there yet, but getting there.

                  2. And if any man had refused to be browbeaten, she would have been raped all over again, because a man insulting her and belittling her like that would have FELT like rape and he would have proved her point for on national television and–I think I’ll stop now.

                    Seriously, though. There is *nothing* a man could have said in that context that wouldn’t have been used against him–including by the bystanders. Even contemptuous silence would have been outside the pale.

                    A large part of the alt-right phenomenon is people who are sick and tired of being slapped around by inverse bullies who have weaponized their own helplessness. If being a decent human being has led to this kind of treatment, they say, then perhaps decency was a mistake.

                    1. I saw that in action. You have no idea how much it enraged me that she was weaponizing basic human decency to shut her detractors up.

                      So I went quiet for a bit, because I knew she wouldn’t be able to keep away from her ‘POV rape’ stance and she did and I took her arguments point by point, quoting her each time and in context so NOBODY could accuse me of twisting her words and laid it bare.

                      She was creating victims by ‘if it felt like rape then it was’ – and the worst part about it was, she acknowledged that some of the encounters described ‘don’t fit the legal definitions of rape.’ So thanks to this mindset out there there are people who believe they were violated, when the encounter may in fact not have been, and worse they are eternal ‘victims’ because there is no hope of a legal recourse. ‘BUT I WAS RAPED I KNOW COZ I FEEL IT WAS SO EVEN IF I WAS NOT COERCED OR TRICKED OR FORCED AND NEVER SHOWED IN ANY WAY I DIDN’T WANT THIS. IT IS RAPE COZ I SAY SO.’ Because FEEEELZ.

                      And if any of those ‘POV rape’ victims ever tried to get the law or any authorities involved?

                      And that is why we have the people smudging definitions, and college kangaroo courts and innocent men’s lives destroyed.

                      And you’re right. I can totally understand why the alt-right has traction. Why MGTOW has traction. Because being a decent human being does not protect one from a Saint Victimhood, because of the constant ‘fuck you and die, male white homophobe racist misogynist bigot Nazi’ that is a response to even reasonable disagreement. I don’t agree with all of it but I can understand why people will go that way.

                      The deepest irony is the screeching socjus howler shitflingers actually do still believe on the basic decency and adherence to civilised rules that their opponents hold to. If they honestly thought merely offending the likes of us would actually get them killed they would be appeasing and making excuses for us the way they do every single time there is an Islamic terrorist attack, or illegal immigrant crime.

                      The fact they don’t exposes their hypocrisy and cowardice for what it really is. They are no different from those sneering pacifists who look down on people willing to defend themselves, or take up arms in defence of others. ‘Because you’ll be a stupid little grunt / blue wearing pig and protect me anyway, because that’s what lesser people like you are only good for.’

                    2. The problem here is that in a saner time such confusion between subjective perception and objective reality would have earned such women (persons in general) the psychiatric help such delusions merit.

                    3. *sad smile* They’ll scream rape, rather than recognizing that…hey…that fuddy-duddy old morality thing had a point….

                      Nope, if sex isn’t the same as tennis doubles, then the guy did something EVIL!!! as rape, and she is blameless.

                    4. I think I remember that thread. Shadowdancer was very fierce to a target that undoubtedly deserved.

        2. *sinal salute*

          Except at the point at which one is a victim, there is no reason to pre-judge the victimizer for what he might do, because one can post-judge him on what he has done.

          ugh. It’s like they think words don’t have meanings.

          1. “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

        1. Well, I could think of worse but the worse would be much harder to arrange. 😈

      2. Robert Avrech’s’ article “Jew without a gun” is the perfect fit for this. It describes his experience in the middle of the L.A. Riots (while attending a bleeding heart fundraiser for the disadvantaged, ironically). Highly recommended; he just reposted it on his blog in honor of the anniversary of those riots.

  9. *blinks at the right to a fair trial part*
    So, someone practicing self defense isn’t a someone?

    Or did the guy sleep through the part where assumptions have to cut both ways in logic?

    1. “Or did the guy sleep through the part where assumptions have to cut both ways in logic?”

      What makes you think he even took the class?

      1. Vocabulary.

        Although he doesn’t seem to know what to do with it– note the use of “counterintuitive” used as if that means “obviously false,” rather than the standard implication of “sound wrong but isn’t.”

        1. Or as pointed out above, posterity. I think his vocabulary might suggest that he DIDN’T take the class, or at least failed it. He obviously is using words without knowing their meaning.

          1. Sound like Interpretive Basketweaving Dance Whole Language Vocabulary Studies 101, where the words mean whatever makes you feel most fulfilled.

    2. Silly Foxfier. You used the “l” word again. They don’t do logic, or at least not both ways.

      What the entire article reminded me of was that we now have an entire generation that doesn’t understand there are consequences to actions — and inactions — and those consequences can be negative. Okay, so you let someone hurt or kill you in order to insure they get a “fair” trial. Or, better yet, you are tried and convicted for using reasonable force to defend yourself or someone else. What sort of message does that send? It tells those who would defend themselves or others that there are negative consequences, consequences they might not want to face. Or worse, as they are considering the consequences, they are killed because the attacker isn’t going to wait for them to think it all out.

      For the bad guy, it is basically like saying it is open season on people, especially if the consequences for the victim trying to defend himself are worse than those for the guy trying to harm them.

      1. Hardly a whole generation– just a much bigger chunk than it was three generations back, in the 60s, when they had the same issue.

        Hm…. I wonder if it’s a similar cause? Theory I rather support is it’s a side-effect of being part of a relatively small family. If you have a bunch of siblings, or close cousins, you cannot escape consequences. If there’s always “responsible adults” around, though, they’ll TELL you it’s bad…and you’ll never feel it.

        Possibly has to do with daycare type situations, too. They’re not *allowed* to be responsible like a parent can.

        1. Possibly but with even more reason for not understanding consequences. There is no immediately punishment/consequences for bad behavior in school. You have districts that don’t let teachers assign and/or grade homework. Students are allowed multiple times to take tests. No Child Left Behind has caused even more issues.

          Kids aren’t taught that they will sometimes discover they aren’t the best at something. For example, scores aren’t kept in ball games so there are no winners and no losers. Then these kids who think they are the bestest ever because they’ve never been given the chance to fail, get into college or into the workforce and reality punches them in the face.

          Or worse, you get Ethan Couches who wind up killing people because his parents never disciplined him. Then, when he does face justice, mommy dearest helped him flee to Mexico until they were found and brought back.

          Hmm, now that I think about it, those who don’t know what it means to have consequences placed upon them are, in many cases, the kids of those raised in the 60’s. That might explain a lot.

          1. *nod* And those who survived really dumb stuff in the 60s frequently did so because of the lame-o, responsible types– I think it was here that I first heard about the massive Lady’s Group work-together to save the idiots who would’ve died at Woodstock, with everyone from nuns to Jewish Grandmas working to feed and tend the folks who OD’d.

            I guess not everyone learned from it, or they got the wrong lesson– “other people will fix it.”

            1. They learned the latter. “Someone else will fix it and I can keep doing what I want because I’m entitled.” It sometimes makes you wonder what the consequences would have been if those good folks hadn’t worked to save all the idiots at Woodstock and other similar places.

              1. [M]akes you wonder what the consequences would have been if those good folks hadn’t worked to save all the idiots at Woodstock …


            2. Yeah, I remember puncturing Woodstock in a conversation with my Dad, long ago. “The free love movement was totally okay with the rapes and drugged up women that it took Christians and nuns who they looked down on for their ‘old fashioned ways’ to help those women, and their whole ‘make love not war’ crap was part of the reason why those women were told it was wrong for them to fight back, because violence is wrong and ‘all these guys wanted to do was practice free love’ and and ‘fight / don’t trust the man’ was why these women didn’t seek out the authorities until persuaded they were actually HARMED.”

              And sharing STDs was somehow awesome, because ‘just because that person has an STD doesn’t mean that the person is supposed to be denied ‘free love’ or ‘discriminated against.’

              (I think Dad was rather proud of how I showed the holes in those ‘philosophies’ by using rational argument and fact, but sad I blew his youth out of the water.)

          2. I’ve got a granddaughter who is in this situation — she’s about to start college (in the fall) and I’m afraid she’s going to hit a wall. She IS smart, but being a product of the public schools, doesn’t have nearly as good an education as she thinks she does (as attested by her aunt, who she’s living with right now, and who teaches in a private school).

            1. Hopefully, she will adjust quickly. After my son was accepted into Texas A&M, we went down for orientation (they wanted parents there, imagine that). My son was going into aerospace engineering and the first thing his advisor said in the group meeting was NOT to take the most advanced math they could get into. She was very blunt when it came to the difference in what students thought they had learned in high school and what they needed to succeed in the program. My son was skeptical but he did as recommended and was glad he had. He was challenged in the lower level math unlike he had been in its equivalent in high school and it amazed him, especially considering he missed only 2 or 3 questions on the math part of the SAT. TAMU understood the problems students would have and took steps to prevent them. Not all colleges do that. I hope your granddaughter finds herself in a situation like my son did. Fingers crossed.

            2. I hit a wall in my second semester at college. As long as she’s got the “keep trying” thing in appropriate volumes, and also gets cloued into how to take advantage of the various drop dates so she does not nuke her GPA, she’ll do fine.

              For me, I think hitting the wall and realizing that I didn’t know as much as I though I did is one of the great life lessons of college.

        2. It’s a mix of factors. Between ‘spare the rod’ and the child is always right rearing mindsets you get reinforcement of the ideas where feelings are paramount over reality. Plus when someone is never told they are wrong it short circuits a lot of the ways we learn.

          Harper’s had an interesting piece way back in summer 1941 about who goes Nazi. It still seems accurate today imo.

              1. 60, would you like to write an inspired-by and updated “who goes Marxist?” post. Or “who goes commie?” Because otherwise I’ll have to do it.

      2. I’m reminded of that kid in Oklahoma who died during the commission of a robbery, and afterwards his grandfather said it wasn’t fair, because the homeowner had a gun and the kid only had brass knuckles.

        1. A frequent theme in the “shot while beating on someone” is relatives complaining because the person who was assaulted had a weapon, while their son/grandson/brother/boyfriend only had a foot in height, shoulders half again as wide, etc.

          1. “How dare that person who had no chance in a physical fight use a weapon to defend himself from getting beaten up!” *sigh*

      3. Moar blogfodder: Have y’all noticed the uptick in “common sense is wrong, here’s what it *really* means,” which before would have been its opposite? There was an article about these hot-take spincrafters in our last president’s cadre. The whole thing smells very much of communist propaganda. In undermining folks’ faith on common sense (gaslighting), you get a chance to shape their new ideas. *shakes head* Free ideas for the taking, and common themes on this blog and others.

      4. There is also the opposite, Amanda. I am not the only one in Arizona that has decided, if the California rot completely takes over here, that there will be no hesitation or compromise – any would-be perp’s bones might (or might not) surface in the desert ten years from now.

        When only threatening or wounding a criminal will only get you a worse outcome – the rational option is to kill, and do your best to make sure the State never finds out about it.

  10. OK, armed self-defense (and defense of others):

    Does is promote Justice?

    Yes, it does. It is profoundly unjust to allow those being attacked to be victimized without attempting to hold the attackers to account.

    Does it ensure domestic Tranquility?

    Yes, it does. As Heinlein said, “Am armed society is a polite society.” If a predatory individual believes he will be met with deadly force, he is much less likely to attack in the first place.

    Does it ensure the common defence?

    Yes, it does. I don’t believe there’s any need to expand on this point.

    Does it promote the general Welfare?

    Yes, it does. See the response to the “domestic Tranquility” kvetch.

    Does it secure the Blessings of our Liberty and Posterity?

    Yes, it does. Without the capacity for robust self-defense, our liberty is forfeit, and our posterity is unlikely to exist at all.

    Next question!

    1. It is rather hard to leave a posterity when one is dead or maimed (physically or mentally) to the point of being unable to have a family.

      1. This is why you should have your semen/eggs harvested and stored as early as possible. Then you can have yourself fixed and never have to worry about any unwanted posterity (unwanted posterior is a whole ‘nuther issue) while your ability to to create a posterity when desired is secured.

        /nods sagely/

    2. Exactly. But the person who wrote all that other drivel is probably pretty secure in the knowledge that they are unlikely to ever need to defend themselves. It’s all those icky lower class people who need to worry about that, and they should just quietly die/get raped/be robbed so that this person doesn’t have to have scary guns (other than in the hands of authority figures) out there.

      1. He’ll just have to get used to being scared. We’re not going to give up our natural rights just so his nose can be kept in joint.

  11. Does he even English?

    To be fair, it is slightly easier for me to go down into my basement and brew beer than it would be to go out to my garage and build a firearm.
    But turnaround time and return on investment favor the latter.

    1. I have a large metal lathe, drill press, grinders, etc. and a fairly well equipped shop in the basement. (Would love to add a small milling machine.) I could turn out quite a number of firearms from scratch had I a desire to do so. The AK-47 design was specifically made for just such capability. Pre-made components would be a cake-walk. I’m hardly unique in that respect.

      1. Other than the barrel, there are no precision parts in the Avtomat Kalashnikov. That was Mikhail Timofeyovich’s genius.

        – TRX (needs to finish his .50 Beowulf build…)

        1. Even the barrel isn’t a problem as long as I can get solid steel stock of proper length; I can get enough rigidity to bore a good straight constant diameter whole the length of the material. And the rig to cut the rifling grooves is amazingly simple.

          1. Getting precision and reliability out of it is a trick, though. The die goes too quick, you can warp the barrel. Twist needs to be consistent. Don’t want it to snag. That sort of thing. Getting it to go bang consistently and put holes in a reasonable distance is, as you said, doable.

      2. Crafting a precision target firearm is quite difficult.
        Slapping together a bullet sprayer such as the British Sten or our own M3 Grease Gun is dead simple. Pun intended.
        Both are basically assemblies of tubes and cylinders and could be thrown together in any shop with a few simple tools.
        Ban all guns, sure there’s an idea. One only the truly ignorant of simple mechanics and ingenuity can possibly hold.

        1. A knife gets you a pistol gets you a rifle gets you explosives.
          Attributed to French Resistance.

          1. During WWII the US military commissioned the Liberator pistol a .45acp zip gun intended to be dropped behind German lines for resistance use. Included was a cartoon instruction sheet that essentially said to use the pistol to kill a German soldier and take his weapons.
            Something like a million were produced at a delivered cost of $2.10 each.

          2. Those of us who paid attention in chemistry class just skip all those preliminaries…

            Actually, “N” is bloody difficult. “B” requires quite a bit of investment and work. But I am surprised that “C” we have not seen more of – although I don’t think “antifas” would do all that well in classes that involve mathematics…

            1. Ya. I’m aware of all five letters there. Honestly always surprising to see how the simple stuff is never done in stories to highten suspense.

              1. Mad Mike did a very good job of it in his sequel to “Freehold.” Which it is late enough that, dang it, I can’t recall the title of offhand. (That is one extremely well written book that I have read once, and may open again in a few years. I have to do it out in the real world – but in my fiction I usually don’t want to think about what happens if we ever get smart terrorists.)

        2. I remember reading that by the end of WWII, the unit cost to make a STEN gun was about $1.37 or so (not adjusted for inflation).

          And I also remember (correctly, I hope) that the first “gun” control law on this continent was a British one to ban the manufacture of cannon.
          Related laws prohibited the manufacture of cast iron products, and required American iron be shipped to England for manufacture, so that the bulk of the profits fell to British manufacturers and merchants.
          The cannon ban laws was intended to protect the profits of English (home island) ship-builders.
          British import laws then required any imports brought to England arrive in British ships, the problem being that ships built here were “British” ships, but cost much less to build here because of cheaper timber.
          The cannon ban required new ships built here to sail unarmed to Bermuda or the Caribbean islands unarmed, and carrying enough gold to buy a suit of cannon there. This made them TARGETS, and reduced their numbers.

      3. It’s not nearly as hard as many people think. Yes, you’d need your shop, and a pile of skills, to make a 1911 or something similarly good. But a Liberator 1 is much easier. See also P.A.Luty’s “the home gunsmith” website, where he discusses the subject. He got in serious trouble with the authorities (in the UK) for having the temerity to publish that, but then again, there isn’t any actual free speech in other countries.

      1. Potato cannon with a bit of cloth wadding and a bundle of nails. Poor man’s room sweeper.


    You have ventured perilously near a Black Hole Of Stupidity so dense that coherent thought cannot escape. Engage only with care lest you be sucked into its orbit and find coherent thinking impossibly warped by the gravitational force of the stupidity compressed into such awful density.

    Any statement you emit toward such an object will become warped beyond recognition and potentially result in your denunciation as an enemy of the people.

    You have been warned!

      1. It might get you more sales if you put it as a book blurb?

        “This author hates diversity, owns guns, and is totally evilbadthinkyseriouslyyouguys!” – some lefty potatohead website

    1. Yes, exactly, and self defense infringes on government’s right and responsibility to manage human populations as if they are livestock. You obviously want to ruin humanity through lack of selective culling and breeding.

    2. But they want it, so it must be so! Otherwise, they will stamp their feet and hold their breath until they turn blue.

      1. I fully support their right to hold their breath till they turn blue. I will in fact be willing to help them hold their breath if so requested…

          1. Tie the knot correctly with the traditional 13 coils, use a new stiff rope, allow for an adequate drop, and you avoid all that.

              1. Sadly, in all the years that’s been employed, no one has ever been able to demonstrate the ability to levitate.

              2. As long as you don’t use the necklace to decorate a banana… (Tempest in an academic tea-pot…)

    1. Yes, exactly, and liberty infringes on the right and responsibility of government to mandate equality.

    1. Yes, exactly, and the pursuit of happiness conflicts with the right and responsibility of government to mandate, I don’t know, fraternity? 🙂

  13. Also, as a side note, don’t we have the right to not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, which means that the attacker is already infringing on the victim’s rights?

    1. “Due process of law” seems to evaporate when the body snatchers point and screech various keywords or phrases.

      “If they weren’t guilty the police wouldn’t have arrested them!”

    2. Such an infringement constituting a waiver to any claims for due process.

      Any party who creates an ambiguity and seeks to profit from that ambiguity must bear the burden of the cost of that ambiguity.
      (Why yes, I happened to tune through and watch a few minutes of The Paper Chase yesterday afternoon. Those familiar with the film will possibly be able to infer which few minutes I viewed.)

    3. But he’s special and must be afforded all protections under the Constitution while we don’t count. I thought you knew that.

      My question for the author of the post is what would he say to the children of the woman killed by her abusive spouse who could have defended herself but didn’t because self-defense was illegal? I have no doubt he would quickly turn the woman into the problem instead of the victim, saying she could have prevented it by reporting the husband for his abuse.

      1. I doubt the author would care because the person in the example wasn’t him. OTOH, were the example to be “So if someone were to hem you into a corner and proceed to work you over with a Louisville Slugger, the only thing you’re going to do is bleed?”

        1. Even then I’m not sure he’d change his mind, Kevin. He gives off the impression, at least to me, that he is an apologist for being too male or too something. Shrug.

            1. Agreed. Not much evidence of femininity, either. Or even being just a grownup (whereing you are one once you take responsibility for yourself in meaningful ways).

          1. Sorry to nit-pick, but I feel the need to correct the record: an “apologist” for something is not someone who apologizes for that thing, it’s someone who presents arguments in favor of that thing. E.g., a Christian apologist is someone who presents arguments that Christianity is true, and that therefore you too should believe it. What you almost certainly meant to say was that he is “apologizing for being too male”, rather than being “an apologist for being too male”.

            Again, apologies for the nit-pick, especially coming about 3-4 days after the original conversation (which I’m only just now reading). But I do feel that it’s important not to lose our understanding of the real meaning of the word “apologist”, because there isn’t a good synonym that carries the same meaning.

              1. I just make sure, when I use the words apologetics or apologist in conversation, to mention what they actually mean. “He’s an apologist, which by the way doesn’t mean someone who apologizes, it means…” That way I can fight back, in one small way, against a tiny part of the damage done by public schools.

                (I suspect it may be a losing battle in the long run — for example, Chrome is currently telling me that “apologetics” is misspelled. No it’s not, Chrome. No it’s not.)

                1. Gotta love it when you have a bigger vocabulary than the dictionary 😛

  14. The extent of this moron’s* incoherence can be inferred by its** confusion of what is meant by the term “Domestic Tranquility.”

    Conceivably this poster is attempting some sort of fumble-fingered sleight of hand over the actual meaning of the term, similar to the more common “militia” reification which seeks to wave away the principle of personal sovereignty, but that attempt is belied by the argument actually offered. The focus on “tranquility” to the elision of the modifier “domestic” makes clear that the writer pecker of keys (hereinafter referred to as “pecker”) has no comprehension of what the Founders were asserting.***

    Tranquility, as this pecker employs it, refers to a personal state, of a condition experienced by (for example) citizens who are secure in their persons and their homes by virtue of confidence of the protection of a just government which respects and acts to secure their rights. Also, the presence of personal firearms to defend those raights against intrusion during the interminable wait for the police to show up and draw their chalk outlines.

    When modified by “Domestic” the phrase refers, instead, to a general condition in which civil unrest is absent. Civil unrest, in this case, referring to their recent disagreement with the abuses of the Crown. Domestic Tranquility does not refer to the individual state described by this pecker. It has nothing to do with whether an individual has peace of mind. It has to do with ensuring that any attained enlightenment is not disrupted by pieces of paving stones being hurled through individual windows. It is about riotous populace, not riotous thoughts.

    *Not a medical diagnosis of subject’s intelligence. I apologise for any slight toward actual morons over unwilling association of them with this Puffington Hoster.

    **As this is not a sentient being, “it” seems the proper pronoun.

    ***It is hereby acknowledged that the Framers of the Constitution did their thing like, over two centuries ago, Dude, and were lacking in the distractions of television, Farcebook, Twitter, talk radio and the myriad other distractions of contemporary life. Consequently they were inclined to engage in reasoned thought and the study of History (f which, let’s face it, there was far less available than we experience today.) Consequently they used big words and complex sentences in order to express their thoughts and people today cannot be expected to understand a thing they said.

    1. Yep. I had a vision of him sitting in his meditation room, incense burning all around him as he searches for his tranquility in such a way he can spread it across the nation. Ooooom.

        1. Sage incense. That’s what you’re smelling occifer, sage incense! (There was waaaay too much “sage incense” used on my college campus for a place that had 0 tribally-enrolled Native Americans attending while I was there.)

    2. Honestly, a lot of people have no idea of the meaning of “militia,” or the history behind it. They don’t realize it was closer to jury duty.

      It’s really fascinating. In the early years it’s clear that the militia was used as a form of national conscription. If you were a voting citizen and met certain minimal requirements, you were part of your local militia district. You unit could be Federalized and placed under the command of the US Army. Sorry; I don’t know the point in the 19th Century where that changed, only that it was in full force during the War of 1812, but doesn’t seem to have been during the Civil War – and no, this does not concern the causes and wherefores of the Civil War, only when formal conscription replaced federalizing militias.

      1. Technically there are two types of militia as defined in our laws. The organized militia is essentially our National Guard. The unorganized militia is every able bodied male between 16 and 45 not currently serving in some other capacity such as an elected official. Quoting from memory so some of the details may be skewed a tad.
        The anti gun crowd hone in on the militia clause of the Second Amendment in a desperate attempt to deny that the right applies to every citizen. But it seems obvious to me that the reason the founders put the clause into the amendment was to have Constitutional authority to REQUIRE citizens to own and maintain such weapons as would be necessary in a militia call up.

        1. And in today’s world, militia could be redefined as every able bodied person, period. There being 13 year olds male OR female big enough and mature enough to carry and use a firearm, as well as many of us ancient ones more than a decade or 3 or 4 or possibly even 5, past 45.

          1. Actually, there’s a precise legal definition of “militia.” In 10 US Code, § 311, it says:

            “The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

             ”The classes of the militia are–

             ”the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;  and

             ”the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”

            1. Scary thought: US Code is a hell of a lot easier for a gov’t to amend than the constitution.

              1. Which wouldn’t change the government’s inability to interfere with the right to keep and bear arms one iota. I was just pointing out the fact that those who claim that “the militia” meant only some organized military force are facially incorrect, and provably so.

                1. Not sure what being ugly has to do with it, but they need to get their facts straight.

        2. Some of the colony charters enumerated the citizen’s duty keep and bear arms for the defense of the realm.

          The Constitution softened that to become a right, not a duty.

          1. Dual purpose in my opinion. The body of the Second states clearly that the government shall not infringe on possession of arms by the people. The militia clause was shoehorned in there to justify them requiring free citizens to maintain the arms to do their civic militia duty.

            1. Ah Ha! Perhaps Mr Curmi’s objection to firearms is because he’s like many of those ne’er-do-well slackers who were too lazy and cheap to do their civic duty to procure and become proficient at arms!

      2. I believe the change was one effect of the Mexican-American War, during which they found the uneven distribution of military discipline and irregular equipage proved a very big problem.

        So, 1846-48 and shortly thereafter?

          1. I read* a very good book on the war, one I can readily recommend:

            The Training Ground: Grant, Lee, Sherman, and Davis in the Mexican War 1846-1848
            Written by: Martin Dugard

            From Amazon:
            For four years during the Civil War, Generals Grant and Lee clashed as bitter enemies in a war that bloodied and scorched the American landscape. Yet in an earlier time, they had worn the same uniform and fought together.

            In The Training Ground, acclaimed historian Martin Dugard presents the saga of how, two decades before the Civil War, a group of West Point graduates—including Robert E. Lee, Ulysses S. Grant, Jefferson Davis, Stonewall Jackson, and William Tecumseh Sherman—fought together as brothers. Drawing on a range of primary sources and original research, Dugard paints a gripping narrative of the Mexican War, which eventually almost doubled the size of the United States.

            The Training Ground vividly takes us into the thick brush of Palo Alto, where a musket ball narrowly misses Grant but kills a soldier standing near him; through the mountains and ravines of Cerro Gordo, as Lee searches frantically for a secret route into the Mexican army’s seemingly invincible position; to Monterrey, as future enemies Davis and Grant ride together into battle; down the California coast, where war-hungry Sherman seeks blood and vengeance. And we are there as the young troops mount the final heroic—and deadly—assault on Mexico City. With narrative verve and brilliant research, The Training Ground brings to light a story of brotherhood, sacrifice, and initiation by fire.

            Forty-five customer reviews, four-star average

            New York Times bestselling author Martin Dugard is the co-author (with Bill O’Reilly) of Killing Jesus, Killing Kennedy, Killing Lincoln and Killing Patton. These four books have sold more than eight million copies. (I think he can be forgiven the ghost writing for O’Reilly; it isn’t as if he collaborated with Hillary.)

            *listened to the audiobook, so I did not exactly read the book.

            1. Another view of most of the same characters, and quite a few more, is The Class of 1846 by John Waugh. Most of the generals in question were members of the West Point class of 1846.

      3. Actually, IIRC, the 1st Minnesota Infantry became the first state militia unit incorporated into the Union forces in the War Between the States because the Governor happened to be visiting with the President in D.C. when news of the conflict arrived and he, in an excess of patriotism. offered its services to the Commander in Chief. There were many others, on both sides.

      4. The Civil War was the turning point. The initial units were basically all state militia units; that’s why they were named for states, such as the 20th Maine. However, they couldn’t keep up with the manpower requirements, and when they started drafting people, they needed to fill more slots regardless of state. They also found that politicians didn’t make the best commanders; many regimental commissions were awarded to the best fundraisers.

        1. By then you had people forming up volunteer units, which was different than in the War of 1812. But you also had conscription. In the North you had Draft Riots, and in the South brigands and anger over the “20 N***** Law.”

          The regulars don’t seem to have had a high opinion of the militia. In Atlanta, a regular did an “impression” of a militiaman that was basically how they saw them. In a period letter, a soldier wrote something like “the militia fought today. Who would have thought it?”

    3. So I infer from your comment that the endless Marches for/against X/Y/Z since last year’s election are antithetical to Domestic Tranquility, and thus, by the ‘logic’ of the HuffPo guy, should be abolished as illegal.

      1. No, in its mind the election of somebody so obviously unqualified to the presidency means it can achieve no tranquility until they have blocked Trump. Remember, it confuses the individual tranquility with the general, and guesses wrong about which the Constitution concerns itself.

    4. * Are you sure that Posner can be insulted, even by this association?

      ** I believe that the proper pronoun is “xit.” Pronounced just as it looks to be.

      *** It’s called “English,” Res. Which even the majority of people resident in the United Kingdom seem to have a problem with, going by recent Grauniad articles.

      1. Were this pecker a sentient being I might agree to xit for such a pimple on the butt of the human race, but there is no evidence of sentience. Therefore, it is the proper pronoun.

  15. This maroon’s obviously never heard of “trial by combat.” Which is actually (to the best of my understanding) still technically legal in the US.

      1. There is ample evidence of such recognition, at least in the US Territories, offered by anecdotal reports of gunfights being used to settle differences of opinion. While not legal precedent, these clearly indicate acceptance in the popular mind of the rightfulness of such trials.

        See: My Darling Clementine, Shane, High Noon, et al.

        1. gunfights being used to settle differences of opinion

          And that is not the same thing as trial by combat except possibly as a civil suit. And that’s a settlement between individuals. Not someone charged with an actual crime, punishable by law and proving their innocence by defeating a champion for the State (Crown in earlier days). That’s why I specified “as opposed to a duels between peers”. Those gunfights were duels between peers. They were not–at least I know of no examples–trials by combat.

          1. Hmmmm … I believe the Earps were agents of the government (town marshals) at the time of their famous gunfight at the OK Corral, so arguably an incident of trail by combat of the sort you intend.

            But I acknowledge I do not think that encouraging accused felons to shot it out with lawmen is quite equivalent.

            1. I don’t believe the criminal, if winning one of those gunfights, would have been deemed innocent of the original charges though unlike in an actual trial by combat.

            2. While a shoot-out, what happened at OK Coral wasn’t like a formal trial by combat or even a duel. It was technically a police shooting. Ike Clanton brought murder charges and the whole thing ended up before a Justice of the Peace, who finally ruled that there wasn’t enough evidence to bring an indictment.

            3. It wasn’t “trial by combat” at the OK Corral because if the Earps had lost, their opponents would have had to face trial for killing the Earps.

              “Trial by Combat” would be “You say that I’m guilty of this crime but if I kill my accuser in open combat, I’ll not have to face trail for this crime”.

        2. Except while dueling was a common practice in the time of Hamilton and Burr, it was still seen as murder. That’s why more than a few duels happened in places where they participants thought there was muddied legal jurisdiction.Whether or not someone was prosecuted for killing someone in a duel is another issue.

      2. I’d love to see that citation of legal acceptance of trial by combat. I can think of a number of cases brought by the IRS and the EPA that I’d bet my bottom dollar they wouldn’t have the guts to press charges if they had to risk their bureaucratic lives on it.

        1. Oh silly. It wouldn’t be the bureaucracy in combat. It would be heavily armed and armored enforcers whose only duty was killing non-believers.

  16. You hit the nail on the head. Evaluated by his own writing, Mr. Curmi is NOT a reasonable person. He lacks both knowledge of the subject, knowledge of our nation’s history, knowledge of the Enlightenment our nation’s founders based the Constitution on, and any iota of wisdom to realize that.

    The right to a fair trial is necessary in the cases of the State against any individual; it being commonly accepted that because the State maintains a monopoly on the right to use violence, we require trials to prevent tyranny by the State of arbitrary punishment or oppression. Perhaps the term monopsony would be more appropriate in that while the State maintains an overwhelming dominance in the right to employ force, it recognizes the right (via the 2nd Amendment in the U.S.) of individuals to use force for their own protection. A trial is therefore not necessary in the case of an act of violence by one person against another when the common understanding is that we all have a natural right to protect ourselves by use of lethal force. That natural right is demonstrated on a constant basis in nature: from acacias producing fatal poisons to prevent browsing, to dolphins killing sharks that attack them or their young, to chimpanzees killing invaders from outside their group.

    Mr. Curmi also fails to realize that even if captured criminals have the right to a fair trail, they also have the option to refuse that trial by admitting guilt and requesting sentencing. One could argue that by choosing to commit an act of violence against someone armed and capable of self defense, that they are voluntarily choosing to waive their right to trial. I’d certainly argue for that!

    1. The only point at which the author has any shot at reality is if the defender executes the attacker with coup de grace after unable to fight. But that is already not considered defense in most cases.

  17. Is self-defense legal? With a firearm?

    Not in Canada.

    It is -technically- legal. A curiosity at law, as it were. In reality though, it isn’t. Self-defense here is a privilege, extended to the wealthy and connected. The average schmoe will lose their house and life savings defending themselves in court.

    Its like feudal Japan. Guns exist, but peasants are not allowed to know about them.

    That’s why I keep a flashlight beside the bed instead of a shotgun. If I survive the incursion, the state will not try to destroy me quite so hard afterward.

    1. Which is one reason I don’t live in Canada. As long as you meet the standard of “did you act as a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would have”, you are pretty safe from the State coming after you for exercising self-defense. Of course, there are limitations. Some states have a caveat about how, if you have the ability to withdraw, you must. If you set a trap because you have been burgled time and again, that’s usually a big no-no. You also have to be in fear for your life or the life of another. (each state has their own nuances on this). But no state requires you to sacrifice yourself or your livelihood/property instead of defending yourself.

      That said, there have been numerous instances where the criminal, or their family if he was killed, will sue the person in civil court for damages. But that’s not what we’re talking about here.

      1. The set a trap thing has some particulars about it. An autonomous trap that can be triggered by anyone (even a child) is a big no-no. The human kind is more of a gray area.

        About a decade ago there was a mechanic I know of the next town over. Closer to the larger city, he was getting robbed- a lot, actually. Seven times in less than one year. One day he took off work early, walked home, and waited. When he heard the back door being crowbar’d open, he fired. Double ought buck hit the first would-be thief and killed him outright.

        Despite being in the jurisdiction of that larger city, the charges against him were more of a formality. More of something like the courts martial incurred when a captain loses a ship, I suppose, more to determine the actual wherefores under the auspices of law (and to prevent later legal malfeasance in doubkle jeapardy, a cynical side of me suggests) than with intent to punish the homeowner. His record is clean today, and the surviving thief is *still* in jail.

    2. That’s why I keep a flashlight beside the bed instead of a shotgun. If I survive the incursion, the state will not try to destroy me quite so hard afterward.

      Canadians haven’t said “The State will not try to destroy what it doesn’t know about?”

      1. We have, actually. The Liberal Gun Registry was the most broken law in history. The majority of people didn’t register anything. Even those who registered their sports guns didn’t register -everything-.

        Its just that if you -use- it, then they know. If you don’t die, you’ll wish you had. That’s how it works here. The process is the punishment.

        Canada is a great place to live, if you don’t get on the radar. Once you do, you find out that all the guff about “justice” freedom and fair play is a mile wide and half an inch deep. Make yourself of interest to the powerful, and the big wood chipper starts to work on you. The examples of its work are many.

        The informed man tempers his choices with discretion. A sober analysis reveals that it would be cheaper and easier to let intruders burn down your house than to discharge a firearm to scare them off. That’s the reality here.

        1. but it someone calls you out for badthink to the HRC, your life can be ruined. no thanks.

        2. If you’re far enough out and use your gun, follow it up with using your shovel, backhoe if you have it, and “Voila”, nothing happened here that I know of!

          I have 8 acres- it’s large enough to do that. And that’s our current family plans. No need to involve the police.

      2. Hmmm. Flash light, using flash powder, with one end open for the “beam” and beam moderator to go out? 😉

    3. Feudal Japan? Try modern Japan. OK, Japanese can know *about* guns in a movie/manga sense, but actually knowing guns? Uh uh. I was shocked when, while coming back from the South Pacific for the first time, I went to a gun range in Honolulu during my layover I hadn’t touched a gun (well, speargun, but that doesn’t really count) in a year-and-a-half, and my trigger finger was *really* itchy. Cost was FRN 60.00 for a ten-round magazine of .22LR, and that was back in the mid-’80s. Since I figured I’d be unlimbering Ol’ Betsy (and a few of her cousins) within the next 48 hours, I was able to resist the blandishments. If, OTOH, I’d been a Japanese tourist given a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to handle and shoot a Real Gun, I might not have been. Oddly, all the pictures on the walls were of extremely photogenic (usually female) Japanese folk with ecstatic looks on their faces.

      1. I gather there is at least one Japanese anime star (I’ve forgotten whether as producer, artist, writer or voice performer) whose standard contract for appearances at American cons involves a visit to a gun range.

        1. I wonder if there are Japanese who emigrate to the US to live in a country that’s larger and gun friendly?

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

    I.e., he knows people will resist his political philosophy and wants them helpless before the State so they can’t resist effectively.

    1. Sort of sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Which is why I always look very hard at any pol who talks about gun control.

      1. See: Venezuela, seizure of privately owned arms and subsequent issuance to approved militias.

      2. Closer to home, but further back in time, Missouri 1833 and 1838, and Illinois 1844.

  19. Apparently this author doesn’t recognize that the chief threats to justice, domestic tranquility, and general welfare come not from the mentally deficient, but from the morally deficient; i.e. those who do not grant others the same rights to life, liberty, and property that they do to themselves.
    He also hasn’t explained how firearms are more evil than machetes, rocks, two-by-fours, beer bottles, shod feet, and bare fist, or how they are less dependent on the will and intent of the user.

    1. Nor does he explain what he means by mentally deficient and that’s a big problem. As for your last paragraph, duh, they are more evil because they are GUNS. I bet if you even say the word to him and show him a picture of a handgun, he’d start to shake in fear. Show him a picture of an assault rifle and he’d be triggered and need to find his safe space. Poor widdle babykins.

      1. Well, he’s clearly mentally deficient and therefore (by his insistence) should be disallowed any access to firearms.

      2. We know what he means by mentally deficient; he means anybody who doesn’t agree with him is crazy.

        Whenever a proglodyte like him offers to toss a coin, be sure that the options are ‘heads I win, tails you lose.’

    2. The author clearly believes that the mere willingness to have a gun in your home is enough proof of deficient “mental capacity” for the authorities to remove said gun.

      Only crazy people want a gun. That’s the thesis.

      1. The one time I considered getting a gun (not very seriously or for very long) was some years ago when some loon on the internet was going on about how he was going to stand out in front of a church and shoot anyone who claimed he didn’t have the right to have sex whenever or with whoever or whatever he pleased. Maybe that’s the kind he was thinking of. But then, I had a grandfather who was a game warden and instituted rifle safety courses back in his day for comparison and contrast.

        1. The Charter of Maryland Colony required its residents to have guns, ammunition, and powder.

          The new government gave yout the right *not* to have a gun if you didn’t want one. Which made perfect sense, as the new government was about the rights of the individual, not the rights of the crown.

          “F=IW” and all that…

          1. Boston had it as well. Not sure if they ever actually removed the law requiring armament while on the common or at mass.

            1. “Freedom. I won’t.” From Eric Frank Russel’s “And Then There Were None.” a story about a planet settled by people who take Ghandi and turn him up to 11. It refers to Civil Disobedience.

              1. I first encountered it as part of a book with several chapters called “The Great Explosion”.

  20. And that’s what happens when lay liberals start thinking the Internet replaces a law degree (except he could’ve found the answer to why his argument is bullshit with a quick google so he doesn’t even have an excuse.)

    First rule when asking if Constitutional rights have been violated, citizens?”

    “Was it government action, sir!”

    “I can’t hear you!”

    “Was it government action, sir!”

    “If it was not the government?”

    “The Constitution is not implicated, unless it’s the 13th amendment, sir!”

    In my head, we have drill classes on the Constitution because then these assholes wouldn’t say such stupid shit. 🙂

    1. But he read it somewhere on the internet so it has to be true, Amie.

      And lol, your comments remind me of more than a few ConLaw classes with Professor Lee more years ago than I want to remember.

      1. Wait, wait, wait, are you a lawyer too? How did I not know that? Or do you mean you took Con Law in undergrad?

        1. Once upon a time, in a universe far, far away and at least two lifetimes ago, I was an attorney. But that really was a lifetime ago.

    2. There in lies the rub. Most Americans fail to understand that the Bill of Rights applies to the Federal Government. (and getting them to understand the 10th is next to impossible.)

      1. It applies to the government, not other individuals. But the 14th applies amendments to states as well, though they have to get a case up to Supreme Court for them to officially apply something specific to states.

        And yeah, the 10th has long since been tossed out the window.

        I say it’s time for the 10th to make a comeback.

        1. FYI- liberals are currently invoking the 10th in the sanctuary city movement. Can you spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E?

          1. There is no hypocrisy there; their positions are consistent with those advocated by Democrats since (at minimum) Reconstruction: one set of rules for the “Enlightened” (them) and another set for the “Benighted” (those denying them power.)

            They have been consistent in their advocacy of the Constitution when it advances their institutional agenda while revising its meaning on the fly when it obstructs their will to power.

    3. In my head, we have drill classes on the Constitution because then these assholes wouldn’t say such stupid shit. 🙂

      You just want to make them do pushups.

  21. Governments and police are like parents: They don’t want justice, they want quiet obedience, and outright criminality is less of a problem than morally justified political opposition. Yup, governments and their enforcement goons see weapons in the hands of citizens as a political threat, so they must be banned, even if it leaves the citizens helpless before vicious violent marauding criminals. Because for Government and their goons power is an end in itself, and power is not intended to be used to protect innocent people. Power is intended to control people, so that Government can grind their boot in to our face forever and ever and ever and ever. How can you grind your boot into a person’s face and feel safe doing it if the person has a loaded gun in their hand? Duh.

    1. Except this isn’t the government. This is a special sort of person who thinks he not only knows what the Founding Fathers meant but what is best for the rest of us. He is the sort of person I loathe, one who doesn’t consider the consequences of what he suggests.

      1. He thinks the Founding Fathers were dangerous idiots. The faster the USA gets to proper European governance where the peasants know their place, the better.

          1. Sweden’s the result of what he’d like.

            Overrun by Muslims, who rape the pretty white women (and probably men) who aren’t charged because it’d be racist if they did.

            And it’s totes okay because white women getting raped. /s

      2. Ah, but Amanda, where is this poor fool’s philosophy alive and well but in our very own American educational system.
        Most school campuses are “gun free zones” because a rule and a few signs will stop anyone with a gun from setting foot on their property.
        And if you, a student, were to have the audacity to defend yourself from a schoolyard bully and strike back, well obviously you are both guilty and will receive equal punishment.
        Our school systems are rife with petty tyrants of the same mind as Mr. Dumbazz here, with absolute power and precious little accountability, cowering behind their zero tolerance policies that serve quite well to absolve them of any responsibility for draconian and oppressive and ultimately stupid and ineffectual regulations.

        1. /sigh
          I was probably the poster child for a “pre-Captain America” Steve Rogers as a kid. Didn’t back down to bullies, didn’t fight very well, got the daylights beat out of me numerous times, and sent home on suspension because of it every time.
          Dad never punished me for it as long as I was in the right and didn’t start it.

      3. Except the only way he gets his way is by persuading sufficient powerful people that he is correct and having government enforce the edict. Just as the standard refrain that the hecklers veto is valid if it’s not done by someone in uniform but by someone in suit and tie.

    2. Such as this pecker at keys believe that the only “morally justified political opposition” is from the Left, never from the Right, Always from the Left, not ever from the Right.

    1. I am so there with you. I just read it, and that is a mangle of unexamined beliefs and broken logic chains.

      Looking at his blog, he’s a Communist. As in, card-carrying variety, has the red underwear, the whole bit. This piece has the air of a bit of virtue signaling dashed off in a hurry, to be read by a sympathetic and uncritical audience.

      The give-away is here: “The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial.”

      That’s a communist construction. Self defense is an individual action, and as such both restrains the State and treads on the prerogatives of the State. The “right to a fair trial” is a State issue, and therefore -obviously- trumps the lowly and unimportant concerns of the individual.

      We look at that sentence and boggle, because for us the State is an imaginary thing. It is the fictitious embodiment of -agreements- between individual human beings. People matter. Governments exist only to make life better for people, and when they fail that job they must be torn down and rebuilt properly.

      To a Communist, individuals don’t matter. It is the Group that exists and is important. Individuals are eliminated if they don’t benefit the Group, or in this case the State.

      That’s the unstated assumption under his argument, such as it is. That’s why he went from self defense to revolution. Individuals defending themselves from the dictates of the State is anathema, and constitutes revolution.

      This kid drank -all- the bong water.

  22. Wait, what? We’ve gone from it is illegal to use a firearm for self-defense to “a gun for civilians is a weapon for revolution and not for ordinary use”? My, my, my, Curmi not only moved the goal posts, he changed fields.

    I think he’s at a different field than we think. Let’s look at the indicators:

    1. He argues against the right of self defense.
    2. He argues that a firearm is a weapon of revolution.

    The field he’s at is an old one, and right here in the US, to boot. It was codified into law, and even has a general term.

    They are known as the Slave Codes.

    After little incidents known as the Haiti Revolution and Nat Turner’s Rebellion, there was fear of such happening in the US, especially in the South. With that in mind, slaves were forbidden to own firearms. A slave with a firearm was apt to be a slave in rebellion because he had the means to fight involuntary servitude. In other words, slaves were not allowed to defend their liberty with force, or at all. Considering there were penalties if a slave, by his own volition, struck a white, they did not have the right of self defense.

    It’s clear that Curmi is at the field called Involuntary Servitude. Just as the Slave Codes were a tacit admission that slaves did not care for it and were likely to rise up in rebellion if given half the chance, Curmi’s argument is a tacit admission that most citizens don’t care for the crap they’re forced to put up with, and might rise up in rebellion if given half the chance. Thus the self defense he fears is the defense of personal liberty, just as some feared that one day slaves would say “I’ve had enough of this @#%&.”

    Since Curmi is at Involuntary Servitude Field, we now have a good idea how his crowd sees US citizens: as slaves to the State. Oh, they won’t call it that and are apt to be highly offended. Yet when the state has primacy to the point where it will not tolerate you preventing some idiot from staving your head in, that’s slavery.

    The same state codes that punished slaves for striking a white also recognized self defense for citizens. They did not consider slaves citizens. Apparently, Curmi’s crowd doesn’t consider their countrymen to be citizens, either.

    1. Good catch!

      He’s a Communist. That’s where you are getting the odor of slavery.

      1. I thought Communists were all about Teh Revolutions™?

        How exactly is he going to engage in his Glorious Revolution™ against the Corporate State™ if the Teh People™ are disarmed?

        1. Right now they tend to have a very fascist flavor in that they use regulation to force corps to kneel.

    2. “slaves were not allowed to defend their liberty with force, or at all. ”

      I think the definition of slave pretty much establishes that they don’t have any liberty to defend.

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

    Ok, I’ll just say it. In a way, Dude is sorta partially right with this one, although probably not quite in the way he was intending.

    The 4th amendment IS about ensuring the people’s right to arms in case the American government moves too far into tyranny and needs to be deposed (“A gun for civilians is a weapon for a revolution”). It is also about ensuring that the militia continues to have the arms to resist invasion. The framers of the constitution did not trust standing armies, and did not intend for the newly formed American government to have a large standing army, instead they intended on relying upon a militia system for defense. Of course, as we all know, relying upon the militia didn’t last and the government eventually built it’s standing army regardless.

    The people of the time of the writing of the Constitution probably would probably have thought of self defense as self evident and not requiring protection. Kinda the same way they didn’t bother writing in the Constitution that water is wet. So guns “for ordinary use” aren’t specifically protected. Frankly, it has always tickled me how completely BACKWARDS American firearms law is. Machine guns (and other militarily useful weapons), the very weapons that are specifically protected by the 4A, are restricted while hunting arms (and other non-military specific weapons) that aren’t specifically protected by the 4A, have been generally left alone in law. Although really, a VERY good argument could be made that even non-military specific weapons, while not designed to be used for war, should also be considered protected by the 4A because they CAN be pressed into use by a militia, if needed.

    1. Which country’s constitution protects firearms ownership by the 4th amendment?

      The U.S. Constitution acknowledges that right in the 2nd Amendment. Our 4th Amendment deals with unreasonable searches and seizures; requiring warrants, justification, and limitations for them.

    2. That Remington 700 hunting rifle with 10x scope is now a high powered sniper rifle.

      That Mossberg 590 is a trench gun.

      That black powder musket is a large bore destructive device.

      There is always a way to upend reality for the opponents of 2A. (4th is search and seizure iirc)

    3. The unifying mistake that this Commie (for real!) and all socialists always make, is that they think The Militia is a government thing. They think the Founders meant that the US Government was supposed to create and maintain a volunteer army called “The Militia”. Which is perfectly and completely backwards to the meaning of the US Constitution.

      Because for them -everything- is always government, all the time. They can’t conceive of an armed force of citizens coming together for mutual self defense except as organized, run and paid for by government.

      The Militia is everybody. It exists, is funded and functions whether “the government” is on board or not.

  24. Someone above mentioned the slave codes, and it’s true. Folks like this butt-hat do want us all to be slaves to the state. Even though I bet in another breath he’s one of those “the cops are out HUNTING people of color!!!” So how does it makes sense for them to be the only ones allowed firearms? (To be clear: I do not think cops are out hunting people of color, I am not anti-cop, though I think there is a tendency towards over militarization and aggression in some cops and departments these days.)

    1. The thing that these guys do is lie about what they believe. They -do- think that only cops should have guns, because otherwise how does the State apply its power? People are stupid, they must be controlled.

      They -say- #BLM as a tactic to hurt enemies of the State. That would be us people who believe in limited government. They get us ground under, and #BLM will be the very first bunch up against the wall. Followed by every other group of useful idiots that got them in power.

      1. They want the vulnerable kept that way. Only those with physical strength or power should be protected. Guns equalize so that even someone in a wheel chair can fend off thugs. It’s happened. But that’s bad, apparently.

      2. Well, people are stupid. Certainly all the people with whom this pecker at keys associates.

  25. Actually, Curmi is just wrong. There is no right to a fair trial for the general population. You have no right to a fair trial if you are walking down the street, nor if you are sitting on your porch reading your bible when some dude walks up.

    An individual accused of a crime has a right to a fair trial before they can be deprived by the state of their liberty by being incarcerated.

    You only get to the “right to a fair trial” part after you are accused of a crime and are in danger of being incarcerated – step A before step B. The “fair trial” protection is to prevent the state from incarcerating folks at random without a trial.

    So on the one hand we have some dude, accused of no crime and subject to no incarceration at that point in time, wandering along, pondering the meaning of life and minding his own business, when he happens to decide to threaten you or your loved ones with death or great bodily harm unless you submit to his wishes and whims.

    The balance to be weighed here is the right of uninterrupted criminal activity vs the right of self defense. No trials are involved.

    So the whole fair trial aspect only comes into play after the crime has been committed and the perp apprehended and charged, as an extension of the garbage collector theory of police work.Not at the instant of the event.

  26. Here’s a perfect illustration of what wouldn’t have happened if the author of the HuffPo post had his way. A man walked into a restaurant in Arlington, TX yesterday and started yelling, etc. When the manager approached him to try to calm him down, he pulled a gun and shot the manager, killing him. A customer in the restaurant who was carrying concealed then shot and killed the shooter. That action probably saved others because the gunman was armed with two guns and two knives. Had the bystander not acted in self-defense and defense of others, dollars to doughnuts, we’d be reading about a multiple murder.

    1. And to extend my point above: In a corrupt alternate reality where this rightfully deceased moron who shot the restaurant manager had lived and was subsequently apprehended, but discovered to be the son of the local prosecutor and the nephew of the mayor, the state governor, and the President (power in that reality is kinda inbred), and through the normal corrupt machinations of that reality, the shooter was never charged with any crime, he would have absolutely no right to any fair trial, as he was under no threat of incarceration (or even financial penalty) by that reality’s state.

        1. On my second-to-the last TDY as active duty, a bunch of us went up from Randolph and Lackland AFB to do a TDY at Fort Hood. We went to eat one of our meals at that very place in Killeen. We were … satiric about that location, in the very finest tradition of the military, in being sickly humorous about it all. As we drove up from San Antonio, we were following the news about the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. You can just imagine the darkness of the humor on that occasion.

    2. Well, the obvious and correct solution is to put metal detectors in every restaurant, and to hire security guards to stand around inside, just in case, and of course enhancements to the 911 system and massive additional funding for the police to shorten their response time, and…

      “If you let us keep tightening the screws, we can protect you from all harm!”

      1. …and then of course you have to disarm the security guards, because that makes everyone safer…

  27. Who keeps stroking the crazy cakes?
    I swear, there are not enough desks to handle the heads on this one!
    You know, I’d never heard of HuffPo before a few years ago, and all I’ve heard since has not been good.
    Seriously, how do they stay in business?

    1. They don’t pay the workers. This retard works for free. Having read his work, its no wonder.

      1. Still over paid. We ought be paid for reading such drivel.

        (Okay, I apologize for insulting drivel.)

    1. That may, sadly, be an actual insult to Posner’s intelligence. Posner’s still a moron, but this loon might actually need index card instructions to breathe.

      1. As I recall, the once-upon-a-time designation went: idiot, imbecile, moron, borderline/dull, average. I’m not sure how imbecile was defined, but idiot was so mentally absent that there would be no response to being asked a question. The upshot was that ANY response to “Are you an idiot?” even “Yes!” disqualified one from being an idiot.

        He might be slightly more able than a potato, but that doesn’t mean the potato isn’t better company.

        1. Thus far, in my granted limited experience, potatoes do not blather on and on, nor do they insist on changing the parameters of the debate mid-sentence.

            1. And I’ll be competing for the potato in this year’s Pomme de Terre.

        2. I believe in decending order of IQ it was Imbecile, Moron, Idiot. Imbecile started at an IQ of 70, that being two standard deviations below average.

          (Conversely, “Gifted” starts at 130 IQ, being two standard deviations above average.)

  28. You are all missing the point here.

    You can prove all day long that this writer is full of shit. It doesn’t matter. HE knows he is full of shit.

    What DOES matter is that this writer represents the powerful traitors who control ALL that happens.

    Congratulations. You’ve proven that they should not disarm the people. Nevertheless they WILL disarm the people and establish a Communist regime that will last till the end of time.

    If you were serious about what you are saying, you would provide not arguments, but addresses of the filth who write and publish these treasonous scfeeds.

    1. Yeah, because we should go beat him up now, right? Um, no.

      Sorry Ken, that’s their deal.

      1. Hmmmm…. You read “you should counter this would-be commie slaver by doxing him” as “go beat him up.”

        Why is that?

        Mr. Ken, embrace the healing power of “and”: Mrs. Green wrote the piece that justifies the “little guy” doxxing the politically-connected 4th estate quisling according to said quisling’s own rules of political activism.

        Interesting times…

        1. “You read “you should counter this would-be commie slaver by doxing him” as “go beat him up.””

          That’s what doxxing is for. Identify and locate individuals for future in-person unpleasantness. Calling down doom on them by using social media.

          Lefty organizations have been making an art form of the flash-mob lately. The right tweet/text/etc. can put 50 people on a given street corner in no time at all. They do it all the time. How do 60 thugs show up at a BART station and take over a whole train?

          Or calling SWAT on the guy, that’s another favorite Lefty tactic. Super brave, that bunch.

          I’d just as soon have nothing to do with any of that, thanks.

          1. You do know that’s exactly what many of the rebels did with the Tories during the revolution, don’t you? A not-so-pleasant fact often glossed over when it’s even mentioned at all.

          2. Really? I thought doxxing was to put a real person face to the on-line activity. “Outing” a person. Wouldn’t what follows after range from being “on notice” that future activity isn’t anonymous through public shaming to personal harassment and then, finally, violence?

            It just seemed an odd thing to conflate.

            1. I hear you but the use of “doxxing” has been done with the open intention of making the “doxxed” person open to attacks, legal or illegal.

              I got the strong impression that the person wanting Amanda to “find out the idiot’s real name” wanted the idiot to face such attacks.

    2. The proper response to speech is MORE SPEECH. It’s the a-holes on the Left that believe the proper response is violence.

      Now, the proper response to violence is? Yep you guessed it, self defense. Which is EXACTLY why the Left has worked so hard to remove the right to self defense.

    3. Ken, if they establish a communist regime that will last till the end of time, it will be the first.
      I wish you people would study history.
      Communist or communist-like regimes collapse in three generations flat. no, China and NK are no longer communist regimes but traditional regimes for that region.
      Stop telling yourself scary fairytales.

  29. Curmi is obviously a coward and a fool and thus deserves nothing but scorn. I feel sad for his family or anyone unlucky enough to have to depend on him.

  30. If there’s any training that makes somebody an expert at knowing when to shoot, it’s not the training cops get, or trigger-happy cops all over the US wouldn’t be literally getting away with murder again and again and again.

    I’d rather have an NRA-trained civilian around than a cop anytime.

    1. CCW holders shoot far fewer in number and percentage of innocent bystanders than the police do. Partly because they know they don’t have the protections of the government, partly because they don’t have the expectations of the job.

  31. And there’s me thinking that the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were inalienable.

    1. Inalienable is such a big, odd, unusual word — who knows what the Framers thought it meant? Maybe it meant that those rights were granted (and revocable) by government. Heck, if five out of nine Justices say it is so …

  32. And there are actually six goals in the Preamble. He left out “form a more perfect union”

    1. What do union organizers have to do with this? He’s saving that part for when he explains why Trump isn’t really ourr President. Or something.

  33. I started to look at these comments to see if there was anything left to add. I got to the examples of bad police firearm handling and was laughing too hard to continue. I need to get some sleep anyway. It looks like this crowd mostly gets it. I needn’t try to add anything.

  34. “Has this guy been living under a rock?”

    Yes. He has a BA in philosophy from an Ivy League college.
    Also, he is dyslexic.

    1. Oh, they decided (thought or assumed) that Mars had enough atmosphere to talk so maybe not so bad.

  35. Since the Enlightenment, if not before, age 7 has been considered the “age of reason” since one can begin to reason with a child of that age. This fellow is running rather late.

  36. Sigh. If you try to interpret the Constitution without knowing the intellectual, philosophical, and legal climate of the document, you get some really, really stupid takes.

    I mean, to start there’s Hobbes, the founding father of political philosophy and advocate of absolute monarchy, writing in 1651 that the only right a person cannot and does not surrender to the sovereign is the right to self-defense. Then there’s the English Bill of Rights in 1689, explicitly establishing that subjects “may have arms for their defence”. There’s the whole tradition of the common law and the right to self-defense in it, culminating in the statement in Blackstone’s Commentaries (1768) that “Self-defence, therefore, as it is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the law of society.”

    It would have been unimaginable to the Founders that anyone would think a revolution initiated to defend the “rights of Englishmen”, followed by a Declaration of Independence to secure inalienable rights, and a Constitution intended to secure the blessings of liberty could ever, ever be interpreted to deny a right to self-defense. And if you had tried to impose a law on them denying that right, they would have shot you in self-defense as the blackest would-be tyrant in history.

    1. Looking beyond Europe, it might be noted that in SE Asia the stupid peasants responded to government edicts banning ownership of weapons by developing entire schools of martial arts to using farm implements (such as rice threshers, aka nunchaku) to deadly effect.

      Governments can ban weapons but that will not disarm people.

    2. Just a minor point in addition: lecturing on Historical antecedents to people who believe the world was created yesterday and that all new ideas are good ideas falls into the “only annoys the pig” category.

      Your arguments are well-reasoned and historically sound, but … pearls before swine, alas.

  37. When reading the the linked essay by Curmi, I was seized by the conviction : “Wow – this pretentious jerk must get laid, like, NEVAHHHH ….”

  38. And we need not feel the slightest twinge of guilt at not defending people loke this…they’d probably just sue you or testify against you.

  39. From a purely theoretical way of thinking, government is to protect us and if there were no guns in civilian hands, there would be less crime and murders. Unfortunately humans don’t follow theoretical or even logical thought in their emotions and life, And violence would not be eradicated because sharp and blunt instruments would still exist. But those are up close and personal items for violence which is harder to do and would normally mean less injuries than from those possessing firearms.
    The nature of firearms is that they even the field of self defense. A female would have much more difficulty in stopping a knife attack than a male would if neither didn’t have a firearm. I’m 72 and in good shape, but a young, male thug could probably overcome me if I didn’t have a firearm. And the visuals in Venezuela confirm the Founders’ suspension that only having the government and its thugs with firearms is not a good situation when your life and freedoms are at stake.
    One problem we have is that the consequences for misusing firearms is one of the first charges negotiated away after an arrest. Straw purchases, for those not allowed to own firearm, are not normally pursued to nab the person arming the thug. States do not do their due diligence in providing the FBI with mental health and criminal records for the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System to deny firearm purchases for those not permitted to own firearms. However, many states and cities effectively punish good, honest citizens with regulatory hurtles who try to purchase firearms, yet seem to be less than proactive on stopping the illegal use of firearms as in Chicago.
    If every good citizen could be potentially armed and dangerous, the criminals would think twice about committing crimes.

    1. From a purely theoretical way of thinking, government is to protect us and if there were no guns in civilian hands, there would be less crime and murders.

      _IF_ no other behaviors were changed– that is, if the theory is going…what’s it…first order? Where you only look at the immediate effect.

      Important to underline, even though the rest of your comment makes it clear you recognize that guns free the vulnerable.

    2. “if there were no guns in civilian hands, there would be less crime and murders. ”

      While a cursory glance around the world and through history would show that a world with no guns in civilian hands is extremely unlikely to ever occur, it isn’t at all evident that removing guns from civilian hands would reduce crime in general, or murder. Crime rates in general, and murder rates as well, appear to vary independently over time from the number of guns in civilian hands.

    3. Personally I have issues with denying the right to possess a firearm to anyone, including criminals. As can easily be seen by looking at the laws passed in the last hundred years, there are more and more felonies being created (legislated into effect) which is effectively taking away the gun rights from anyone the government deems shouldn’t have them.
      There are lots of people who argue vociferously that the government shouldn’t be allowed to decide who can and can’t own a firearm; then in the next breath complain about the government not enforcing the gun laws already on the books and allowing felons to possess guns. They seem totally incapable of seeing the hypocrisy there.
      There are plenty of gun grabbers who would love to see every gun owner labeled a felon, so they are outlawed from owning a gun. When ever they have the power to do so they pass laws to that effect. Think the only reason to change laws from misdemeanors to felonies is because prosecutors pursue felonies more vigorously?

      1. I have no problem with the principle that the punishment for certain crimes means that you get deprived of certain rights: for example, being deprived of the right to life (capital punishment) for extremely severe crimes, or the right to liberty (prison) for less severe crimes. Being deprived of the right to keep and bear arms for certain types of crimes would also make a lot of sense. BUT, in order to ensure that this punishment is in line with other types of punishments, there should be a time limit. E.g., crime X might carry a sentence of prison for two years, and deprivation of 2nd Amendment rights for five years, sentences to be served consecutively. So seven years after sentencing, the former criminal now has his full citizen’s rights restored. (Assuming he’s kept his nose clean in the intervening years, for example).

        You are entirely correct about the motivation behind upgrading certain laws to felonies, which is why my proposal would make “you are hereby deprived of your 2nd Amendment rights” just like other punishments: 1) an explicit punishment linked to that particular crime, rather than a blanket punishment for all felonies, and 2) a punishment that cannot be imposed for longer than X years, the maximum value of X to be named in the law imposing said punishment (just as it is for prison sentences).

        1. You state that well, I don’t exactly agree with you, I think if you have served your time and are released your rights should be restored. If as is sometimes argued, you are to dangerous to society to be allowed to possess firearms; you are probably to dangerous to be released.
          But if your gun rights were only revoked for certain violent crimes, I probably wouldn’t argue. As is however, I find losing your gun rights for something like cutting cedar without a permit from the Forest Service to be unjustifiable.

        2. Agree.

          Loss of “Right To Bare Arms” can be part of the punishment for committing a Major Crime (and yes I hate the expansion of “felonies”).

          My addition to your “time limit” is that the former criminal should be able to ask the Courts to restore that Right and the State must show “beyond a reasonable doubt” why the Right should not be restored.

          1. If you mean that he should be able to petition to get his rights back before the 5 years (or whatever his sentence is) are up, that would be something like an application for parole, right? Because the “beyond a reasonable doubt” argument from the State would be a simple “He was sentenced to five years, it’s been three years, his sentence still has two more years to run. The prosecution rests.” I believe in the case of parole, the burden of proof is on the petitioner to show that he deserves it. I don’t have a particular problem with that (the burden of proof being on the criminal as he argues for a reduced sentence) in the case of the right to liberty (i.e., being locked up in jail), so I wouldn’t have a problem with that if the sentence was deprivation of other rights.

            (Though I just had an interesting thought: what if the sentence for some crimes was loss of Third Amendment rights? “You have been found guilty of the crimes of murder, arson and jaywalking. Your sentence is to be forced to quarter soldiers in your home for the next two years. *Bangs gavel*.”)

            But if you mean that after the time limit is up, the former criminal would be able to petition to get his rights back and the State would bear the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he can’t be trusted with them — that’s actually further than I was arguing. I was saying that after the X years that he was sentenced to, he would automatically get his rights back, no further action on his part necessary. And the only way he could be deprived of them would be to have been convicted of a different crime, the sentence of which might be “Your period of rights deprivation will be extended by another year” or something.

            1. Loss of Third Amendment rights would impose little inconvenience, so no big deal. The convict is already accustomed to loss of privacy.

              It should be remembered that there is also a loss of Fourth Amendment rights, as convicts are subject to impertinent searches at all hours (I’ve seen this on TV, so it must be so) and may (I’ve no direct personal knowledge) be similarly subject to loss of privacy in regard to probation officers.

              It’s the loss of Ninth and Tenth Amendment rights that is most grating.

            2. Point.

              Admittedly, I was thinking more about “permanent loss of the Right” but where he can show To The Court that the Right could be restored and the State has to show strong reasons why the Right should be restored.

              Of course, I also think that if he was So Bad that his Right to Bare Arms should be permanently removed, then he is So Bad that his Liberty should permanently removed or he deserves execution. 😉

  40. Amanda Green fillets the fool

    The fool will be played here by Justin Curmi, he deserves an Oscar!

    Curmi: “The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial.”

    Green: “So, before he even gets into the issue of firearms, he has declared that there is a problem with self-defense because it imposes justice and that is wrong because everyone has the right to a fair trial. I don’t know about Curmi, but I believe a person has the right not to give up her life when in a situation where a reasonable person would believe the only reasonable action is to defend themselves.

    It would appear Curmi believes we don’t have the right to defend ourselves or others because it might deny the guy trying to harm us the right to a fair trial. But let’s read on. Maybe he’s fooling us and is going to start talking sense soon.”

    Curmi: “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.”

    Green: “Or maybe not. Surely he can’t be saying we have to give up our lives, or the lives of our loved ones, in order to insure the person trying to harm us gets a fair trial. Maybe he thinks we all need to live in private cells, with no contact with the outside world except through the internet. Either that or he has never known a victim of violent crime or been one himself. I can imagine no other reasonable explanation for why a grown man – or woman or cabbage – would think it reasonable not to be able to protect oneself from danger.”

    I will give Curmi the award for most tortured logic. A core problem is that the concepts he is bandying about, justice, and right to a fair trial, are concepts which apply to those who have been arrested by people acting on behalf of the state under the color of criminal law. These rights only accrue after the arrest, not before. Curmi gets this cart before the horse.

    While some dirt bag is shooting up a quickie mart, he has no rights to justice or a fair trial. On the other hand, all people have the God given right to defend themselves, and others from the threat of serious bodily harm, or death, with deadly force, if necessary. Since said dirt bag is acting in a way which clearly creates the threat of serious bodily harm, or death, self defense is one appropriate/legal response.

    If I act to stop this threat by using a firearm, and it results in the death of said dirt bag, the state will investigate, determine whether I indeed was faced with the threat of serious bodily harm, or death, and, optimistically, act appropriately, by not charging me with a crime.

    Because said dirt bag was never arrested for these violent crimes, no rights to justice, or a fair trial accrued to him, and accordingly he could not have been “devoid of his or her rights.”

    Curmi doesn’t apparently like the idea that people can defend themselves from violent criminals, at least when it comes to firearms. This seems to be some of the most tortured logic I’ve ever seen. Green does a fine job of pricking his inflated thoughts.

  41. I found a typo:
    “coming back to tell him he’s full of it”
    You missed the ‘sh’ on that last word………

    “Heck, if your brain is distorting reality, should you be allowed in a kitchen on the internet
    Another option.

    “He wants to take away our guns.”
    Not only that, but he obviously wants a totalitarian gov’t, too. He wants gov’t to have a total monopoly on power. Oy.

    “the belief that no one who doesn’t train like a cop can do so”
    Oh yeah, because cops are SO GOOD at using their weapons….
    *YUGE eyeroll*
    Anyone else remember when that rogue ex-cop was on the lam, and the cops shot up at the newspaper-delivering ladies? They fired over 100 rounds at a small pickup with 2 people in the cab, managed to never hit either of them, though one was injured by a bit of flying glass. Or the guy in NYC that had 40+ rounds fired at him in a building vestibule from point-blank range and was hit by a dozen?

    “Heroin is illegal and it is still easily available on the streets.”
    Because these people don’t understand making things. So they think you have to have a big factory with special equipment to make firearms. Because they’ve never seen a drill press in their lives.
    (Remember the guy – “Carbine” Williams – who invented the floating chamber and the short-stroke piston built his prototype in a prison machine shop.)

    Funny, but it seems all five of his “Aims” are best guaranteed by the free exercise of the right to bear arms.

  42. One of the keys to this “reasoning” is that it takes a good method (trial by jury, instead of by the king’s fiat) and removes it from its purpose (power of law in the hands of the people, rather than a man’s whim), so as to be an objective good unto itself. It perverts the means for the end.

    So much of what progressives do is based on this sort of topsy-turvy confusion of means for ends and vice-versa.

    What’s frightening is that so many really can’t see it the other way. At all.

Comments are closed.