A would-be philosopher stumbles over the Second Amendment
We rarely look to authors at the Huffington Post for guidance on things constitutional. And with good reason, as this bizarre item on the Second Amendment makes clear. The author begins by challenging the notion that firearms can, or even should, be used for self defense:
The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial. Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights. In addition, one’s mental capacity is a major factor in deciding whether a man or woman has the right to have a firearm. There are two reasons for ensuring mental capacity. First, one of the Five Aims is to ensure domestic tranquility and there can be no tranquility if one does not have the capacity. Second, if one’s brain is distorting his or her reality, they do not have the proper reasoning and deduction skills to use a firearm.
Still with us? Because it gets much stranger:
Therefore, if we ponder and meditate on the recent events in news about guns, it would be obvious that the current state is incorrect. A gun for civilians is a weapon for a revolution and not for ordinary use. The belief that a gun is a useful tool to protect one is counterintuitive because guns get into the hands of people who use them for horrible reasons. In addition, there are reasons why cops are trained to use a firearm in stressful situations. It is not to keep their mind at ease or anything of that sort, but to be able to fire accurately at the target in the correct location. It is immensely difficult to fire when under pressure. Moreover, one may argue this is an analogous argument and yes it is because the United States government is lobbied to not study or fund research that observes the effects of guns. This cripples the chance of evaluating a proper policy to deal with gun violence. But, there was one study by ABC, which observed using guns in a classroom. All the participations poorly performed at the mock situation.
Guns for self defense are bad, because everyone deserves a fair trial. And guns are also bad in private hands because of inadequate training. Or some such nonsense.
We do not believe this author's arguments will catch on, even among the more excitable anti-gun advocates. But you can never be too sure with those folks, who have a nagging tendency to view the Bill of Rights (the Second Amendment in particular) as an easily erased inconvenience.