A couple of weeks ago I read about a claim that my initial reaction to was that no one would be that asinine. Yet today I stumbled onto a link claimed to be leading to just such an article -
A Revision on the Bill of Rights, Part III
By Justin Curmi - described as a blogger that seeks to engage people in thought and conversation through presenting new views to matters, new or old.
April 26, 2016
Yep, by golly such an article actually exists and is available on the web. A brief quote from the article as a little teaser for you –
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.
My interpretation of this is that if I, or you, are assaulted and feel that we are in danger and maybe being killed we do not have the right to use potentially lethal means to defend ourselves. So now we have a situation where the victim has no right to life because the perp may be deprived of his/her right to trial by peers. Just how asinine can someone get?
As far as I am concerned attack and threaten me you gave up your rights. I do not understand this idea of the criminal having more rights than the law abiding citizen! Makes me reluctant to try and locate parts I and II of the concept that the Bill of Rights needs revision.