Huffington Post writer Justin Curmi wrote in his article titled “A Revision on the Bill of Rights, Part III” that victims who use a handgun to kill an attacker are depriving that suspect of his constitutional rights, namely the right to a fair trial.

The Bill of Rights is an additional document appended to the United States Constitution. This bill, written by fourth President James Madison, adds a set of ten new rights to offer greater protection for individuals and lists prohibitions of governmental power. If you’d like to read more about the Bill of Rights, check out this story at the Bill of Rights Institute.

The second amendment to the Constitution declares that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Bill of Rights Institute). This bill is what makes gun ownership in the United States legal. Even Justin Curmi agrees that people can “carry and have a stockpile of guns.”

Yet, in the same article, Curmi states that “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,” which cites another amendment of the Bill of Rights. This is the Sixth Amendment, which says that “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.”

Curmi goes on to point out the difficulty of correctly using a firearm in stressful situations. He claims that police officers are properly trained to safely fire their weapons in tense incidents. The writer adds that “if one’s brain is distorting his or her reality, they do not have the proper reasoning and deduction skills to use a firearm.”

The Bill of Rights was put in place in order to protect the rights of individuals and to reduce government interference in certain things such as our freedom of speech and freedom to practice whatever religion we choose. It also protects our homes from being arbitrarily entered by government officials (the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirements).

The Second Amendment reads specifically, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. (Bill of Rights Institute)” By this amendment, your state’s National Guard could be considered a state militia, and are therefore protected.

If you want to get technical, the Second Amendment, by its wording “ the right to keep and bear arms” could be interpreted to mean that all persons in the United States have the right to not only purchase and own firearms, but also carry them legally.

Liberals interpret the Second Amendment as a single sentence, claiming that the right to bear arms only applies to those participating in the state militia. But, any reasonable person reading the amendment will realize there are two parts to the amendment, one applying to a militia, and one applying to the people who live in the United States.

There are numerous cases in this country to prove that killing an attacker in self-defense is completely legal. One landmark case is McDonald v. Chicago from 2010, which determined that “the right of an individual to ‘keep and bear arms’ as protected under the Second Amendment. (Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago).

These cases further reinforce the individual’s right to keep and bear arms.

SHARE
Hey everyone I'm Chris. Founder and editor at Gun News Daily. This site was originally started by my father who passed it on to me. Gun News Daily has been reporting on gun news and conservative politics since 2001. We are the original gun news source. Life-long Second Amendment Supporter.

2 COMMENTS

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here