The author admits that the 2nd Amendment clearly confirms the right of the people to bear arms, but then states that the real question is whether or not they have the right to defend themselves with a firearm that they admittedly have the right to bear.
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.
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.
There are so many fallacies it is hard to know where to start. A weapon for civilians is only for revolution? A gun is not a useful tool because it may get into the hands of someone who misuses it? It is okay for police to use firearms because they are trained? (They would still prevent a perpetrator from having a “fair” trial if killed during an exchange of gunfire with police.) And there are no studies or research to determine if guns affect the amount of violence in our society? (See Dr. John Lott's ground breaking book, More Guns, Less Violence which clearly does examine and demonstrate the positive effect of more guns in society. See also the steeply declining crime rate over the last decade or more that coincides with the steep increase of gun sales over the same period.)
Liberals simply do not like to argue with facts. They prefer name calling and making baseless accusations. Thus the NRA is a murderous gun lobby that encourages reckless and bloodthirsty rampages, and guns in the hands of citizens leads to wild-west cowboy antics and street violence. None of that is supported by facts, but as in the editorial from the Huffington Post, it is clear the writer cannot reason or reach a logical conclusion from the few actual facts he may stumble upon.
And so we return to our initial question. Do stupid people know they are stupid? It appears they do not, and we have a whole congress of those types of folks legislating on things like gun control. If this piece in Huffington Post is what goes for serious critical thinking on the Left, we are in dire straits. It may not represent the end of America, but you can see it from here.