A blog series published this month by the Huffington Post argued that no one has the right to self-defense with a firearm, and added the Second Amendment is in need of some serious revisions.
“The Second Amendment is highly contested. There is no doubt that people do have the right to carry and have a stockpile of guns … and a state has the right to organize a well-regulated Militia. But, the main issue is on the right to self-defend with a firearm,” wrote Justin Curmi in the third installment of his “A Revision to the Bill of Rights” series.
“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,” he added.
Curmi’s musings on the Second Amendment are part of a larger series of posts he has authored seeking to revise and update the Bill of Rights.
His first installment of the series, published April 21, explained that laws should be passed through a series of filters to determine whether they’re just.
It said that five questions, which are based on the preamble found in the Constitution, should be asked of all bills passed by lawmakers, including, “Does it promote Justice? Does it ensure domestic Tranquility? Does it ensure the common defense? Does it promote the general Welfare? Does it secure the Blessings of our Liberty and Posterity?”
He then examined whether laws are consistent with the Bill of Rights, and said some revisions are needed.
Curmi added this week in regards to the Second Amendment and gun ownership that mental health is a big factor in determining whether a person should be allowed to own 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,” he wrote.
“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,” he wrote. “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,” he added.
He concluded by reiterating that all laws regarding gun ownership should be checked against the five Constitution-based questions presented in his first post.
