(Photo Source: Paul Markel)

Does shooting an attacker in self-defense “deny justice” to the felon? Apparently, one journalist for the Huffington Post has set out to make that very argument. Every time a nationally published use of force occurs, so called journalists craft stories to place doubt in the minds of the law-abiding citizen as to what is and what is not legal self-defense.

During our SOTG Homeroom segment from Crossbreed Holsters, Paul will consider the knife for self-defense. Is a blade as practical as a firearm for defending oneself against a felonious attack? The answer may surprise you.

Brought to you by Silencer Shop!

Topics Covered During This Episode:

• A Revision on the Bill of Rights, Part III: www.huffingtonpost.com
• Armed Living DVD has the info to destroy Justin: www.studentofthegungear.com
• SOTG Homeroom brought to you by Crossbreed Holsters: Knives for self-defense: Why would you when you have a gun?

Please visit www.SilencerShop.com and take a look at what they have in stock!

Get Your Student of the Gun Tattoo Here: www.lauerweaponry.com

Armed Living DVD has the info to destroy Justin: www.studentofthegungear.com

From www.huffingtonpost.com:

“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.”

The Second Amendment is highly contested. There is no doubt that people do have the right to carry and have a stockpile of guns (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms”) 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.

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.

Once again, if there is an argument in the reasoning of this amendment and others, one must filter it through the Five Aims of the USA and the Bill of Rights. This is to ensure that any argument can be answered, avoiding a political divide.