'Stand your ground' proposal triggers gun-law debate (PA)

PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW ^ | May 30, 2006 | David Hunt

[Diggler]

I wondered when we were going to get on board with this in PA.

[concerned about politics]

Pennsylvania is among more than a dozen other states considering joining the trend.

The first thing the socialists and communists do is disarm the people so they become victims and can't fight back. It reduces the population (like abortion and homosexuality) and leaves more wealth to share afterwords. It also gives total, ultimate power to the government over the people in case they have the courage complain about it.

Stay armed. Your kids lives are depending on it.

[Rakkasan1]

"If you're found here in the night, you'll be found here in the morning."

[Jim Verdolini]

“When a Somerset County man opened fire on two intruders at his apartment last month, killing one, he insisted he was protecting himself.
Whether Matthew Eperjesi was justified remains a question for the courts at a time of nationwide debate over extending legal protection for gun owners to shoot intruders in their homes and even people threatening them on the streets.”

They were intruders in his home so of course he is justified. The real question concerns idiot DA’s and political police chiefs. I am sure he will be fine.

[Frohickey]

Biased choice of words.

[Stevenc131]

"Gun rights advocates are applauding so-called "stand your ground" laws that have left anti-violence groups nervous."

Why is that all these 'anti-violence groups' only seem to get nervous when criminals are put in danger?

[scooter2]

"If you're found here in the night, you'll be found here in the morning."

Got that sign. Also have, "Trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again".

[concerned about politics]

Why is that all these 'anti-violence groups' only seem to get nervous when criminals are put in danger?

Who do the felons vote for? Those who protect them.
Who do law abiding citizens vote for? Those who let them protect themselves against those who vote for felon protectors. (whew!)

[Give Piece A Chance]

Fundamentally, this is about reining in overzealous prosecutors and tort reform. At present, shooting someone in self-defense means you have to live in fear of charges being filed against you by an overzealous prosecutor for failing to 'retreat'. In some felon-hugging jurisdictions like California, this may even apply to self-defense situations in the home thanks to state judges making up the law as they see fit.

Also, you can expect a wrongful death civil suit to be filed against you by the unscrupulous scumbag relatives of the perp even if the local DA who's running for higher office fails to portray you as a trigger-happy psychopath. The filing of such lawsuits should rightfully be proscribed.

The bottom line is those who exercise the most basic and essential of all rights, self-defense, should not be treated like criminals. Everyone should read In the Gravest Extreme and Stressfire: The Truth About Self Protection by Mas Ayoob for a better understanding of this issue.

[BenLurkin]

"Duty to retreat".

Sheesh.

[Dead Corpse]

There never should have been a "duty to retreat". Period. Just admitting that you have fewer Rights than your attacker puts you automatically into a "I'm a victim" mindset.

Sometimes prudent tactics make it advisable to try and retreat a distance before confronting a continuing threat, but this only muddies things at a time when clarity of thought is crucial.

Preserve your OWN life first, worry about your attackers life not at all. If they initiate force against you, they forfeit their Right to keep breathing.

[Monitor]

Why is that all these 'anti-violence groups' only seem to get nervous when criminals are put in danger?

Same reason all the 'peace activists' only seem to protest against American troops being in Iraq, but fall silent whenever their beloved 'freedom fighters' blow up a mosque, a shopping district, or storm a school and saw the heads off of the teachers in front of the children.

These groups are not anti-violence, or pro-peace; they are on the other side.

[The Old Hoosier]

anti-violence groups

Ha, ha. Yeah, whatever.

Anyone remember the FReeper who shot an armed robber in a bar after the guy threatened to blow an old lady's brains out? I didn't follow the story, they were going to charge him with illegal firearms possession.

[tcostell]

In the twentieth century estimates are that 34 million people were killed in wars.

The same study estimates that 196 million people were killed by their own governments.

To all the liberal lurkers: you may say you hate war, but defending yourself in war is better than being quietly killed because of your politics.

Arm everyone.

[papertyger]

Perhaps more controversial, though, shooters also would be exempt from facing criminal prosecution or civil lawsuits if they shoot and kill someone who is attacking them outside of the home.

And there you have the summation of why liberals oppose this law.

It will prevent them from punishing defenders for living in a manner the liberal does not approve.

[Ditto]

These groups are not anti-violence, or pro-peace; they are on the other side.

Precisely correct! The same was true in the 60s. Those maggots had absolutely nothing against war as long as the Commies won it.

[Dead Corpse]

I didn't follow the story, they were going to charge him with illegal firearms possession.

Vaguely remember that one. Should have given him a medal. A public service award with the honorary "Goblin Slayer" title on it.

[papertyger]

Why is that all these 'anti-violence groups' only seem to get nervous when criminals are put in danger?

Because an orderly, SATISFIED, society has no interest in entertaining the desires of such groups to remake society is a manner said group prefers.

[PsyOp]

"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state controlled police and the military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. Not for nothing was the revolver called an "equalizer." Egalite implies liberte. And always will. Let us hope our weapons are never needed--but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny... If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government--and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws." - Edward Abbey, The Right to Bear Arms, 1979.

The Second Amendment - Commentaries