Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Stand your ground' proposal triggers gun-law debate (PA)
PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW ^ | May 30, 2006 | David Hunt

Posted on 05/31/2006 9:34:33 AM PDT by neverdem

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

1 posted on 05/31/2006 9:34:37 AM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

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


2 posted on 05/31/2006 9:39:59 AM PDT by Diggler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
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.

3 posted on 05/31/2006 9:58:30 AM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

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


4 posted on 05/31/2006 9:58:39 AM PDT by Rakkasan1 (Illegal immigrants are just undocumented friends you haven't met yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“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.


5 posted on 05/31/2006 10:04:20 AM PDT by Jim Verdolini (We had it all, but the RINOs stalked the land and everything they touched was as dung and ashes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Biased choice of words.


6 posted on 05/31/2006 10:08:41 AM PDT by Frohickey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

"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?


7 posted on 05/31/2006 10:10:11 AM PDT by Stevenc131
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rakkasan1
"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".

8 posted on 05/31/2006 10:14:54 AM PDT by scooter2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Stevenc131
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!)

9 posted on 05/31/2006 10:16:56 AM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
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.
10 posted on 05/31/2006 10:28:12 AM PDT by Give Piece A Chance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

"Duty to retreat".

Sheesh.


11 posted on 05/31/2006 10:40:24 AM PDT by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
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.

12 posted on 05/31/2006 10:44:39 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stevenc131
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.

13 posted on 05/31/2006 10:45:54 AM PDT by Monitor (Gun control isn't about guns; it's about control.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
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.

14 posted on 05/31/2006 10:46:41 AM PDT by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics

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.



15 posted on 05/31/2006 10:50:49 AM PDT by tcostell (MOLON LABE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
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.

16 posted on 05/31/2006 10:51:56 AM PDT by papertyger (Evil preys on civility.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monitor
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.

17 posted on 05/31/2006 10:52:35 AM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier
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.

18 posted on 05/31/2006 10:54:40 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (It is not the oath that makes us believe the man, but the man the oath.- Aeschylus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Stevenc131
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.

19 posted on 05/31/2006 10:56:32 AM PDT by papertyger (Evil preys on civility.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics; All
"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

20 posted on 05/31/2006 11:23:02 AM PDT by PsyOp (The commonwealth is theirs who hold the arms.... - Aristotle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson