http://concealednation.org/2016/05/...earned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-my-attacker/ Yup you read that right....you can't shoot and kill an armed intruder or violent attacker because you are usurping their right for a fair trial. Never mind that as a victim your right to live is being usurped. Anyone wonder why HuffPo is such a poor place to get gun information? BTW there is a lot more really ignorant stuff in the article.....feel free to comment on the rest of it. I just laughed my @zz off.
The idiocy of the position is apparently well recognized. The lack of logic is being picked apart in the comment section, in a manner that can best be described as viciously. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-curmi-/a-revision-on-the-bill-of_3_b_9772428.html
The left has a mental illness on par with people who think they aren't the sex they were born with. They say to poop or pee yourself when you are getting raped. They say defending your life with deadly force is akin to murder. They say that most murders accrue because of homicides. They claim to once be slaves in America. And the biggest idiocy story they say is that "the parties switched philosophies" right after the GOP got the CRA, and the voting rights act passed.
Every single thing the left's ruling elite seeks to do has a single common attribute: To increase government dependence, and to make it nearly impossible to escape. They do so under the guise of benevolent compassion, but the end goal is to gain control of The People, so that they can remain in power themselves.
Well, by threatening others, the attacker loses his/her rights. My right to life trumps their right to trial.
Its easier to keep control with sweets and goodies than to use the belt. Kids are the exact same way. The spoiled ones grow up to be liberal democrats always wanting more for nothing.
Never mind that in a self-defense situation, in shooting your attacker you administer neither justice nor punishment.
The way they do it is to confiscate money from the working class to fund generating a class of poor who is utterly dependent on the government for food/shelter/security (welfare). Then, work to move the entire system further and further out of reach (minimum wage increase) so that the poor have pretty much no hope to escape their subjugation. All this under the guise of benevolent compassion (poor people need help buying food, and minimum wage is not a living wage) but for only one goal; control. Then, when thinking people realize this and object, they are labeled racists and bigots and anti-poor, when exactly the opposite is true. This was the plan, launched by LBJ, back when he said: "We'll have those (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s voting democrat for the next 200 years!" He was a scumbag, but his plan virtually locks in those who are dependent.
Is he serious? What does he propose a person do when attacked? How do you make sure to keep your attacker alive when you have no time to figure that out as you try stay alive and uninjured yourself? This is just stupid.
I did that and no comments appear but I did notice a small flash under that section that then disappeared (as if the comments were there but hidden for some reason). ... UPDATE: Now they show up.
Wanna bet. Justice is that me and my family are safe and punishment is the pain that will be inflicted at 945fps of hot expanding lead.
Well obviously you have to let them kill you so they can get their day in court. I mean, cmon, isn't the answer obvious....
Well, in some States that's probably true, that's the attitude the courts in some of these places seem to take. Remember, it often doesn't really matter so much what the law actually says. Many of the relevant laws relating to self-defense cases can be pretty open to interpretation, and the prosecutor and judge will essentially have ultimate authority over to decide what happens. The initial police detective on scene writing the report has a lot of sway too.
