Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Illinois: Phelps files to override Quinn's amendatory veto of concealed carry bill. [View all]gejohnston
(17,502 posts)69. To put it very simple
"unarmed" is often a misnomer. The equivalent of 29.7 Sandy Hooks every year are with bare hands.
If you kill in the defense of your life and/or physical safety, you are morally justified. That is a natural right, and a human right.
And how is it that losing a fight is justification to kill someone? People get in fist fights all the time. Only the nut jobs and homicidal killers pull out guns. I used to get in fights with a couple of boys in my grade school (okay, I know you're not surprised). I certainly never pulled out a gun. The fact the boy was six inches taller and 30 lbs heavier than me meant I had my hands full, but it wouldn't have justified my killing him.
It was not a fist fight, it was a "ground and pound". Once again, the reasonable fear of grave bodily harm or death, there is every moral right to pull the trigger. No exceptions.
If this guy

attacks this guy
with his bare fists, there is a disparity of force. Meaning, the fact that Matt does not have an artifact in his hand is irrelevant. The disparity of force is enough to give Chris a reasonable fear for his personal safety. Mr. Hayes has every legal and moral right to do whatever it takes to survive including blowing his redneck ass away with a .357. Why is that so hard to grasp? Under every law in North American recognizes that. Most likely every law in the world recognizes that. The Dali Lama agrees with that. You might be a complete pacifist, but Chris Hayes nor anyone else has no moral obligation to die for something you believe in. I find that morally repugnant and disgusting.
I don't care about speculation and myth that is assumed to be fact. This is the reality:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=127220
It has nothing to with justice for Trayvon or anyone else. It has some to do with ideology like I said before
My view is this, I have no tolerance for ideologues on the right or the left that that mindlessly believe whatever Free Republic or Raw Story tells them and can't accept the reality of the situation. If that makes me a poor progressive, so be it.
That is my bottom line. Unless you have proof that John Good or any of the other witnesses lied, Angela Corey would be more than happy to have it. Until then, spare me.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
72 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Illinois: Phelps files to override Quinn's amendatory veto of concealed carry bill. [View all]
ExCop-LawStudent
Jul 2013
OP
Nice to see a Democrat taking the lead here on behalf of IL citizens' rights. n/t
appal_jack
Jul 2013
#2
"People here...insist the right to guns trumps every other right." No, they don't.
friendly_iconoclast
Jul 2013
#36
Until some *human* uses one to harm another, guns just sit there doing nothing.
friendly_iconoclast
Jul 2013
#50
Looks like *someone* is conflating 'number' with 'rate'- and throwing in an associational fallacy...
friendly_iconoclast
Jul 2013
#65
"There are over 506 documented cases of CCW holders killing someone" Which proves they're...
friendly_iconoclast
Jul 2013
#53