Chucktshoes

Then please explain how these words, your words, do not impart a duty to retreat? That is a damn near textbook definition of a duty to retreat.

Nope Pincus doesn't at all. Your statements draw me to a different conclusion. Maybe I am misreading your words, but the portions I have bolded read to me as an endorsement of a duty to retreat. Considering that the legal threshold for use of deadly force is the reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, to say that the opportunity/ability for retreat or the ability to provide the opportunity for the criminal to retreat means that one's "life isn't really in danger" would therefore impart a duty to retreat on the victim. The danger to life exists from the moment the criminal begins their act of violence, not when the victim has no ability to flee.

[quote name="RobertNashville" post="1022814" timestamp="1377707998"] If the criminal is still able to disengage (if given the opportunity) and/or if the victim can safely give ground then your life isn't [i]really[/i] in danger - it may be only a moment [i]from[/i] crossing that "line" but it's still not quite there yet; if it were then it wouldn't be possible for either to disengage safely. There is nothing "moral" about using deadly force against someone if you don't have to do so...there is nothing heroic or "right" about "standing your ground" if you can give ground safely and defuse the situation. Obviously, if you can't do so safely then you can't and I've not said otherwise or suggesting otherwise. The absolutely very best gunfight you can possibly have for you...for your loved ones...for innocents who may be nearby...[b][i]is the one you were able to avoid.[/i][/b][/quote]You sound as if you are approving of imposing a duty to retreat on the victim. You say that there nothing moral about using deadly force against someone you don't have to, I would say that there is nothing immoral about using that deadly force against someone who is engaging in an immoral act. When the criminal chose to engage in their criminal act, they made their choice and must live (or die) with the consequences of that choice. Much like my job as a manager, if I have to terminate an employee it is due to their actions. I didn't fire them, they fired themselves. Whenever a criminal ends up dead due to the victim engaging in self defense, regardless of whether or not the victim could have avoided the gunfight, they bear no moral responsibility for the criminal's demise. It is nothing more than the criminal committing suicide by poor victim selection.

Once again I find myself at the nexus of things that shouldn't be joked about and things that I find funny, also know as, why I am going to hell. :lol:

Grace Potter and the Nocturnals put on a hell of a live show. http://youtu.be/oHlhOgQ36m8

C'mon! There's plenty of room on the couch for ya.

:wave:

Just gonna leave this here. http://www.dailypaul.com/296858/yahoo-news-1-30-13-us-backed-plan-to-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-on-syria-blame-it-on-assad-govt?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailypaul%2FFClq+%28The+Daily+P.Au.L+-+Peace+%7C+Gold+%7C+Love%29

At least I'm consistent. :D

That just makes me think of Nirvana lyrics (In Bloom).

No. No. Yes.

I absolutely agree with what you have said here. Even though I understand the rules of the game and am adept at working within their constraints, I despise the race game and how it is played. The main reason I try keep attuned to these black conservative and libertarian voices is that living where I do and having the conversations that I do, it can be beneficial to have a resource that allows someone who looks like the person I am talking to saying the same things I am. This is especially true when I am speaking about the manner in which the party of Jim Crow and slavery used the programs of Johnson's Great Society to put black folks back on the plantation. Only this time instead of growing cotton they are growing voters.

If you are expecting one of the Left's "spokesperson for black folks" to do that you will be waiting a looooong time. It doesn't fit their agenda and even when they do speak of it they say at most that it "should be frowned upon." I would say that if you haven't heard any black folks condemn any of these incidents you might want to look around and seek out the words of folks like Col. Allen West (Ret), Rachel Zo of Zonation, Dwayne at Blackinformant, Dr. Walter E. Williams and the plethora of other black conservatives and libertarians out there who don't get much face time on any major media outlet. There are lots of black voices speaking truth to the black community. It is just that most of us don't have the opportunity to hear those voices because we aren't part of that community either by geography or by choice to keep the "other" at arms length. Of course black folks aren't so monolithic a group as the media or our minds would have us believe. I personally know as varied a spectrum of thought amongst my friends of color as the bunch of saltines I generally hang with.

Before anyone goes and gets their panties in too big of a bunch, I didn't know this was ever in question? The Founding Fathers were extremist insurgents who at times engaged in acts of terrorism (Boston Tea Party!) by the modern definitions. The ideas of personal freedom and individual liberty are extremist ideas when you look at the larger picture of man's historical involvement with its mortal enemy, the state. The notion that a person is the best determiner of how to live his/her life and that the role of the state is only to protect the ability to live by those choices without forceful infringement by others is a wholly and completely radical idea. Those who will compromise and not proudly wear the badge of extremist in the defense of liberty are not your friend, they are your enemy.

Sweet!

Fair point. :lol:

That sounds like a missed marketing potential if I ever heard one.

I'm not quite sure how this made the news? Who calls the cops when they get free weed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4KfJztaJ5I

Can't wait to go troll the hipster bars while wearing it. :lol:

I DO. Maybe to a lesser extent but it would still be happening. The NSA would still be spying on us(much like they did under Bush) and the other government organizations would still be abusing their power.

I am Spartacus.

Be careful! It almost sounds like you might almost be criticizing St. Ronnie!