James Brady, former White House press secretary, has died

[M14 Shooter]

Look, I don't care if you were shot, stabbed, castrated, beaten, verbal lot abused or whatever. It doesn't give you the right to deprive me or anyone else of our rights.

It's as if you are saying "I don't care if you get trampled, gored, suffer broken bones or a heart attack, nothing is going to stop me from exercising my 1st amendment right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater!"

Once your right to own a gun, carry a gun and fire a gun in public has been extended to wounding and killing someone else, your rights don't count for a bucket of spit.

Shouting "fire" in a theater endangers others. My right to own a firearm endangers no one. Huge difference.

A difference they refuse to understand.
Not that they cannot understamd, not that they do not understand, but that they refuse to understand.

 

[Nosmo King]

More lies - you know that no one has ever made that claim.


...when someone engages in speech that harms others or places them in a condtition of clear, present and immeidate danger


True.
Now, show how simple ownership/possession of a firearm harms others or places them in a condtition of clear, present and immeidate danger

post #18 this thread.

Post #18.... what?

Proves that your "At least you can still proudly pack heat, regardless of the circumstances" - statement is NOT a lie? How?

Illustrates how simple ownership/possession of a firearm harms others or places them in a condtition of clear, present and immeidate danger? How?

I'm sorry, but you'll have to be more clear.

Those of us not brought up in the gun culture are rightfully intimidated by the presence of guns. Particuarly if those guns are carried by citizens. It's because we have had many interactions with citizens and they have not consistently been pleasant. Road rage, hot tempers, bar fights and rude behavior in public places have been more common occurrences unfortunately.

Add the specter of gunplay and suddenly life is cheap and the wounded are disdained. Yeah. I said it. The evidence of that disdain are on display in this thread.

In the eyes of us who are not living in the gun culture see policies like open carry, concealed carry, and the Georgia 'guns everywhere' legislation serve to make potential bad situations into the reason there is a coroner's inquest.

Clear and present danger? Certainly a legitimate reason to leave a public venue when a citizen shows up packing.

And you will cite this as merely 'emotional thinking'. Bit I ask you, isn't your motivation to carry a gun in public equally emotional? I am arguing from fear of a hot head getting their hands on a gun in a bad situation and so do you. Fear drives you need to carry a gun.

You will say your motivation is strict adherence to the constitution and the free and open exercise of your rights. But if your rights impact others, are you not then abusing your rights? Shouting "FIRE!" in a theater instills fear just like the sight of an AR-15 does.

In the end, it's all about emotion.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Those of us not brought up in the gun culture are rightfully intimidated by the presence of guns. Particuarly if those guns are carried by citizens. It's because we have had many interactions with citizens and they have not consistently been pleasant. Road rage, hot tempers, bar fights and rude behavior in public places have been more common occurrences unfortunately.

Add the specter of gunplay and suddenly life is cheap and the wounded are disdained. Yeah. I said it. The evidence of that disdain are on display in this thread.

In the eyes of us who are not living in the gun culture see policies like open carry, concealed carry, and the Georgia 'guns everywhere' legislation serve to make potential bad situations into the reason there is a coroner's inquest.

Clear and present danger? Certainly a legitimate reason to leave a public venue when a citizen shows up packing.

And you will cite this as merely 'emotional thinking'. Bit I ask you, isn't your motivation to carry a gun in public equally emotional? I am arguing from fear of a hot head getting their hands on a gun in a bad situation and so do you. Fear drives you need to carry a gun.

You will say your motivation is strict adherence to the constitution and the free and open exercise of your rights. But if your rights impact others, are you not then abusing your rights? Shouting "FIRE!" in a theater instills fear just like the sight of an AR-15 does.

In the end, it's all about emotion.

You make your point about your own fears but I'm not sure what you expect other people to do about that?

What part of "My human rights are non-negotiable is so hard to understand?"

Substitute your discomfort with guns with discomfort of women having the vote. In order to make you comfortable all women have to give up the vote.

If you don't like that example, use one focused on someone's speech - in order to make you comfortable, some class of people must be denied the right to speak their mind.

As with speech rights the path for you is a simple one - if you don't wish to own a firearm, then don't own one. Period.

 

[Nosmo King]

Those of us not brought up in the gun culture are rightfully intimidated by the presence of guns. Particuarly if those guns are carried by citizens. It's because we have had many interactions with citizens and they have not consistently been pleasant. Road rage, hot tempers, bar fights and rude behavior in public places have been more common occurrences unfortunately.

Add the specter of gunplay and suddenly life is cheap and the wounded are disdained. Yeah. I said it. The evidence of that disdain are on display in this thread.

In the eyes of us who are not living in the gun culture see policies like open carry, concealed carry, and the Georgia 'guns everywhere' legislation serve to make potential bad situations into the reason there is a coroner's inquest.

Clear and present danger? Certainly a legitimate reason to leave a public venue when a citizen shows up packing.

And you will cite this as merely 'emotional thinking'. Bit I ask you, isn't your motivation to carry a gun in public equally emotional? I am arguing from fear of a hot head getting their hands on a gun in a bad situation and so do you. Fear drives you need to carry a gun.

You will say your motivation is strict adherence to the constitution and the free and open exercise of your rights. But if your rights impact others, are you not then abusing your rights? Shouting "FIRE!" in a theater instills fear just like the sight of an AR-15 does.

In the end, it's all about emotion.

You make your point about your own fears but I'm not sure what you expect other people to do about that?

What part of "My human rights are non-negotiable is so hard to understand?"

Substitute your discomfort with guns with discomfort of women having the vote. In order to make you comfortable all women have to give up the vote.

If you don't like that example, use one focused on someone's speech - in order to make you comfortable, some class of people must be denied the right to speak their mind.

As with speech rights the path for you is a simple one - if you don't wish to own a firearm, then don't own one. Period.

It's not ownership, it's the carrying of guns in public. This society is a ruder one than the society I grew up in. In that society, people did not feel the fearful need to carry guns in public with them. And that's the difference.

Own a gun. Have the time of your life with it. Hunt, shoot skeet, shoot paper targets or rusty cars or drums of water. Just don't bring it with you to the mall or church or tavern.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's as if you are saying "I don't care if you get trampled, gored, suffer broken bones or a heart attack, nothing is going to stop me from exercising my 1st amendment right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater!"

Once your right to own a gun, carry a gun and fire a gun in public has been extended to wounding and killing someone else, your rights don't count for a bucket of spit.

You are waging war on civil rights. You toss out Brady and Giffords to support your war against civil rights, but your dedication to stripping Americans of civil liberty are not based on Giffords or Brady, they are just convenient to your cause.

Others have demonstrated their irresponsibility in claiming that Congresswoman Giffords and Press Secretary Brady lost NO RIGHTS after being wounded by one of their fellow gun loving nuts. I maintain that the Congresswoman and the Press Secretary lost their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness after bullets ripped through their skulls.

The liberty of free speech can be curtailed for public safety reasons. The 2nd amendment holds no immunity in the same vein. Once public safety is compromised, the right to own, carry and fire a gun is worthless and SHOULD be curtailed.

You are a complete idiot. You do not understand what "rights" means. Rights are guaranteed by the government. They are infringed by the government. You do not lose your right to property because someone breaks into your house and steals something. On the contrary, your property right is guaranteed because when the thief is found he is prosecuted by the state on your behalf.

 

[The Rabbi]

Those of us not brought up in the gun culture are rightfully intimidated by the presence of guns. Particuarly if those guns are carried by citizens. It's because we have had many interactions with citizens and they have not consistently been pleasant. Road rage, hot tempers, bar fights and rude behavior in public places have been more common occurrences unfortunately.

Add the specter of gunplay and suddenly life is cheap and the wounded are disdained. Yeah. I said it. The evidence of that disdain are on display in this thread.

In the eyes of us who are not living in the gun culture see policies like open carry, concealed carry, and the Georgia 'guns everywhere' legislation serve to make potential bad situations into the reason there is a coroner's inquest.

Clear and present danger? Certainly a legitimate reason to leave a public venue when a citizen shows up packing.

And you will cite this as merely 'emotional thinking'. Bit I ask you, isn't your motivation to carry a gun in public equally emotional? I am arguing from fear of a hot head getting their hands on a gun in a bad situation and so do you. Fear drives you need to carry a gun.

You will say your motivation is strict adherence to the constitution and the free and open exercise of your rights. But if your rights impact others, are you not then abusing your rights? Shouting "FIRE!" in a theater instills fear just like the sight of an AR-15 does.

In the end, it's all about emotion.

You make your point about your own fears but I'm not sure what you expect other people to do about that?

What part of "My human rights are non-negotiable is so hard to understand?"

Substitute your discomfort with guns with discomfort of women having the vote. In order to make you comfortable all women have to give up the vote.

If you don't like that example, use one focused on someone's speech - in order to make you comfortable, some class of people must be denied the right to speak their mind.

As with speech rights the path for you is a simple one - if you don't wish to own a firearm, then don't own one. Period.

It's not ownership, it's the carrying of guns in public. This society is a ruder one than the society I grew up in. In that society, people did not feel the fearful need to carry guns in public with them. And that's the difference.

Own a gun. Have the time of your life with it. Hunt, shoot skeet, shoot paper targets or rusty cars or drums of water. Just don't bring it with you to the mall or church or tavern.

How is carrying a gun rude? Women breastfeed in public. I consider that rude. Carrying guns? Not so much.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's not ownership, it's the carrying of guns in public. This society is a ruder one than the society I grew up in. In that society, people did not feel the fearful need to carry guns in public with them. And that's the difference.

Own a gun. Have the time of your life with it. Hunt, shoot skeet, shoot paper targets or rusty cars or drums of water. Just don't bring it with you to the mall or church or tavern.

What country did you grow up in?

When I was young, people even in the Peoples Republic of California carried guns all the time. Most pickup trucks had a gun rack with a rifle or two. My did kept a revolver in the glove box. Of course none of us had ever heard of a mass shooting, those didn't start until the Communists passed a bunch of laws outlawing guns.

Open carry was common until at least 1980. Not in the cities, but in the suburbs and rural areas it was very common.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Those of us not brought up in the gun culture are rightfully intimidated by the presence of guns. Particuarly if those guns are carried by citizens. It's because we have had many interactions with citizens and they have not consistently been pleasant. Road rage, hot tempers, bar fights and rude behavior in public places have been more common occurrences unfortunately.

Add the specter of gunplay and suddenly life is cheap and the wounded are disdained. Yeah. I said it. The evidence of that disdain are on display in this thread.

In the eyes of us who are not living in the gun culture see policies like open carry, concealed carry, and the Georgia 'guns everywhere' legislation serve to make potential bad situations into the reason there is a coroner's inquest.

Clear and present danger? Certainly a legitimate reason to leave a public venue when a citizen shows up packing.

And you will cite this as merely 'emotional thinking'. Bit I ask you, isn't your motivation to carry a gun in public equally emotional? I am arguing from fear of a hot head getting their hands on a gun in a bad situation and so do you. Fear drives you need to carry a gun.

You will say your motivation is strict adherence to the constitution and the free and open exercise of your rights. But if your rights impact others, are you not then abusing your rights? Shouting "FIRE!" in a theater instills fear just like the sight of an AR-15 does.

In the end, it's all about emotion.

You make your point about your own fears but I'm not sure what you expect other people to do about that?

What part of "My human rights are non-negotiable is so hard to understand?"

Substitute your discomfort with guns with discomfort of women having the vote. In order to make you comfortable all women have to give up the vote.

If you don't like that example, use one focused on someone's speech - in order to make you comfortable, some class of people must be denied the right to speak their mind.

As with speech rights the path for you is a simple one - if you don't wish to own a firearm, then don't own one. Period.

It's not ownership, it's the carrying of guns in public. This society is a ruder one than the society I grew up in. In that society, people did not feel the fearful need to carry guns in public with them. And that's the difference.

Own a gun. Have the time of your life with it. Hunt, shoot skeet, shoot paper targets or rusty cars or drums of water. Just don't bring it with you to the mall or church or tavern.

OK, you're an immigrant. We can make allowance for you not understanding American values.

What you're arguing is similar to the following: "Women should have the right to speak, they can speak in their homes, in their cars, to their female friends and to family, but once out in public women shouldn't have the right to speak." What we have here is a constrained right - it can only be exercised under very constrained conditions. You're doing the same with firearms.

People carry because of a need for protection. Your right to self-defense is something that attaches to you at the moment you are born and it sticks with you until the moment you die. There are no places where that right to self-defense becomes invalid.

You don't have to like it, just like I don't like the fact that liberals get the right to vote, but we have to live with these kinds of things. Liberals have the right to vote, mistaken or not, they've got it. People have the right to own and carry firearms, whether you like it or not. I don't complain and suggest that liberals be stripped of their right to vote because I know that this would violate their human rights. Your arguments about stripping people of their right to self-defense and to carry a firearm are cut from the same cloth.

 

[Rikurzhen]

It's not ownership, it's the carrying of guns in public. This society is a ruder one than the society I grew up in. In that society, people did not feel the fearful need to carry guns in public with them. And that's the difference.

Own a gun. Have the time of your life with it. Hunt, shoot skeet, shoot paper targets or rusty cars or drums of water. Just don't bring it with you to the mall or church or tavern.

What country did you grow up in?

When I was young, people even in the Peoples Republic of California carried guns all the time. Most pickup trucks had a gun rack with a rifle or two. My did kept a revolver in the glove box. Of course none of us had ever heard of a mass shooting, those didn't start until the Communists passed a bunch of laws outlawing guns.

Open carry was common until at least 1980. Not in the cities, but in the suburbs and rural areas it was very common.

I watched an old John Wayne movie where he's a pilot on a passenger plane flying from Hawaii to San Francisco and some passenger pulls a handgun and starts waving it around. Ordinary as can be. Sure, it's a movie, but movies are based on cultural norms.

My older male relatives tell stories about pick-up trucks with gun racks on the back window. Some drove these trucks to their high school and kept them parked in student parking all day long. Another recalls walking down the street with his .22 as a 10 year old kid to go do some shooting in a field or small forest. He passed people on the street and no one had a conniption.

 

[JoeB131]

Gun crime is only a problem for the minority. Americans love their guns and Bill of Rights.

-Geaux

Gun ownership is down to 35% of households... down from 50% back in the 1980's.

It's really going out of style.

You can tell this by the fact that gun sales are at an all time low.


{More than 8.57 million guns were produced in 2012, up 31 percent from 6.54 million in 2011, according to data released this week by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which has been tracking the statistics since 1986. }

i mean, you of the Khmer Rouge would never blatantly lie, would you Comrade Stalin?

Gun sales are up because the gun industry is getting you fools to arm yourselves like the Zombie Apocalypse is coming. But less regular normal families want these things in their houses.

 

[Bill Angel]

What you're arguing is similar to the following: "Women should have the right to speak, they can speak in their homes, in their cars, to their female friends and to family, but once out in public women shouldn't have the right to speak." What we have here is a constrained right - it can only be exercised under very constrained conditions. You're doing the same with firearms.

People carry because of a need for protection. Your right to self-defense is something that attaches to you at the moment you are born and it sticks with you until the moment you die. There are no places where that right to self-defense becomes invalid.

While one does have a right to self protection, how one exercises this right is subject to examination and review by society. I was in situation recently where I was threatened by someone on the street because I would not give him any money (he was simply panhandling. He was not a robber or a mugger.) He was bigger, stronger, and younger than me, and he raised his fist above his head and leaned back like he was going to inflict a severe blow to my head. But he was unarmed. If I had been armed, and pulled out my handgun and shot him it's quite likely, based on the results of a trial of a similar situation in my city, where the fellow who felt threatened shot and killed his assailant, that I would be spending the next 25 years in prison. I just kept on walking, which fortunately resolved the situation non-violently.

 

[Pogo]

What you're arguing is similar to the following: "Women should have the right to speak, they can speak in their homes, in their cars, to their female friends and to family, but once out in public women shouldn't have the right to speak." What we have here is a constrained right - it can only be exercised under very constrained conditions. You're doing the same with firearms.

People carry because of a need for protection. Your right to self-defense is something that attaches to you at the moment you are born and it sticks with you until the moment you die. There are no places where that right to self-defense becomes invalid.

While one does have a right to self protection, how one exercises this right is subject to examination and review by society. I was in situation recently where I was threatened by someone on the street because I would not give him any money (he was simply panhandling. He was not a robber or a mugger.) He was bigger, stronger, and younger than me, and he raised his fist above his head and leaned back like he was going to inflict a severe blow to my head. But he was unarmed. If I had been armed, and pulled out my handgun and shot him it's quite likely, based on the results of a trial of a similar situation in my city, where the fellow who felt threatened shot and killed his assailant, that I would be spending the next 25 years in prison. I just kept on walking, which fortunately resolved the situation non-violently.

Point well taken. I had guns pulled on me only once. I was not carrying; had I taken the attitude of the firearm fantasy and figured I was entitled to enact vigilante justice just because some stranger accosts me I wouldn't have made it to the next day (they turned out to be cops but never identified themselves as such).

Both incidents underscore the reality that violence is not the remedy to violence.

 

[Pogo]

It's not ownership, it's the carrying of guns in public. This society is a ruder one than the society I grew up in. In that society, people did not feel the fearful need to carry guns in public with them. And that's the difference.

Own a gun. Have the time of your life with it. Hunt, shoot skeet, shoot paper targets or rusty cars or drums of water. Just don't bring it with you to the mall or church or tavern.

What country did you grow up in?

When I was young, people even in the Peoples Republic of California carried guns all the time. Most pickup trucks had a gun rack with a rifle or two. My did kept a revolver in the glove box. Of course none of us had ever heard of a mass shooting, those didn't start until the Communists passed a bunch of laws outlawing guns.

Open carry was common until at least 1980. Not in the cities, but in the suburbs and rural areas it was very common.

I watched an old John Wayne movie where he's a pilot on a passenger plane flying from Hawaii to San Francisco and some passenger pulls a handgun and starts waving it around. Ordinary as can be. Sure, it's a movie, but movies are based on cultural norms.

-- or perhaps vice versa.

 

[M14 Shooter]

post #18 this thread.

Post #18.... what?

Proves that your "At least you can still proudly pack heat, regardless of the circumstances" - statement is NOT a lie? How?

Illustrates how simple ownership/possession of a firearm harms others or places them in a condtition of clear, present and immeidate danger? How?

I'm sorry, but you'll have to be more clear.

Those of us not brought up in the gun culture are rightfully intimidated by the presence of guns.

So... your ignorance makes you afraid. So what?

You said "At least you can still proudly pack heat, regardless of the circumstances". This is a lie.

If you cannot show how simple ownership/possession of a firearm harms others or places them in a condtition of clear, present and immeidate danger, then your attempt to link constitutionally acceptable limitations on speech to similarly constitutionally acceptable limitations on the right to arms necessarily fails.

Clear and present danger? Certainly a legitimate reason to leave a public venue when a citizen shows up packing.

Only if you suffer from an irrational fear of guns - in your case, one based on ignorance.

And you will cite this as merely 'emotional thinking'. Bit I ask you, isn't your motivation to carry a gun in public equally emotional?

Anti-gun lloons ike you keep telling us that gun-related violence is so bad that we need to further restrict the rights of the law abiding; if indeed gun related violence is that bad, then it is only reasonable and prudent to carry a gun for self-defense to meet the threat so demonstrated.

You will say your motivation is strict adherence to the constitution and the free and open exercise of your rights. But if your rights impact others, are you not then abusing your rights?

The simple exercise of the right to own/possess a gun harms no one, nor places anyone in a condition of clear, present and immediate danges -- and thus, affects your rights in no way.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What you're arguing is similar to the following: "Women should have the right to speak, they can speak in their homes, in their cars, to their female friends and to family, but once out in public women shouldn't have the right to speak." What we have here is a constrained right - it can only be exercised under very constrained conditions. You're doing the same with firearms.

People carry because of a need for protection. Your right to self-defense is something that attaches to you at the moment you are born and it sticks with you until the moment you die. There are no places where that right to self-defense becomes invalid.

While one does have a right to self protection, how one exercises this right is subject to examination and review by society. I was in situation recently where I was threatened by someone on the street because I would not give him any money (he was simply panhandling. He was not a robber or a mugger.) He was bigger, stronger, and younger than me, and he raised his fist above his head and leaned back like he was going to inflict a severe blow to my head. But he was unarmed. If I had been armed, and pulled out my handgun and shot him it's quite likely, based on the results of a trial of a similar situation in my city, where the fellow who felt threatened shot and killed his assailant, that I would be spending the next 25 years in prison. I just kept on walking, which fortunately resolved the situation non-violently.

Point well taken. I had guns pulled on me only once. I was not carrying; had I taken the attitude of the firearm fantasy and figured I was entitled to enact vigilante justice just because some stranger accosts me I wouldn't have made it to the next day (they turned out to be cops but never identified themselves as such).

Both incidents underscore the reality that the answer to violence is never greater violence.

I see -- so, do you disagree with the right to use deadly force in self-defense?

 

[Pogo]

While one does have a right to self protection, how one exercises this right is subject to examination and review by society. I was in situation recently where I was threatened by someone on the street because I would not give him any money (he was simply panhandling. He was not a robber or a mugger.) He was bigger, stronger, and younger than me, and he raised his fist above his head and leaned back like he was going to inflict a severe blow to my head. But he was unarmed. If I had been armed, and pulled out my handgun and shot him it's quite likely, based on the results of a trial of a similar situation in my city, where the fellow who felt threatened shot and killed his assailant, that I would be spending the next 25 years in prison. I just kept on walking, which fortunately resolved the situation non-violently.

Point well taken. I had guns pulled on me only once. I was not carrying; had I taken the attitude of the firearm fantasy and figured I was entitled to enact vigilante justice just because some stranger accosts me I wouldn't have made it to the next day (they turned out to be cops but never identified themselves as such).

Both incidents underscore the reality that the answer to violence is never greater violence.

I see -- so, do you disagree with the right to use deadly force in self-defense?

Nope.

What I disagree with is the mentality of, as the analogy goes, putting out a fire with gasoline.

 

[S.J.]

What you're arguing is similar to the following: "Women should have the right to speak, they can speak in their homes, in their cars, to their female friends and to family, but once out in public women shouldn't have the right to speak." What we have here is a constrained right - it can only be exercised under very constrained conditions. You're doing the same with firearms.

People carry because of a need for protection. Your right to self-defense is something that attaches to you at the moment you are born and it sticks with you until the moment you die. There are no places where that right to self-defense becomes invalid.

While one does have a right to self protection, how one exercises this right is subject to examination and review by society. I was in situation recently where I was threatened by someone on the street because I would not give him any money (he was simply panhandling. He was not a robber or a mugger.) He was bigger, stronger, and younger than me, and he raised his fist above his head and leaned back like he was going to inflict a severe blow to my head. But he was unarmed. If I had been armed, and pulled out my handgun and shot him it's quite likely, based on the results of a trial of a similar situation in my city, where the fellow who felt threatened shot and killed his assailant, that I would be spending the next 25 years in prison. I just kept on walking, which fortunately resolved the situation non-violently.

Point well taken. I had guns pulled on me only once. I was not carrying; had I taken the attitude of the firearm fantasy and figured I was entitled to enact vigilante justice just because some stranger accosts me I wouldn't have made it to the next day (they turned out to be cops but never identified themselves as such).

Both incidents underscore the reality that violence is not the remedy to violence.

Bullshit alert.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Point well taken. I had guns pulled on me only once. I was not carrying; had I taken the attitude of the firearm fantasy and figured I was entitled to enact vigilante justice just because some stranger accosts me I wouldn't have made it to the next day (they turned out to be cops but never identified themselves as such).

Both incidents underscore the reality that the answer to violence is never greater violence.

I see -- so, do you disagree with the right to use deadly force in self-defense?

Nope.
What I disagree with is the mentality of, as the analogy goes, putting out a fire with gasoline.

Uh--huh.
Someone with a knife can inflict less violence than someone with a gun.
If someone attacks with a knife, do you disagree with using a gun in self-defense?

 

[M14 Shooter]

While one does have a right to self protection, how one exercises this right is subject to examination and review by society. I was in situation recently where I was threatened by someone on the street because I would not give him any money (he was simply panhandling. He was not a robber or a mugger.) He was bigger, stronger, and younger than me, and he raised his fist above his head and leaned back like he was going to inflict a severe blow to my head. But he was unarmed. If I had been armed, and pulled out my handgun and shot him it's quite likely, based on the results of a trial of a similar situation in my city, where the fellow who felt threatened shot and killed his assailant, that I would be spending the next 25 years in prison. I just kept on walking, which fortunately resolved the situation non-violently.

Well, lesse...
He clearly threatened you with bodily harm
He clearly had the means to inflict this harm upon you.
Did you have reason for fear for you life?

If so, then you had the right to use deadly force to protect yourself -- having means to cause harm in nio way necessitates that he have a weapon.

 

[The Rabbi]

While one does have a right to self protection, how one exercises this right is subject to examination and review by society. I was in situation recently where I was threatened by someone on the street because I would not give him any money (he was simply panhandling. He was not a robber or a mugger.) He was bigger, stronger, and younger than me, and he raised his fist above his head and leaned back like he was going to inflict a severe blow to my head. But he was unarmed. If I had been armed, and pulled out my handgun and shot him it's quite likely, based on the results of a trial of a similar situation in my city, where the fellow who felt threatened shot and killed his assailant, that I would be spending the next 25 years in prison. I just kept on walking, which fortunately resolved the situation non-violently.

Well, lesse...
He clearly threatened you with bodily harm
He clearly had the means to inflict this harm upon you.
Did you have reason for fear for you life?

If so, then you had the right to use deadly force to protect yourself -- having means to cause harm in nio way necessitates that he have a weapon.

Thank you, that is the case. It would have been a legitimate case of self defense, as outlined. Disparity of force.
Anti gun forces are propelled by ignorance and fear.