[T.L.Sink]

Gov. Ed "fast Eddy" Rendell has now decided that Pennsylvanians have no ethical or legal right to self-defence outside their homes even when threatened by imminent bodily harm or death. According to this theory, a potential victim of violence is expected to just run away or retreat, eliminating the possibility of an encounter. This madness ignores the historical fact that from English common law to American constitutional law a fundamental right in every civilized society has been the right of the individual to defend his life and property against criminal violence. This right of self-defence is not only a timeless part of criminal law but the natural law of the created order. "Fast Eddy" might just as well try to legislate away the instinct for self-preservation!

[Cheetahcat]

When are they going to vote this worthless pigman out of office.

[stevie_d_64]

Well, you get what you voted for...

Ain’t it a shame...

Obviously, Pennsylvania will be a safer place to live now that you are not permitted to defend yourself...

Unless you are in a place of the “state’s” choosing...

When do y’all get a crack at throwing this scumbag to the street again???

If you can do it...

[DCBryan1]

LOL@purple/union states! LOSERS!

[ColdOne]

:(

[lightman]

Fifty two days until we get a REAL Governor of Pennsylvania—counting down to the end of the Philly Fats regime.

[huldah1776]

Anybody know what his future plans are?

[chris haney]

I live in Pike County and can not for the life of me understand why people would vote for a guy like this. This guy who has done nothing but cripple this state and it’s hard working people yet made it a playground for entitlement morons. I hope the working class of PA will wake up soon and vote out this AHOLE who seems determined to deconstruct our Constitution.

[4rcane]

right of self defense does not make it a right to say its self defense when its not, so I don’t know why he would oppose it unless one side with criminals

[Gay State Conservative]

Let me guess...Fast Eddy (and his family) have armed protection 24/7/365.

Am I getting warm?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

When is Ed going to give up his armed guards?

[lexington minuteman 1775]

So with a GOP governor coming in and a GOP legislature.Could this law be brought back next year and perhaps a different result?

[kromike]

a potential victim of violence is expected to just run away or retreat,

Ummmm, I have a question: what if you run away (the Obama Doctrine) and the thug chases you? Are you ordered by law to run faster? Will the Democrat Party (Lawyers) throw you in jail because you didn't try hard enough?

[freedomwarrior998]

This passed by a large enough margin to override Fast Eddie’s veto. So regardless, his veto is irrelevant.

[John D]

The Dems have Rendell, we have the Huckster. Two peas in a pod. Both pro criminal, anti victim.

[Cheapskate]

Fast Eddie seems to think that”your home is HIS castle”!

[TribalPrincess2U]

How could Pennsylvanians NOT want to defend themselves?

Glad I don’t live there.

[clintonh8r]

Lame *uck.

[Lazlo in PA]

No need to worry. The adults are in charge again. Along with signing this he will eliminate the stupid state stores. There is no reason for me having to by my liquor from the Gov't.

[sergeantdave]

Well stated, T.L.

[zeugma]

Here's what John Locke had to say about our right to self defense....

Nothing is to be accounted hostile force but where it leaves not the remedy of such an appeal [to the law], and it is such force alone that puts him that uses it into a state of war, and makes it lawful to resist him.

A man with a sword in his hand demands my purse on the highway, when perhaps I have not 12 pennies in my pocket.

This man I may lawfully kill.

To another I deliver 100 pounds to hold only whilst I alight, which he refuses to restore to me when I am got up again, but draws his sword to defend the possession of it by force. I endeavour to retake it.

The mischief this man does me is a hundred, or possibly a thousand times more than the other perhaps intended me (whom I killed before he really did me any); and yet I might lawfully kill the one and cannot so much as hurt the other lawfully.

The reason whereof is plain to see; because the one using force which threatened my life, I could not have time to appeal to the law to secure it, and when it was gone it was too late to appeal.

The law could not restore life to my dead carcass.

The loss was irreparable; which to prevent, the law of Nature gave me a right to destroy him who had put himself into a state of war with me and threatened my destruction.

But in the other case, my life not being in danger, I might Nature gave me a right to destroy him who had put himself into a state of war with me and threatened my destruction.

But in the other case, my life not being in danger, I might have the benefit of appealing to the law, and have reparation for my 100 pounds in that way.

John Locke, "An Essay Concerning the True Original Extent and End of Civil Government", Chapter 18 "Of Tyranny", #207, originally published in England, 1690.