It means that if you feel threatened by a thug, if you cannot get away from a thug, it means you don't have to surrender to a thug. You can pull out your Smith & Wesson and send that thug to either the hospital or the morgue. It's the thug's choice.
But unfortunately, the looney-tunes liberal left has it backwards. If you're a victim of a thug, it's your duty - that's the word they love to use here: DUTY - to retreat, to run away. They even went so far as to tell women who are about to be raped that it's OK to pee in your pants; maybe that act alone will scare off the bad guys. You are just not allowed to defend yourself.
“People who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if they can do so safely,” Eric Holder, our idiotic attorney general, said. “By allowing — and perhaps encouraging — violent situations to escalate in public, such laws undermine public safety.” He's on record as wanting kids "brainwashed" about gun control, in his favor:
And what happens to the victim who's not allowed to retreat? The thug with the gun draws a bead on his retreating victim and shoots him in the back. Simple, huh? All that's left to do is gather up the wallet and party with the buddies. But hey, on a positive note, the victim was allowed to pee his pants first.
So, in the wake of Trayvon Martin's death and George Zimmerman's acquittal, the Senate naturally wants hearings into the laws which allowed Zimmerman to defend himself from Martin's attack which left Zimmerman with head injuries and Martin in the cemetery. Naturally, it's a liberal senator who's calling for it: Dick Durbin. Naturally, he's from the liberal state of Illinois, where Chicago has some of the strictest gun-control laws in the country, where hundreds of people are shot and killed every year by armed thugs in one form or another. Law-abiding citizens in Chicago are not allowed to defend themselves with a gun. Hence, the high murder rate.
So, Durbin and his pals want to see about reducing or eliminating stand-your-ground laws everywhere, so the "legally-challenged" (liberal-speak for criminals) can express themselves in a public setting. Why, we can't deny a thug his state-given rights as a criminal, can we? Bob the Butcher has a right to express himself!
So, should we as law-abiding citizens back down and retreat from the face of a thug? That's exactly what Durbin wants; that's exactly what the so-called "reverends" Jackson and Sharpton want; that's what most of the liberal establishment in and out of politics want. They want the rest of us to be weak, prostrate victims, while the criminal element gets away with it.
What this writer is saying is that if a thug decides to try to harm you and yours, you pull out your Glock, your Smith & Wesson, or your Ruger - whichever you prefer - and make that thug pee in his pants! You have a right to defend yourself at any time, anywhere, by any and all means possible.