Adak, I think you are misunderstanding what is known as "the castle doctrine" which most "stand your ground" laws are based on. I believe it had more to do with protecting one's home or "castle." I don't follow your connection to people being conscripted to serve in battle. I also think it worth noting that current UK laws have no such provision and that a home owner defending his/her home with a weapon is most likely breaking the law!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/cele...ith-knife.html
I also don't understand your claim that AG Holder is a liar. I thought his speech was pertinent and extemely personal as to his experinces as a black man.
Origin of Castle Doctrin laws from Wikipedia:
According to 18th-century Presbyterian minister and biblical commentator Matthew Henry, the prohibition of murder found in the Torah contains an exception for legitimate self-defense. A home defender who struck and killed a thief caught in the act of breaking in at night was not guilty of bloodshed. “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the thief owes no blood-debt to the home-defender; but if the thief lives, he owes a blood-debt to the home-defender and must make restitution.”[7][8]
The American interpretation of this doctrine is largely derived from the English Common Law as it stood in the 18th century. In Book 4, Chapter 16[9] of William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, he states that the laws "leave him (the inhabitant) the natural right of killing the aggressor (the burglar)" and goes on to generalize in the following words: And the law of England has so particular and tender a regard to the immunity of a man's house, that it stiles it his castle, and will never suffer it to be violated with immunity: agreeing herein with the sentiments of ancient Rome, as expressed in the works of Tully;[10] quid enim sanctius, quid omni religione munitius, quam domus unusquisque civium?[11] For this reason no doors can in general be broken open to execute any civil process; though, in criminal causes, the public safety supersedes the private. Hence also in part arises the animadversion of the law upon eaves-droppers, nusancers, and incendiaries: and to this principle it must be assigned, that a man may assemble people together lawfully without danger of raising a riot, rout, or unlawful assembly, in order to protect and defend his house; which he is not permitted to do in any other case.
—William Blackstone,*Commentaries on the Laws of England