Return with us now, to the thrilling days of yesteryear....

POSTED BY: Dayve
UPDATED: Thursday, March 27, 2025 23:01
VIEWED: 4183
PAGE 1 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

DAYVE

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 3:35 PM

The old west is alive and well in the Lone Star. Soon, we’ll all be wearing side arms and toting shotguns everywhere we go. This is just another indication of the continuing decline of this so-called civilization.

Imagine, picking up your order from a restaurant and discovering that someone forgot to cut the onions on your burger… just whip out the old six-shooter and blast away… “but, I felt threatened by onion breath…”

Scary times, dude.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/storie
s/032007dntexcastle.2b5ab61b.html

Bill expanding self-defense rights zips through House

Legislature: Measure heads to Perry despite prosecutors' worries

11:49 PM CDT on Monday, March 19, 2007

By KAREN BROOKS / The Dallas Morning News
kmbrooks@dallasnews.com

AUSTIN – A self-defense bill opposed by prosecutors across the state breezed through the House on Monday and is expected to be on the governor's desk by the end of the week.
The legislation, pushed by gun-rights advocates in several states, will allow any law-abiding citizen who feels threatened by someone to kill that person without first trying to get away, prosecutors say.

The bill is an extension of the current "castle doctrine" in Texas, under which a homeowner has the right to shoot an intruder to protect himself. The new legislation extends that to anywhere a person "has a right to be," according to the bill.

Prosecutors say that means cars, jobs, parks, malls, street corners or anywhere else a person might feel threatened. Lawmakers say that interpretation is too broad.
The bill was approved by the House on a voice vote Monday with no debate; the Senate unanimously approved it last week. The House is expected to give final approval today before sending the measure to the governor.
The bill makes three major changes to current law. First, it extends the "castle doctrine" beyond the home. Second, it protects a person from being sued by his attacker – or the attacker's family – for injuries if the shooter was found to have been acting in self-defense.

KANEMAN

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 3:48 PM

Shit, you post this like it's a bad thing. Intruders should be shot. I say cheers to Texas. Who the hell has a right to go into someones home uninvited? I say blast away. It just may deter a whacked out homosexual on Ecstasy from going into someone else's house to steal some gentleman's wife's make-up. Maybe.

GEEZER

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 4:00 PM

Well, you could always move somewhere safer, like Washington, D.C., where gun ownership is just about banned. Only 44 murders per 100,000 population per year (as of 2003) as opposed to a soaring 18.4 in wild west Dallas...ummm, maybe in wilder west Houston. Nope - 13.6. San Antonio - 7.0. Austin, 4.0. El Paso - just 3.6.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004902.html

The whole "Castle doctrine will make it High Noon all day" routine has shown itself pretty bogus in places where it has been passed. This is mainly because law-abiding citizens are law-abiding anyway, and don't shoot people for trifles, whereas law-breakers are gonna shoot people whether there's a law or not.

Since you apparently think "Castle doctrine" is a bad idea, you no doubt have statistics on increases in shootings in states where it has been passed. I'd like to see them.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

DAYVE

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 4:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
going into someone else's house

kman, read the whole story... this new law, if passed, will mean open season on anyone who you feel threatened by, ANYWHERE!

I totally agree that defending your family in the home should be legal, but down on the street corner?? just shooting someone because you feel threatened... dude, this is a whole different can of worms... even if the worms deserve it.....

DAYVE

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 4:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Well, you could always move somewhere safer......

Geezer, sometimes moving is not an option.

Quote:
....Since you apparently think "Castle doctrine" is a bad idea,

As far as the Castle Doctrine goes, I do not oppose it, but the extention worries me. This state (TX) already has it's fair share of licensed gun carriers - and also it's fair share of totally batshit crazy rednecks - sooner or later that combination will spell disaster.

ARCLIGHT

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:05 PM

YyeeeeHhaaawwww! I loves being a Texican. Now it gets even better. The next time one of those “peace loving, left headed, alGoreian cultist, street corner protesters threatens to “bash” me with his profanity laced placard, I get to shoot the miserable bag of puss. LEGALLY! It’s a dream come true.
The whole “If you let citizens carry guns they will kill everything that moves” argument has failed to materialize resoundingly. Everywhere across the country it just hasn’t happened. I don’t think that will change by expanding the “castle law”. People, however, may start treating each other a bit more polite. I got no problem with that

GEEZER

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dayve:
As far as the Castle Doctrine goes, I do not oppose it, but the extention worries me. This state (TX) already has it's fair share of licensed gun carriers - and also it's fair share of totally batshit crazy rednecks - sooner or later that combination will spell disaster.

You might want to read the Law and form your own opinion, not what prosecutors and the paper say about it. Take your pick of formats here.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=80R&Bill=S
B378

Also check the legislature's analysis of the bill at the same link.

Basically, if someone is trying to murder you, kidnap you, rape you, or rob you using violence, you have the right to defend yourself with deadly force without having to try to retreat first. Also, if you're cleared of wrongdoing in a self-defense situation, you cannot be civilly sued for your actions.

The reason so many of the "Duty to retreat" clauses in self-defense laws are being reversed is because they have been used by some anti-gun prosecutors to charge people in such situations who did not do stuff such as jump out windows or retreat to rooms with no other exits.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:19 PM

Other countries that own even more guns per head (Canada for instance) have far lower gun crime. Most firearms are illegal in the UK and the violent crime rates are much lower.

There's something seriously wrong with the Gun culture of the states that isn't going to be solved by making it legal for law abiding citizens to shoot each other for telling someone to "fuck off".

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dayve:

kman, read the whole story... this new law, if passed, will mean open season on anyone who you feel threatened by, ANYWHERE!

I like this better than the other way around; you break an attacker's leg and get sued for defending yourself.

Life is extremes, it seems Chrisisall

DAYVE

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
You might want to read the Law and form your own opinion, not what prosecutors and the paper say about it.

Thanks for the link. Actually, I have formed my own opinion (i am capable of doing so, thank you)... The article from Dallas Morning News was current and seemed like a Real World topic worth discussing - maybe not.

But, can you imagine a world without guns? I know mankind would find a way to kill someone just as dead without one, but if you could just stop laughing for a second and think about what a difference there would be in this country, at least, if it were not so easy to end a life with the squeeze of a trigger... I know it will never happen, but it's not a totally unreasonable idea. (for me anyway)...

Quote:
Basically, if someone is trying to murder you, kidnap you, rape you, or rob you using violence, you have the right to defend yourself with deadly force without having to try to retreat first. Also, if you're cleared of wrongdoing in a self-defense situation, you cannot be civilly sued for your actions.

Ok, no-brainer, I get it. If I were in a situation where i felt my life was threatened, i would try to protect myself by any means possible, regardless of laws - But, I still believe there will be abuses of this expanded version of the law and the potential is there for innocent lives to be lost....

Quote:
ARCLIGHT
People, however, may start treating each other a bit more polite. I got no problem with that

You could very well be right - hope so...i'm not ready to go back to dueling in the streets...

1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE