GUNS DON'T KILL

[SpeedRacerXXX]

"Last, but not least, where did I say you were trying "overturn some Texas laws"?"


From your post #122 in this thread:

My statement that you quoted : "FWIW, the "Castle Law" is one of the gun laws with which I disagree. My opinion is that if you are going to try to take someone else's life, your life should be threatened. And in this case the homeowner's life was not threatened."

Your response: "You are now living in Texas. You might want to keep "your New York law" to yourself."

From your post #139:

In other words, I don't just pick on folks with MBA's from New York, who come down here to Texas (or California) and try to give us advice on how things out to be run ... particularly when it comes to guns and shootings ....

Those 2 statements sure look like your telling me that I shouldn't be trying to change the Texas laws. And regarding your statement:

With regard to homes .... long before Mr. Wentworth became a State Senator Texas had self-defense and defense of property laws that allowed home owners and property owners to use deadly force to protect themselves, protect other people, and to protect their property. You were referencing home intrusions/invasions in your "true story"!

I agree with that statement. The question is when did Texas amend the law to allow homeowners to shoot and ask questions later in their home? In looking at it further, the Castle Law was expanded in 1995 after originating in 1973. I would still consider 1995 to be the fairly recent past. To me, when the current Castle Law came into existence has zero relevance to the discussion -- 1973, 1995 or 2007. If you consider 1995 the distant past and want to call my original statement wrong, feel free to do so. The law exists and I recognize it as the law. And I never said otherwise.

[Guest042416]

ya all great puss in texas, but ya all some fuccked up racist gun owners down there that think the civil war is still going on.
ya all lost da war baby.

[Budman]

Originally Posted by bjwstw

ya all great puss in texas, but ya all some fuccked up racist gun owners down there that think the civil war is still going on.
ya all lost da war baby.

You are a fool. Try writing in english next time.

[Yssup Rider]

All that said, there are a whole shitload of Texas laws that need overturning. Even if you take guns off the table (and put them into your little man purses, where they belong.)

[LexusLover]

[QUOTE=SpeedRacerXXX;1052109867]"Last, but not least, where did I say you were trying "overturn some Texas laws"?"




The question is when did Texas amend the law to allow homeowners to shoot and ask questions later in their home? [/QUOTE]

Until some media hound dubbed or nicknamed a self-defense law as being a "Castle Law" (which sounds rather medival to me), the provisions of the Texas Penal Code were in place regarding self-defense and the case law interpretation of the same. It was not "new law" in Texas until the Model Penal Code was adopted, which was apparently before you were born. Someone along the way thought it would be "appropriate" to amend with a provision that one has to be able to "retreat" from a threat and the case law pretty much shit-canned that in regard to homes (aka Castles??) .. which is what the original scenario was about ....

there is NO LAW in TEXAS that ...

..."allow homeowners to shoot and ask questions later in their home."

That is some Yankee MDA spin on a Texas self-defense law.

FYI: A codification of prevailing case law interpretation in the State merely establishes consistencey throughout the State to assure that a person from Houston will get treated the same as a person in Cedar Park and vice versa, rather than depending upon the DA, a Judge, or a Jury, and gives clarity to the "majority" opinion throughout the State. That does not make it "new" law ... it's an amendment to "old law" and "clarification" by codification of existing law as announced by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and various Courts of Appeal in Texas.

I'll cut Jeff some slack and say it may have been "new" to him, but he practiced little criminal law as a full time practicing attorney and at least that wasn't his "strong suit" before he jumped into politics. So if he tried to take credit for crafting and sponsoring "new law" in his campaign, I can see where that might get bought by someone who also has practiced little or no cimrinal law.

Back to shooting people legally who kick your doors in the middle of the night.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

All that said, there are a whole shitload of Texas laws that need overturning.

Memo: The one you have been concerned about was overturned by the SCOTUS.

It's ok to sodomize your BF now in Texas in the "privacy of your "castle"...

..... without criminal prosecution. Enjoy ... guilt free sodomy, YR.

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).

[i'va biggen]

I am sure you do that daily LL...

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

I am sure you do that daily LL...

If it takes posting it to remind you daily that you no longer have feel guilty about it ...

well... yes I will. But if you still feel guilty about sodomizing your BF ...

then it's a waste of time to keep reminding you that it's lawful now in Texas. Oh, wait. You're in Kansas ... it never was unlawful there, right? So, that's why you're still there!

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

If it takes posting it to remind you daily that you no longer have feel guilty about it ...

well... yes I will. But if you still feel guilty about sodomizing your BF ...

then it's a waste of time to keep reminding you that it's lawful now in Texas. Oh, wait. You're in Kansas ... it never was unlawful there, right? So, that's why you're still there!

You were the one bringing this perversion up you won't find anywhere that I do it.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

You were the one bringing this perversion up you won't find anywhere that I do it.

Nor do I. But the SCOTUS decision can be relevant to the "integrity of one's home" ...

.. if it's okay for you to put one in your BF's ass in the "sanctity" of your home ....

I ought to be able to put a couple in his chest if he kicks down the "back door" and invades the "sanctity" of my home.

"Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."

Lawrence vs. Texas, 539 U.S. at 18 (2003).

[Randy4Candy]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Still no substance to the topic:

... "GUNS DON'T KILL" ...

Are you still trying to divert attention from ...

... your ignorance?

LexusBlubber, please show me where I am in favor of banning all guns. I'll save you some time (and exertion of your limited capacity to read and understand) - I never have. Don't bother to cut'n'paste unless you do what you do best with the complete statement- in context.

You are using the typical Teawipe ploy of accusing those who disagree with you and point out your defective thought processes - accusing them of doing what you do. Screw all your talk about MBAs, go get that GED, boy.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

... please show me where I am in favor of banning all guns. ....

SweetCheeks, where did I say ....

..... you were "in favor of banning all guns"?

You're not one of those posters are you?

[Randy4Candy]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

SweetCheeks, where did I say ....

..... you were "in favor of banning all guns"?

You're not one of those posters are you?

LexusBlubber, go back and re-read your first personal attack on me and my post that precipitated your ill-reasoned ire. Since you're a Teawipe Parrotriot and all about "personal responsibility," why don't you man up and take a little.

The list grows for your New Year's Resolutions:
1. Get a GED
2. Learn to read for contextual understanding
3. Quit projecting your motivations and actions on others
4. Find a good psychotherapist for anger management and self-image issues

There remains the bright side to all of this: you can STILL kiss my ass.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

blah, blah, blah.

I see you can't. Enough said. Oh ...

... it's not a personal attack if it is true.

It's "just the facts, ma'am."

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Nor do I. But the SCOTUS decision can be relevant to the "integrity of one's home" ...

.. if it's okay for you to put one in your BF's ass in the "sanctity" of your home ....

I ought to be able to put a couple in his chest if he kicks down the "back door" and invades the "sanctity" of my home.

"Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."

Lawrence vs. Texas, 539 U.S. at 18 (2003).

Now you are shooting your BF ?You are a strange dude..