Texas State Lawmaker Opposing Deadly Force Bill Shoots Would be Thief

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Texas State Lawmaker Opposing Deadly Force Bill Shoots Would be Thief


www.foxnews.com

A state lawmaker who opposed a bill giving Texans stronger right to defend themselves with deadly force pulled a gun and shot a man he says was trying to steal copper wiring from a construction site, police said Monday....

Miles, a Democrat, voted against a bill that gives Texans stronger legal right to defend themselves with deadly force in their homes, vehicles, and workplaces. The so-called "castle doctrine," passed by the Legislature this year, states that a person has no duty to retreat from an intruder before using deadly force. The law goes into effect Sept. 1.



(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   
A great example of how "It's OK for me to defend myself, but no one else should be able to".

What a hypocrite!

Wouldn't this be a great fundraiser for the NRA? I hope they jump all over this one!


www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by RRconservative


A great example of how "It's OK for me to defend myself, but no one else should be able to".

What a hypocrite!

Wouldn't this be a great fundraiser for the NRA? I hope they jump all over this one!


www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


Much like Das Rosie, a couple of years ago. She's dead set against personal firearm ownership, but it was ok enough for her body guard to be running around with a CCW.

The NRA is, according to a number of folks, in the midst of selling out to the anti-gun side with the advent of a certain bill that appears to be worded in such a way as to run willy and nilly over many subsets of American's gun rights.

So, if that is the case, I wouldn't expect too much out of them over something as silly as this. Hypocrisy has never stopped an American politician before. I mean, really, poliitical differences between myself and Dub totally aside... He doesn't have enough wits about him to realize that he no longer has the will of the people behind him... You think that something so mundane as human life is going to stop another self-serving political yo-yo from gaining his or her own political endZ?



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   
This is a typical example of things from the anti gun crowd.

Rosie O'Donnell (I am ashamed to be from Long Island now, how could we have produced such a piece of useless piece of beep?) is another example. She hates guns and wants to see all guns banned and all ownership of guns eliminated yet she has her kid go to school escorted by a bodyguard with an Uzi.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 07:28 PM
link   
RR, a star and a flag. That was the find I needed to remind myself why I hate almost all politicians equally.

And the funny part is that he voted against self defense use of a gun, but defending valuable copper wire is a whole new ball game.


People wouldn't believe fiction with somebody as two faced as that in the story.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by sigung86
The NRA is, according to a number of folks, in the midst of selling out to the anti-gun side with the advent of a certain bill that appears to be worded in such a way as to run willy and nilly over many subsets of American's gun rights.


Don't believe it.

The NRA is as staunch in its support of the Second Amendment as it ever has been.

The NRA does more to protect the Second Amendment than all the other pro-Second Amendment groups combined.

If you're going to make such a claim, you need to be more specific.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
...
The NRA is as staunch in its support of the Second Amendment as it ever has been.

The NRA does more to protect the Second Amendment than all the other pro-Second Amendment groups combined.

If you're going to make such a claim, you need to be more specific.


Sorry Grady, I didn't mean to hit one of your hot buttons. I know a fella who is a member of GOA (Gun Owners of America). They seem to be of the opinion, as I understand it, that the NRA is supporting the most current stuff. If that's wrong, my apology. I'm not really too far into that ... And you are right, I should have probably put that in my first post.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 10:41 PM
link   
I have been a member of the Gun Owners of America and I know of their hard-line stance on gun control.

However, being hard-line doesn't mean to be without good sense.

The legislation in question was written with the help of the NRA. It strengthens the already in place laws that limit gun ownership by those who have been involuntarily committed for mental illness, increases the sharing of that information between concerned agencies, and makes the standards for deeming a person to be mentally unstable more stringent.

A detailed explanation of the legislation can be found here.

www.nraila.org...

I'm not sure why the GOA opposes this legislation, unless they don't bother to inform themselves and oppose all legislation called gun control just as a matter of principle.

I know the left thinks that this is gun control, but the left is so stupid about guns that they once banned guns based on cosmetic features, instead of functional features. Then when the gun manufacturers removed the offending cosmetic features, just as the NRA said they would, the liberals got mad as hell about it.


[edit on 2007/7/12 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 03:53 AM
link   
Grady,

A little check back on my part gets me this bit of understanding. The GOA is concerned about the "nebulous" language, supposedly, who is the "authority" figures who can call you and I to task and for what mental incompetency. I, honestly, haven't delved into that much, but if what they are saying is true, then maybe everyone ought to revisit the supposed non-specificity of the bill/law.

Again, I'm sorry I hit your hot button, and I'm relatively certain that I ought to get off of my dead butt and get involved to make a difference. I am not sure how long things will go as they are and we end up losing our rights to bear arms. I read the posts, and know a bunch of people, law enforcement, and otherwise, who say that an attempt to take everyone's firearms would be met with utmost "energy". I'm just not sure that is enough, nor am I sure that would really come to pass.

I think I'm just not sure that Americans have the stomach for that kind of fight, in reality. I hope I'm wrong, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 05:13 PM
link   
It really isn't that you hit one of my buttons and you don't really have to apologize.

A clarification is all that is necessary.

Thanks





new topics
 
4

log in

join