My right to safety as I offer you deadly threats in your own home

[TPaine7]

(as long as you can safely retreat.)

I am a felon. I steal things to buy drugs. Or I break and enter to raid panty drawers. Or I rape and kill women. Or I torture people and kill them for a hobby. (Which of these is actually true is none of your concern.)

I come from a disadvantaged background and never had much of a chance. Or I'm a spoiled rich brat who loves getting away with things--like a starlet who shoplifts, but with a little more edge. Or I'm an otherwise average guy who likes the thrill and power of crime.

Anyway, I like to break into houses. I have my reasons. I carry a weapon, a gun or a knife, or perhaps a bat. If I'm breaking into a elderly person's home, I may just carry my fists. Old people are easy.

I just heard a legal theory. It says that if I break into your home (to steal, rape, torture or kill--you know, do my thing--you must retreat if you safely can. You see, as the theory goes, my right to life--as I offer you a deadly threat in your own home--trumps your right to live peaceably... in your own home.

I like that theory. It can lead to some amusing results. You see the other day, I broke into a woman's home in the early afternoon. I know her schedule; she should have been at work, but she wasn't. Her car wasn't in the driveway either--maybe it was at the shop.

Anyway, the woman was just stepping out of the shower as I entered and she ran out the back door when she saw my knife. It was hysterical watching her run down the street naked. I felt safe knowing that if she'd shot me, she would have been up on charges, and that in any event guns are hard to get and require permits and cannot be at the ready for people like me. I was able to scoop up all her jewelry and split long before the cops arrived.

I am so glad that I live in one of the more refined parts of America (or in a totally refined country). And the juries here are so civilized. Most of them think a person who would dare to shoot at me is just as bad or worse than me. All the guys I met in prison agree that we live in a great place. And, to a man, we are against allowing members of the public access to guns. Hell, I like the British system. Even most police should be unarmed.

Enlightened legal theory is great. In legal terms, it says that your right to be anywhere--including your own home--doesn't trump my right to safety as I offer you a deadly threat. In practical terms, it means that I have more rights than all of you straight, uptight, "law abiding" suckers. I can go anywhere I please--including your bedroom--and I can force you to vacate by threatening you. You cannot stand your ground anywhere on earth as long as you can safely flee. You are obliged to flee and call the police. As long as I time my crimes and don't corner you, I should have a good work experience.

Ok, enough of my thoughts. What do you think of this enlightened legal theory? I hope most of you are civilized.






For the really slow people out there, I am not actually a felon.

[krispos42]

1. Oooo, this should be good

:popcorn:

[CountAllVotes]

2. whatever you are

I sincerely hope that YOU do not own a gun. You don't need one ... :puke:

[Kalidurga]

3. I doubt this is true and even if it is

an intruder in my home is going to be faced with deadly force.

[safeinOhio]

4. FBI statistics show that that would be a rare event

in our current time. Crime is down. That story is so 20th century it is just an old fear mongering tale.
Fear stories like that are the current trade of the far right wing. Be afraid of Sharia law, be afraid of brown people, be afraid of crime. Yet crime is down, no one is calling for sharia law and people of color, turns out are just like you and me.
Did this story come from Palin or Perry's campaign?

[pipoman]

7. Rare...interesting...

house fires are rare yet I and most of my neighbors have fire insurance, smoke detectors, emergency egress basement windows, fire extinguishers, etc. See, as a reasonable person, one should take precautions against rare occurrences which could result in loss. We shouldn't base our different forms of insurance on statistical probabilities, if we did there are many precautions which would be considered silly. Legislation, otoh, should always be based on statistical evidence. IOW I'll base my personal safety on anecdotal probability and public policy on statistical probability, thank you.

[safeinOhio]

16. I like your example of your neighbors.

How many of them are obsessed with insurance, smoke detectors and emergency egress basement windows? How many subscribe to magazines about the subject and join big national organizations, vote mostly on that issue, and spend hours on internet boards defending their obsessions? I think that is how most people feel about gun obsessed people. Sure, nothing wrong with having and carrying a gun. But, when it becomes a focal point in your life, it looks a little crazy to most folks.

[TPaine7]

19. What of the folks that spend hours online arguing whatever POV you will actually admit to

arguing? What do most folks think of them?

I bet most folks think they're wonderful people, don't they?

[aikoaiko]

26. I think the activities you describe are in direct reaction to the same level of obsession dedicated

to removing or reducing civilian access to firearms. Let's face it, before the 1968 Gun Control, the NRA was just a hunting, sports shooting, shooting safety organization with little political activism.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Oh shit.

I'm fire prevention obsessed.

Also earthquake preparedness obsessed.
Uh oh.. there's more.

[krispos42]

33. Many don't

They have a gun or two in the closet and a box of ammo for each. They shoot them maybe once a year.

Like, say, me.

However the politics of the issue are broad and deep. Nobody except the libertarians give a shit about mandatory smoke alarms. So there's no real debate over the issue except in certain extreme cases.

Not so with guns.

Also, the ownership of guns can be quite active. There are lots of shooting sports and activites. There is tons of history with guns. There are an infinite selection of types of guns and ammunition and calibers and bullet types. The field is constantly evolving. This makes far more dynamic than smoke detectors.

So it,s really no surprise it is talked about so much. Just like a thousand other topics out there on the Series Of Tubes

[Tuesday Afternoon]

38. if there was an organized effort to take away

smoke detectors. insurance, seatbelts, emergency egress basement windows, bicycle helmets, knee pads , , , ,etc (ad infinitum)
that you would witness more of this type of behavior.

[SteveM]

43. Oh, that is a gas. Or is that floating out from beneath my house?...

"I think that is how most people feel about gun obsessed people."

Well, lacking any data or cites to "prove" this, we are left with only how YOU feel about "gun-obsessed people," and posting frequently here.

[spin]

9. While it is true that the violent crime rate is down, we still have plenty ...

Violent Crime — General

The odds of being a victim of a violent crime during adulthood are greater than 2 to 1. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Youth Violence Research Bulletin — February 2002)

More than one in three (35 percent) of adults are estimated to fall victim to violent crime. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Youth Violence Research Bulletin — February 2002)

In 2005, U.S. residents age 12 or older experienced an estimated 23 million violent and property crimes. (U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey — September 2006)
http://www.witnessjustice.org/news/stats.cfm#violentcrime

We don't yet live in a land of milk and honey and tulips.

[SteveM]

42. "That story is so 20th Century." So that story was/is true 12 yrs. ago? nt

[TPaine7]

48. Unfortunately, there are many places that have laws like this.

And there is no shortage of Canadians and Europeans willing to teach us poor American what they don't understand themselves.

For example, one sophist undertook to explain that the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution requires a person "to flee one's home WHERE ONE CAN DO SO IN SAFETY or face prosecution."

I felt obliged to answer that brilliant and erudite statement here ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=451573&mesg_id=452021 ) and here ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=451573&mesg_id=452034 ).

Believe me, it's out there. The climate the OP describes is not an exaggeration in some states and many countries. And you may be sure that THE ENLIGHTENED ONES are trying to bring their nobility to your area, if it isn't there already.

[iverglas]

59. Of course, I'm neither a sophist nor a liar

For example, one sophist undertook to explain that the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution requires a person "to flee one's home WHERE ONE CAN DO SO IN SAFETY or face prosecution."

and I said no such thing, because, being the well-informed and well-educated and capable of critical thinking person that I am, I know perfectly well that your constitution, like any other, does not require any individual to do anything --- and I have never said what you allege I said.

As the material you linked to makes eminently clear. Your ugly false accusation that I said something that stupid is, well, ugly and false.

I believe that when you to link to things I said, and only things I said, as the basis for your ugly false accusation against an unnamed person, you make your own bed.

Perhaps you are just unfortunate in that you are genuinely unable to understand what I have said. Perhaps you intentionally misrepresented it. I wouldn't know. But you need to retract what you said.

[TPaine7]

60. I'll let the readers see for themselves. n/t

[TPaine7]

61. There is no "ugly false accusation against an unnamed person"

there is an ugly but true accusation against a named person--iverglas.

Here is the conversation

gejohnston (1000+ posts) Sat Aug-20-11 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #17

25. very sincerely
…
Expecting one to flee one's home or face prosecution the state and/or law suit by your attacker is hardly moral or civilized. But that is what duty to flee is. Being expected to give deference to thugs, especially if the alternative is not viable in the situation, is closer to law of the jungle barbarism. That is part of my liberalism. That is the best answer I can give. How you accept it is up to you.

…

iverglas (1000+ posts) Sat Aug-20-11 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #25

26. that's a nonsense
Edited on Sat Aug-20-11 10:36 PM by iverglas

Expecting one to flee one's home or face prosecution the state and/or law suit by your attacker is hardly moral or civilized.

And YOU are the one setting up the false dilemma.

Expecting one to flee one's home WHERE ONE CAN DO SO IN SAFETY or face prosecution IS EXACTLY moral and civilized. That is exactly what it is.
…

gejohnston (1000+ posts) Sat Aug-20-11 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #26

29. not even
{Quoting iverglas}Expecting one to flee one's home WHERE ONE CAN DO SO IN SAFETY or face prosecution IS EXACTLY moral and civilized. That is exactly what it is. {close quote}

Only in your less than humble opinion.
Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit.--Edward Abbey

iverglas (1000+ posts) Sat Aug-20-11 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #29

31. as I said in the thread I referred you to
it has precisely bugger all to do with my opinion. It is the "opinion" on which there is a human consensus. It is the "opinion" expressed in things like the 5th amendment to your Constitution, the Univeral Declaration of Human Rights, the constitutional Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the foundational documents of the majority of countries on earth: the inherent, inalienable right to life.

I happen to be on board with that consensus.

You apparently aren't.

Neither your opinion nor mine matters, it's just that mine is identical to human consensus, and yours is some weirdness apparently deriving from a recipe calling for excessive testosterone, abject self-interest and total ignorance of several centuries of human history.

So what is "it"--the "it" that you two have been discussing? There is only one possible antecedent to "it" in the last few posts--

Expecting one to flee one's home WHERE ONE CAN DO SO IN SAFETY or face prosecution

Substituting the antecedent into your post 31 yields:

31. as I said in the thread I referred you to
Expecting one to flee one's home WHERE ONE CAN DO SO IN SAFETY or face prosecution has precisely bugger all to do with my opinion. Expecting one to flee one's home WHERE ONE CAN DO SO IN SAFETY or face prosecution is the "opinion" on which there is a human consensus. Expecting one to flee one's home WHERE ONE CAN DO SO IN SAFETY or face prosecution is the "opinion" expressed in things like the 5th amendment to your Constitution, the Univeral Declaration of Human Rights, the constitutional Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the foundational documents of the majority of countries on earth: the inherent, inalienable right to life.

I happen to be on board with that consensus.

You apparently aren't.

Neither your opinion nor mine matters, it's just that mine is identical to human consensus, and yours is some weirdness apparently deriving from a recipe calling for excessive testosterone, abject self-interest and total ignorance of several centuries of human history.

Own your statement, iverglas. And stop pretending that I am accusing anyone else but you.

[friendly_iconoclast]

62. TPaine7, I believe you have completely demonstrated the truth of your claim n/t

And that sort of fisking approaches the level of art. Well done.

[iverglas]

63. truth

What I said that you quoted in the post you linked to:

Expecting one to flee one's home WHERE ONE CAN DO SO IN SAFETY or face prosecution IS EXACTLY moral and civilized.

The other poster referred to this as my opinion.

What you say in the post to which I am replying:

For example, one sophist undertook to explain that the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution requires a person "to flee one's home WHERE ONE CAN DO SO IN SAFETY or face prosecution."

The blatant falseness of that statement is obvious on its face and is indisputable. Had you wished to quote me directly in this thread, you had every opportunity to do so. Instead, you made up a false statement about me, by excerpting from what I said and pretending that I said it in a different sentence ... the one you made up, the significant portion of which is NOT in quotation marks.

You also quote me saying, in reply to the statement that what I had said was my opinion:

it has precisely bugger all to do with my opinion. It is the "opinion" on which there is a human consensus. It is the "opinion" expressed in things like the 5th amendment to your Constitution ...

The "opinion that Expecting one to flee one's home WHERE ONE CAN DO SO IN SAFETY or face prosecution IS EXACTLY moral and civilized is expressed in the fifth amendment to your Constitution, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life without due process.

You are perfectly aware (I give you the benefit of any doubt that you actually understood) that my argument is that the requirement that an individual who kills another individual show that it was done in self-defence is a necessary requirement in order to honour the guarantee set out in that fifth amendment. If individuals were permitted to kill other individuals with impunity, that permission would be a violation of that amendment and the 14th amendment guarantee of the equal protection of the laws.

It would mean that the state was under no obligation to enact or enforce laws against homicide. And that would be a nonsense.

Nowhere did I say what you have asserted I said:

For example, one sophist undertook to explain that the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution requires a person "to flee one's home WHERE ONE CAN DO SO IN SAFETY or face prosecution."

and you know this. I have said that the fifth amendment prevents a government from allowing individuals to kill other individuals with impunity.

The fact that you did not have the integrity to quote what I actually said, and instead decided that the blind animus you have toward me justified falsifying what I said, speaks volumes about you and only you.

[TPaine7]

68. No, iverglas, the rabbit hole cannot save you...

any more than the ivory tower can. You won't be able to fool anyone with your sophistry--at least not anyone who had a chance of understanding to start with.

The fact is, iverglas, that you and your interlocutor were totally agreed on what "it" meant:

iverglas (1000+ posts) Sat Aug-20-11 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #25

26. that's a nonsense
Edited on Sat Aug-20-11 10:36 PM by iverglas

Expecting one to flee one's home or face prosecution the state and/or law suit by your attacker is hardly moral or civilized.

And YOU are the one setting up the false dilemma.

Expecting one to flee one's home WHERE ONE CAN DO SO IN SAFETY or face prosecution IS EXACTLY moral and civilized. That is exactly what it is.

Anyone who is fluent in English--really anyone who speaks or reads English--can see what "it" means, but just for you I'll substitute the antecedent:

Expecting one to flee one's home WHERE ONE CAN DO SO IN SAFETY or face prosecution IS EXACTLY moral and civilized. That is exactly what {e}xpecting one to flee one's home WHERE ONE CAN DO SO IN SAFETY or face prosecution is.

That is not a misrepresentation of what you said, iverglas. You know it, I know it, and every moderately intelligent reader knows it. And any moderately intelligent person who reads the thread in question or my summation of it in this thread can see that your antecedent carried through to the statement you are flailing and sputtering in a vain attempt to disavow.

Had you wished to quote me directly in this thread, you had every opportunity to do so. Instead, you made up a false statement about me, by excerpting from what I said and pretending that I said it in a different sentence ... the one you made up, the significant portion of which is NOT in quotation marks.

Anyone who can read English sees that I did quote you directly in this thread, at length. I did not make up a sentence, iverglas, I placed the antecedent according to the well established rules of the language. If you are literate and mildly intelligent, you can understand that. I don't believe that even you are as stupid as you are pretending to be.

You may think Americans (and others reading this) are all fools, but you are wrong. We see through you.

the one you made up, the significant portion of which is NOT in quotation marks

It doesn't need to be in the same set of quotation marks, iverglas. It is not a misrepresentation in the slightest degree. You should know that iverglas' special rules of English grammar that apply when she needs to get out of a tight spot is an even sillier work of bullshit than iverglas' homemade definition of "inalienable" that conveniently supports her ignorant legal theories.

The "opinion that Expecting one to flee one's home WHERE ONE CAN DO SO IN SAFETY or face prosecution IS EXACTLY moral and civilized is expressed in the fifth amendment to your Constitution, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life without due process.

You are perfectly aware (I give you the benefit of any doubt that you actually understood) that my argument is that the requirement that an individual who kills another individual show that it was done in self-defence is a necessary requirement in order to honour the guarantee set out in that fifth amendment. If individuals were permitted to kill other individuals with impunity, that permission would be a violation of that amendment and the 14th amendment guarantee of the equal protection of the laws.

It would mean that the state was under no obligation to enact or enforce laws against homicide. And that would be a nonsense.

Two points, iverglas. First, I leave it to the reader to find, if she can, any SUBSTANTIVE AND RELEVANT difference between what you are pretending was the antecedent (what you put in front of the "is" and the Fifth Amendment) and what I correctly identified as the antecedent. Even (or especially) when combined with your desperate spin.

Second, your antecedent doesn't make sense in context:

Expecting one to flee one's home WHERE ONE CAN DO SO IN SAFETY or face prosecution IS EXACTLY moral and civilized. That is exactly what The "opinion that Expecting one to flee one's home WHERE ONE CAN DO SO IN SAFETY or face prosecution IS EXACTLY moral and civilized is.

That, to quote Your Sophistry, is a nonsense.

...

You got busted speaking a little too clearly. You flailed. You sputtered. You spun desperately.

Now you've lost.

Again.

Get over it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

70. Hoist on her own petard she is

[TPaine7]

71. A Primer on Integrity—for iverglas

Sometimes students who can’t learn in other ways can be lead through example. You seem to have a ember of human decency left—what else would explain your conceding that a Bible College attending, sophomoric nonsense writing chap like myself sounded like the Canadian Supreme Court? After all, the Canadian Supreme Court is a legitimate Court, a Court worth quoting, a Court about whose opinions you actually care.

I would like to believe that, in spite of the fact that that revelation undercut your claims about my argument in the OP, you were more interested in the truth than in insulting me. And your interest in the truth, no matter how slight and fleeting--and assuming I’m not misreading the situation--is quite a revelation to me. That would imply that you haven’t given your entire soul to the Field.

I have to respect that (or that possibility), I have no choice.

So in the interest of fanning your ember of human decency into a flame, I offer you the following example of how to act when you are caught in a conflict with the truth.

TPaine7 (1000+ posts) Sat Aug-27-11 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #20

38. "It is inherent as well as inalienable, recall?"
What is inalienable is the RIGHT. No one may give up that right, and the right may not be taken away from anyone. It is inherent as well as inalienable, recall?


Where should I recall that from, iverglas? It isn't in the Declaration. It isn't in any of my quotations. Are you trying to foist some "international" BS on me, some document signed by dictators, warlords and Canadians?

I see you iverglas.
Beware the Gun Control Reality Distortion Field.
Alert | Add to my Journal
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Edit | Reply | Top

Source:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x454881#455186

iverglas (1000+ posts) Sun Aug-28-11 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #38

42. Eleanor Roosevelt ...
dictator, warlord or Canadian?

http://www.udhr.org/history/Biographies/bioer.htm

Alert
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Notice that it was you, iverglas, who implied that Eleanor Roosevelt signed the document. I was talking about “some document signed by dictators, warlords and Canadians.” You asked me into which of those categories Eleanor Roosevelt fell—clearly implying that Eleanor Roosevelt signed the document.

I took the intentional or unintentional bait and bought into your implication, almost without thinking:

TPaine7 (1000+ posts) Sun Aug-28-11 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #42

45. Was Eleanor Roosevelt the only signer? Wow, iverglas.
Even if she was the only signer, what has that to do with your discredited BS? I have never debated Eleanor Roosevelt's writings with you.

Why do you always try to change the subject?
Beware the Gun Control Reality Distortion Field.
Alert | Add to my Journal
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Edit | Reply | Top

You capitalized fully on my mistake:

iverglas (1000+ posts) Sun Aug-28-11 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #45

48. quelle abject ignorance
You didn't even try to read the link I provided, did you?

Do individuals usually sign instruments produced under the auspices of the United Nations?

Yeesh. When is the actual education in law going to start? Or have you settled on computer repair?

Eleanor Roosevelt, for anyone in the vicinity without a clue, was one of the prime movers -- some might say the prime mover -- behind the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights at the UN.

Of course it must be admitted ... the first draft was indeed written by a Canadian.

Snork.
Alert
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

I responded by resisting your attempt to change the subject:

TPaine7 (1000+ posts) Sun Aug-28-11 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #48

53. Good for you!
I am right on the subject under discussion. Your arguments on the subject at hand lie in pieces at my feet.

Your are (for the sake of discussion only) correct on Eleanor Roosevelt's contribution to an instrument "produced under the auspices of the United Nations."

I hope you are very impressed with yourself.

You are ignorant on what you loudly proclaim to anyone unfortunate enough to listen. You are ignorant on what you followed me around like a lost puppy asking me to acknowledge--the subject of your ignorant and uncouth rantings. You are ignorant on what you claim expertise in.

I am (according to you) ignorant on something I haven't made a statement on yet. We're all ignorant on something, iverglas. People like me, who are not ignorant on things we loudly and persistently proclaim, have the advantage of not being fools as well.

Congratulations on your alleged knowledge of Eleanor Roosevelt's contributions.

Good for you!

But in another subthread, when you pressed your advantage, I frankly admitted my mistake. That’s right, MY mistake. I didn’t wiggle or try to put any of the blame on you. I just admitted my mistake, as off subject and absent-minded as it was:

TPaine7 (1000+ posts) Sun Aug-28-11 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #39

49. Less like taking candy from a baby and more like taking a bunny from a baby rattlesnake
Edited on Sun Aug-28-11 03:13 PM by TPaine7
I'm not smug, iverglas. Far from it. I'm alternately bored, tired and sad. Sometimes I almost feel guilty.

Why would I feel smug about refuting the BS that passes for logic under the Field?

It actually helps my cause to have the clueless rantings and vulgar insults of the rights opponents stay posted for all to read. Why do you think I quote your words so often?

But I don't feel smug or especially smart for refuting erudite and nuanced assertions like "there is no right to self-defense... duh" or the learned claim that inalienable means "'not subject to forfeiture', for fucks sake." Refuting your drivel actually makes me feel bad sometimes; it seems like stealing candy from a baby. But then I recall that you're opposing the human rights of people in another country and realize that it's more like taking a bunny from a baby rattlesnake. After all, there are innocent people who might actually be impressed by your self-important, smug, pseudo-intellectual bluster.

I'm quite humble, actually. Buffing my floor to a high sheen with your "arguments" is not exactly an accomplishment. I honestly think I could have done it in Jr. HS, so how could I possibly be impressed with the fact that I can do it now?! If I were arrogant, I might make myself some glorious title. You know, something like...

The God of Truth and Beauty

(Or The God of Truth and Manly Good Looks--you get the idea.)
Beware the Gun Control Reality Distortion Field.
Alert | Add to my Journal
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Edit | Reply | Top

iverglas (1000+ posts) Sun Aug-28-11 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #49

52. and you think Eleanor Roosevelt signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Wait for it .......




















SNORK.
Alert
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

TPaine7 (1000+ posts) Sun Aug-28-11 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #52

56. Wow. You've got me there, iverglas.
I guess I did, not that I gave it much thought.

So what?

Show me where I followed you from thread to thread, trying to goad you into answering my post on Eleanor Roosevelt's connection to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, would you? Show me where, after my argument about her was demolished, I stubbornly refused to admit it, would you?

(That last one will be tough, since I admitted it in the first two sentences of this post, but I have learned not to underestimate Your Sophistry.)

You see, iverglas, I can gladly admit when I'm wrong. This is due to a severe character flaw of mine:

in•teg•ri•ty
    Show IPA
noun
1.
adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty.

Read the OP slowly and carefully. Get help if you need it. If you understand it and agree (not screaming, "It's INALIENABLE, can't you F***ing read" and the like will probably help your reading comprehension) why not try admitting it? In a post? Why not try out that integrity stuff for yourself? Just for a change of pace?

(Bonus: People who acknowledge their errors tend to remember the lessons and don't look as stupid in the future. For example, in a year, you might not be caught spouting the same "'inalienable' means not subject to forfeiture" BS and have to be redirected to this thread, whereupon you will promptly "not care.")

Seriously, think about it. Integrity (probably) won't kill you.
Beware the Gun Control Reality Distortion Field.

That, as I tried to explain to you then, is integrity.

Compare and contrast your performance above.

[TPaine7]

18. It's good to know your thoughts...

If I have a gun, I'll be getting rid of it now. If I don't, I'll avoid getting one in the future.

Thanks so much for telling me what I don't need!

[PavePusher]

22. Your Sarcasometer needs recalibration.... n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

34. He owns several.

Read the entire post. He is a law-abiding person who is describing a strict gun banned, duty-to-retreat legal system as viewed by a violent felon.

[TPaine7]

39. For the record, I have never claimed, on this or any other site, that I do or do not own guns. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

55. Sorry. My apologies. I thought you had. N/T

[TPaine7]

56. No biggie. n/t

[SteveM]

41. But that's his bidness! It is YOU who should not have a gun.

;-)

[Uben]

5. You obviously don't live in Texas or you'd be dead

The CAstle Doctrine allows me to end your escapade at my doorstep if you try to take my stuff, and you can bet your ass I have the firepower to do it. Do I have the will? Try me! I don't like the law, I love it! Thieves beware, you can die instantly!

[iverglas]

28. my friend, Texas does not have "castle doctrine" laws

However, if a thief is running across your lawn and making off with your prized pencil, you are allowed to shoot them in the back.

[TPaine7]

32. Not if it's daytime, iverglas. You're leaving the wrong impression.

Don't make it sound worse than it is.

I actually agree that you shouldn't be able to shoot an escaping thieves in the back (with very rare exceptions, like maybe if they stole your medicine and there's no way for you to get more in time to save your life or some such extreme case).

[MicaelS]

65. You are wrong, Texas DOES have a Texas Castle Law

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00378F.htm (This is SB378 aka Castle Doctrine Law which Amended the Penal Code AND the Civil Practice and Remedies Code.)

http://www.rc123.com/texas_castle_doctrine.html (I include this one because it is a bit more readable.)

Here's the link to the Amended Penal Code: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY / CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

Here's the link to the Amended CIVIL PRACTICE AND REMEDIES / CODE TITLE 4. LIABILITY IN TORT / CHAPTER 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CP/htm/CP.83.htm

[jpak]

6. More Gun Hero Wannabee Fantasy Bullshit

:rofl:

[spin]

10. Simple reality. Go back to sticking your head in the sand. (n/t)

[oneshooter]

67. I am not really sure that it is sand into which it is stuck into. n/t

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rl6214]

17. More head in the sand coddle the criminal Bullshit

Where was there anything in that post about guns or a hero wannabee?

You need to improve your reading skills above the second grade level.

[SteveM]

44. Well, he had to make it up for your amusement. You irony-deficient?

:D

[Hoopla Phil]

50. Funny creative writing there.

Much appreciated for the story.

yup

[DWC]

8. Excellent post. we need more like it.

If the Law is on the side of violent criminals and opposes the rights and safety of law abiding citizens, there is something seriously wrong with the Law.

Semper Fi,

[ileus]

12. You're a gop/nra greedy impolite toter gunner, you just want to be ugly to the disadvantaged.

Stop being mean to people...it's time you share your blood, life, wife, kids, and material possessions. Just say no to the gun industry, they've tricked you into believing people with harmful intent are out there.

[DanTex]

13. I'm a militant gun owner.

I spend most of my time fantasizing about violent crime. Some days it's a rapist jumping in a window. Other days it's a drug gang kicking down my front door. The only consistent thing is that every hour of every day, there is an image of violence flashing before my eyes. And then of course, there's me, the big hero, who shoots down the bad guy and saves the day.

Now, like most gun militants, I've never actually used my gun to prevent a serious crime. In fact, given the split-second decision making and the unprecedented adrenaline surge, it's doubtful that it would play out anything like my fantasies. What I have done, more than once, is brandish a gun when someone looked at me the wrong way (of course, I embellish the story a bit when hanging with my gun buddies, but who among us doesn't play up their tales of glory). Like this one time, on the way home from work, I thought a guy was tailgating me. So I gave the guy the finger, then pulled over at the next traffic light and went all Clint Eastwood on his ass.

"A man's got to know his limitations", I told him. Hahaha. Then I flashed the 45, and I bet he figured out some limitations pretty quick. I should say, she, because it turns out it was actually a mother with her two kids. But I bet that 12-year old learned some limitations. Actually, I should call him Johnny, my 12-year old nephew -- I can't believe I didn't recognize my sister-in-law! Whatever, the point is, I don't believe in avoiding conflicts. I believe in winning conflicts. Gotta let'em know who is boss.

On the other hand, while none of my various guns have ever protected my from a serious crime, there's a decent chance that my gun obsession has, at some point, led to an accident where me or someone I care about has been injured. But hey, a little danger is the price of safety, donchaknow...

[ileus]

14. Preach it to these baser, impolite two gun toting OC,CC terrorist wannabes

[Tuesday Afternoon]

15. .

[rl6214]

21. I'm an anti-gun zealot

I spend most of my time whining about something that is protected by the Bill of Rights. Most days I'm just hanging out in my moms basement, playing dungeons and dragons or playing on the internet when she lets me.I really don't have much knowledge about the subject but I do know all the talking points the Brady Campaign, the VPC and mayors against gun violence put out. I play on line all day long, spouting out the same worn out lines over and over and over again, ridiculous as they sound. Dosen't matter to me that I sound like a worn out old record. The only consistent thing is that every hour of every day, I'm down in the basement playing on the internet (as long as my mom lets me).

Now, like most anti-gun zealots, facts and rights mean absolutely nothing to me, because I either don't know the facts or am totally unwilling (or unable) to understand what they are. What I have done though, is repeat the same childish fantasies I make up over and over and then when it gets a bit too much for me I start slinging the insults, veiled at first but then after a while I just start calling people names then end up in a vulgar hissy fit. I normally won't act this way in public because I am afraid of what might happen to me but this one time, on the way home from work, I thought a guy was tailgating me. So I gave the guy the finger, then pulled over when I saw the first police car and hid behind the police.

It really dosen't matter to me that gun control is a losing idea, heck every time I look there is another law being passed that gives more and more rights to the "gunners" as I like to call them. "A man's got to know his limitations", I tell my friends (ok, my friend, I only have one) and I know that I can't do anything at all about gun control since no one in my party is pursueing gun control at all. But as long as my mom will let me, I will do whatever I can down in the basement to make a difference.

On the other hand, while I don't have any idea whether guns have ever protected anyone from any serious crime, there's a decent chance that my anti-gun obsession will have absolutely no impact on public policy. Hell, it has probably led to someone being injured, robbed, raped or even murdered but I really don't care as long as I feel morally superior to everyone else. My anti-gun zealotry may even lead to the demise and defeat of the democrat party in the next elections but I DON'T CARE. But hey, I'm willing to take that chance, donchaknow...

[DanTex]

23. Awww, not even an original Eastwood quote?

Nobody ever accused gunners of being creative types...

[rl6214]

24. Why would I quote Eastwood

I'm an anti-gun zealot.

[petronius]

25. "It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he's got, and all he's ever gonna have. "

Which is part of what rrneck was saying just below, really.

(What's an "original quote", by the way? Is that like an 'authentic replica'? Ironic that you demand a quote as evidence of creativity, when the OP itself is an example of creative writing... :P )

[Tuesday Afternoon]

36. face/palm

you gotta be fucking kidding me.

[SteveM]

47. Beware making accusations of uncreativity. nt

[SteveM]

46. Tell me. I gots to know. nt

[RSillsbee]

30. Just an FYI

Like this one time, on the way home from work, I thought a guy was tailgating me. So I gave the guy the finger, then pulled over at the next traffic light and went all Clint Eastwood on his ass.

"A man's got to know his limitations", I told him. Hahaha. Then I flashed the 45, and I bet he figured out some limitations pretty quick. I should say, she, because it turns out it was actually a mother with her two kids. But I bet that 12-year old learned some limitations.

There is not a single state in the country where what is described above is not 100% illegal. In Colorado they would have you ass if you provoked a fight then used a gun to get out of it.

[Logical]

40. You are the typical anti who uses emotions and not facts. Once again.....

prove more guns = more crime. I will be waiting.

[SteveM]

45. Dan, you are a warm, flat Tecate next to a cool foamy Guinness. nt

[DanTex]

52. Very nice.

[SteveM]

53. Does sound good. Think I'll get one (the latter) right now.

:-)

[Hoopla Phil]

51. Are your toters poking out too?

[ileus]

58. I bet he's a rude open carry intimidator poker holder.

[Hoyt]

69. LMAO. Yeehaw.

[rrneck]

20. There are any number of reasons

why I wouldn't want to shoot you. It would cause me to have to do a whole lot of explaining to the authorities probably through a very expensive mouthpiece. And the stakes are very high since I'm risking incarceration if I pull the trigger by mistake or do it wrong and hurt an innocent bystander. Even if I'm justified in shooting you the friends and relatives you leave behind may come looking for me or at least make my life a living hell.

I pay taxes for police protection and a legal system that was supposed to keep you from trying to assault me but failed to do so and its not fair that I may have to assume liability under the same legal system that failed to protect me. It's not my fucking job to single handedly clean up society's mistakes.

But those are the most basic of reasons to not shoot. I may not know you but I know you were a child once and along the way things happened to you in your life to make you who you are. As a member of the society that no doubt failed you I bear some responsibility for your condition. I know I failed you and if I shoot you I will have failed you again.

I really do care about you no matter what you've done or what you plan to do to me. I care because every life is precious and I hope your future will be better than your past but if I shoot you a great opportunity will have been lost for both of us. That's why killing people is wrong, not because of what we know but because of what we will never get the chance to find out.

So you see I have any number of reasons to not shoot you, and I only need one. That's why I will wait as long as I can before I pull the trigger. Don't make me choose between my life and yours because whatever I decide to do the consequences will be disastrous for both of us.

And as for all the petty bureaucrats, lying politicians, arrogant mandarins, obtuse academics, sanctimonious ideologues, sheltered bourgeois aesthetes, and other sundry Monday morning moralists who have much to say and little to do with how I have to fight for my life; if you won't be there to help me when I need it - fuck you.

[iverglas]

27. do the women of your acquaintance

commonly shower with their firearms?

Okay, maybe the fetishists, but the regular ones?

[TPaine7]

31. No,

But if my victim had had one readily accessible, somewhere within easy reach in her home, things might not have turned out so well. That is, if the law were not so fully on my side.

I read a horror story once regarding a showering woman in a barbaric part of America--where the rights of home invaders are less respected. The guy actually got her in the shower and had a knife to her throat. She pretended to cooperate with his intended rape, then somehow got away from him for a second in her bedroom and got her vile hands on a gun--a gun that wasn't locked in a safe or properly disabled. That evil ***** actually held him at gunpoint and forced him to call the police on himself! The nerve. The cops should have arrested her!

My fellow criminals in other places have it tough, but there are people fighting for us. People like you. Come on, publicly proclaim your support.

Don't be shy.

[GreenStormCloud]

35. A few weeks ago there was a thread about a crime like that.

I started the thread. The woman was in the shower, rapist broke in, he forced her into the bedroom, she had two guns in the bedroom, she grabbed one and shot him until she ran out of ammunition. He died in the backyard. The post included a link to her 911 call.

[TPaine7]

37. Shame on you, bringing actual facts and an actual case history into this. Some people! n/t

[TPaine7]

57. Come on, iverglas! I expected a full-throated defense of felon's rights...

as in this thread (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x451573 ) your post 29--soundly refuted in posts 36 and especially 37.

Aren't you still a strong supporter of home invader's rights? Isn't keeping them safe as they do their work one of your guiding principles as you've shown over and over, as in this thread ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=275101&mesg_id=275101 ) with key posts highlighted for the reader's convenience here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=453338&mesg_id=454170 ) and in my journal? Who will stand for the unfortunate gentleman thug if not you?

Why the toned-down approach? Are you feeling down? Are the mod's not meeting with your approval?

Awwwwwwwwww!

[GreenStormCloud]

64. Don't you mean her post # 26? N/T

[TPaine7]

66. Indeed I do. Thank you! n/t

[Hoopla Phil]

49. My brother was illegally shot by a home owner while he was just plying his trade.

He died but his final work related incident is going to take care of the rest of us. See we just won a lawsuit against that vial vigilante for 300K. Tomorrow I'm going down to the Mercedes dealership and pick out a new convertible.

[SteveM]

54. Does it have Thug-a-Matic Drive? nt