A Texas Gun Nut
- Thread starter ib1yysguy
- Start date
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
You can't lay that at the feet of gun owners. It was commercial hunting and trapping and the unregulated use of pesticides that had such a dire impact on our native wildlife.
In modern years we've depended on hunters to keep certain species populations in check and with hunting becoming less and less of a passed on tradition some species are overpopulating with the result that some big carnivores are making a come back.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Why is it you wingnuts are the ones with the sub standard IQ and, generally speaking are dumber than shit. Where's Canadian Kid when you need him?
Well let us Yankee's up north lecture to a red-neck Texan. When you go to school (that's a place people go to get educated) you learn that there is this thing called the "rule of law" and for this rule of law to work, people just can't take the law into their own hands and start meeting out justice.
Now in Texas it may be ok to shoot a couple of hapless burglars or lynch the odd niger or two, but those of us who live in civilized regions prefer the rule of law to the rule of rednecks, which, as we have seen for the last 8 years, is pretty fucking inept.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
read and learn well, motleydumbass.
I was born and raised in NORTHERN ILLINOIS. I'm not a redneck. In fact, i'm a yankee just like YOU. I was an Air Traffic Controller, so I'm educated and most likely a hell of a lot more intelligent than you.
So here is your world life lecture on the 'rule of law'. If one breaks the law by stealing other peoples hard earned material possessions and I walk out in front of you with a gun and tell you to freeze, you'd best freeze. While i'm holding the gun and waiting for the police to come take your sorry asses to jail, don't get ballsy and think you can charge me or run away. You will get shot. In Texas, we have the legal RIGHT to use deadly force to prevent the loss of property. We have the RIGHT to use deadly force to prevent a felony from taking place or stopping a felony in progress.
Your 'civilized' world of letting criminals walk away with shit that doesn't belong to them because you prefer to elevate a group of people as 'better than you' is your fucking problem, not mine. If you wish to consider yourself a 2nd class citizen that NEEDS to be governed and shepherded around so you can feel safe, that is your issue but it will not be mine, neither here or back in Illinois, should I ever get stupid enough to move back up there with the ignorance of the midwestern yankee subset.
C
Cancel3
Guest
Hunters did plenty of damage to the environment 100 years ago.
Since then they have done more good for the environment than any other single group.
C
Cancel3
Guest
1b, You want to make it sound as though its a simple matter of murder versus the value of a stereo.
Talk to anyone who has been the victim of a breakin and ask them if the monetary value of the items lost are what is worst.
Victims of breakins know that the sanctity and safety of their homes is what has been destroyed.
If you don't feel safe at home, exactly where would you expect to feel safe?
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
You are fucking retarded if you're going to say this guy was justified in killing a man over property.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
We live in a Lockean society. You have the right to shoot someone in defense of your property. If you don't like that, there are societies which do not respect property rights that you can go live in.
Okay, you're nuts. Your house is your castle, not a fucking court room. And your property is a sacred right, one of the the Lockean principles upon which America was built.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
and you're really fucking retarded by saying that it's ok to take someone elses property.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
This really gets me fired up. People may snipe back and forth about patriotism and Americanism, but I consider whether or not you value Lockean Natural Rights as the pre-eminant deciding factor as to whether or not you are "American." If you bash property, for example, you automatically paint yourself as unAmerican.
C
Cancel3
Guest
How about waiting until I actually SAY this guy was justified.
I was addressing your comment about killing someone over possessions. And my comment still stands on that topic.
Socrtease
Verified User
Just for everyone's edification including STY, deadly force is NOT authorized in the newly amended Texas code which is as follows:
SECTION 3, Article 9.32, Texas Penal Code, was amended to read as follows:
“(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.”
This comes from a website of a texas Criminal Defense Lawyer. it is at http://www.johntfloyd.com/comments/december/09a.htm and it discussed the Horn case pretty clearly.
SECTION 3, Article 9.32, Texas Penal Code, was amended to read as follows:
“(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.”
This comes from a website of a texas Criminal Defense Lawyer. it is at http://www.johntfloyd.com/comments/december/09a.htm and it discussed the Horn case pretty clearly.
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
Jesus, are you trying to be this stupid or are you actually this dumb?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Well if you are educated and not a redneck quite writing like some ignorant dumb fuck Reagan fired.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I'm sorry but that's a statement you can't defend.
It was commercial hunters that were pretty much responsible for killing off vast numbers of wildlife some to extinction. Though sport and subsistance hunters did not do much of the damage and some of their groups are good examples of environmental advocacy groups who have helped maintain wildlife habitats most of that credit goes to Teddy Roosevelt who implemented our national parks systems and who helped create a cultural shift about preserving wildlife and habitats in our nation by primarily creating the national park system, by regulating hunting and by educating the public about the importance of the conservation wildlife and wetlands habitats.
Farmers on the other hand have a larger impact on environmental issues by far than hunters. The worst ecological disaster in our history was due to the poor farming practices on the great plains which precipitated the dust bowl years of the 1920's and 30's. Another ecological catastrophe occurred because farmers did not understand the relationship with the pesticides they were using and their ecological impact.
That's not to mention industrial impacts on our environmnet. One, just one, coal strip mining/power plant operation can have a staggering and far reaching impact on our environment.
So though most hunter advocacy groups do very important work on environmental issues (and I don't count the NRA amongst them) and should be applauded for their efforts. I wouldn't over-state their importance as you did.
C
Cancel3
Guest
I think I can defend that quite easily. The fees and extra taxes paid by hunters and fishermen are a huge part of a state's conservation budgets. The money that hunters spend is a huge portion of many area's income.
But the main point is the money put directly into most state's conservation and wildlife programs. In fact, many states would be hard pressed to have any sort of wildlife conservation programs without the money hunters and fishermen provide.
I'll do a more thorough search later in the day when my work is less pressing.
But one fact that I recall off the top of my head is that hunting licences alone have put $3 billion into state coffers since 1923. Granted that is an extended period of time, but it is also a significant sum of money.
C
Cancel3
Guest
It is amazing how much money hunters and fishermen put into state wildlife fund and into the general economy.
Yep, and they charge modest fees compared to some other states. It is cheaper for me to hunt deer in Kentucky than it would be for someone out of state to hunt deer here in OK.....and I would rather hunt deer in Kentucky.