A Texas Gun Nut

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..

LOL

The law is what the law is, no matter what Locke thought. Locke never even spoke on the use of deadly force to defend property. But almost everyone state reserves deadly force exclusively for defense of life or limb - as it should be in any civilized society. This is not the wild west.

The Texas statue was the only one in the nation that allowed you to murder to RECOVER property even if they're no danger and aren't in your "castle", and I believe Soc just said it's been amended. Let's just face it - anyone willing to murder over a piece of property is a dangerous individual that shouldn't walk the street.
 
all you panty wetting liberals with your 'life is most important' crap, and it is CRAP, are the reason why we have the high crime rate and 8 year olds killing their parents. spare the rod, spoil the child, spanking is abuse, do anything to avoid self esteem, and the one I hate the absolute most is 'just give them what they want'. FUCK THAT!!!!!

This is Texas, damn it, and if you try to take shit that don't belong to you, you deserve to have your ass killed.

You are getting hysterical.

America has by far the toughest laws in the developed world and in response we have the highest crime rates. Tough laws do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop crime. If anything, by justifying violence, they brutalize and dehumanize a society and make it more prone to crime.
 
was it their stereo? then they shouldn't have been trying to steal it. If more people were killed outright when they attempt to steal, there would be less theft.

QUOTE]

Having no theft wouldn't be worth the murder of a single individual.

I don't subscribe to consequentialist morality. The ends don't justify the means.
 
Last edited:
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.

Over the entire US an amazing amount of damage was done by all kinds of humans.

Hunters way overhunted in the early days of the US. The new conservation era has put a stopper on that though.
 
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.

I'm sorry but about every three years Clean Harbors does more for the environment then all the hunters in your state have done for your State since 1923. The farmers in any median size county in your State have done more for the environment, in that time period, then all the hunters have (discounting the fact that manner farmers hunt.) in your State have.

Again, I'm not down playing the contribution of hunters (the sporting variety). It's significant and should be appreciated but in the grand scheme of things, there small players.
 
I support putting murderers in prison.

Cool well legally that guy is not a murderer. Nor should he be.

Honestly what fucking planet are you pussies from? Of course you should be able to shoot someone in defense of property.

Don't like that rule? Don't fuck with my property.
 
Cool well legally that guy is not a murderer. Nor should he be.

Honestly what fucking planet are you pussies from? Of course you should be able to shoot someone in defense of property.

Don't like that rule? Don't fuck with my property.

You don't have a right anywhere in the country to shoot someone over someone else's property when you're not endangered. That makes him a murderer.
 
Cool well legally that guy is not a murderer. Nor should he be.

Honestly what fucking planet are you pussies from? Of course you should be able to shoot someone in defense of property.

Don't like that rule? Don't fuck with my property.

Don't like the law?

Getting ready to be assraped in prison. Justice served.

What planet do these barbarians come from?
 
That guy was cleared by a jury, I don't know what you're talking about.

I'm not even a conservative, I just hate your pussified idiocy.
 
That guy was cleared by a jury, I don't know what you're talking about.

I'm not even a conservative, I just hate your pussified idiocy.

I'd like to see whatever case you're looking at. A guy walks out of his house with a gun, walks across the yard to his neighbor's property, shoots a man with someone else's stereo. How is that anything but murder? He wasn't threatened. He wasn't protecting his property. He went looking for a fight and killed a man that posed no risk to him.
 
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.

There's no such thing as natural rights.
 
I'd like to see whatever case you're looking at. A guy walks out of his house with a gun, walks across the yard to his neighbor's property, shoots a man with someone else's stereo. How is that anything but murder? He wasn't threatened. He wasn't protecting his property. He went looking for a fight and killed a man that posed no risk to him.

This is the case that we are both looking at. The jury reached a responsible, commendable decision.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/01/nation/na-shoot1

A grand jury here today cleared a Pasadena, Texas, man in the shooting deaths of two suspected burglars as they left his neighbor’s house – a case that stirred a national debate over whether the man was a vigilante or a hero.

Joe Horn, 62, shot the men on Nov. 14 after calling authorities and declaring his intention to kill them with his 12-gauge shotgun.

The 911 audiotape captured multiple warnings by the dispatcher, asking Horn to stay inside and telling him that “property’s not worth killing someone over.” However, Horn grew agitated because the men looked like they were going to get away before police arrived. As the tape rolled, Horn went outside, shouted “Move, you’re dead!” and fired his weapon.

The incident outraged some Houston activists, who staged protests in the neighborhood and argued that if Horn – who was not arrested – was not white and his victims were not dark-skinned, he would have been taken to jail immediately. The controversy grew when authorities disclosed that the two victims, Diego Ortiz, 30, and Hernando Riascos Torres, 38, were illegal immigrants.

Harris County Dist. Atty. Kenneth Magidson said today that he understood “the concerns of some of those in the community regarding Mr. Horn’s conduct,” but added that the grand jury had thoroughly reviewed the evidence and testimony before deciding not to recommend any charges.

Many defense attorneys had predicted that a grand jury indictment would be unlikely in Texas, where many citizens strongly believe in a right to fire weapons in defense of home and property.

“This office will continue to aggressively prosecute anyone who illegally engages in the use of force, deadly or otherwise, against another,” Magidson said in a statement. “In this case, however, the grand jury concluded that Mr. Horn’s use of deadly force did not rise to a criminal offense.”
 
He killed someone somewhere HE HAD NO RIGHT TO BE. It was not in any way self defense. It wasn't even in defense of the stereo, as disgusting and evil as anyone who is that justifies murder for taking of a stereo. The all-white jury let him off in this brutal slaying where HE WAS CLEARLY GUILTY, because the victims of this disgusting predator were Mexican. It is reminiscent of the south during the civil rights era. The case should have been moved to a more sane jurisdiction, like Austin.
 
Cool well I'm glad our legal pseudoscholars have this case all wrapped up, but it would appear that the jury reached a different verdict.
 
Cool well I'm glad our legal pseudoscholars have this case all wrapped up, but it would appear that the jury reached a different verdict.

Like when the all-white jury reached the verdict that the slayers of Emmit Till were innocent?

"If we hadn't stopped to drink pop, it wouldn't have taken that long." - a southern juror in the Emmit Till case
 
Back
Top