Not one person was bitching about anyone's right to free speech, only about your sides ignorance and mental stability, which as a matter of fact is free speech.
Try and stay on track idiot.
This is who the contemptible (D)ims are
- Thread starter Steeltime
- Start date
Not one person was bitching about anyone's right to free speech, only about your sides ignorance and mental stability, which as a matter of fact is free speech.
Try and stay on track idiot.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 2,921
- Reaction score
- 831
- Points
- 113
You guys do realize that what this lady proposed in Texas is pretty much already the law in the other 49 states.
You are now railing on about Freedom of Speech? Weren't you likewise saying that Twitter and Facebook taking down posts about Hunter Biden was not censorship? Were you ever here screaming about those tech companies silencing Conservatives for years? I don't recall you running around screaming FREEDOM OF SPEECH when Conservative ideas have been shot down.
No...no...I think you really actually think this woman's moronic idea makes sense to you, especially the part about the theft should be allowed as some form of reparations.
Having ideas is brilliant, indeed. Hitler had some. So did Pol Pot. Stalin, Lenin, Marx....
Having ideas is important and they should be protected by Free Speech, but this woman's proposal (true or not) is harmful, beyond just being moronic. Can you condemn it? Nope. You just keep spinning instead of stating the obvious - "Yeah that was some dumb *** ****."
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,589
- Reaction score
- 29,951
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
No, it's not. The "stand your ground" principle is the law in 25 states.
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/states-that-have-stand-your-ground-laws.html
Do you EVER actually research an issue before posting a comment?
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,589
- Reaction score
- 29,951
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
Also, 23 states have adopted the "castle doctrine," meaning that a homeowner never has an obligation to retreat from a threat in his or her home and may use deadly force whenever confronted with what appears to be a threat of harm.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/castle-doctrine-states
Generally, any time a person comes into your home in the middle of the night, you have a right to reasonable fear and a right to immediately protect yourself, up to and including deadly force.
Hey, 21, here's an idea on how to "protect" thieves, dumbshits, and criminals, i.e.., the base of the (D)im party: Teach them to stay the **** off my property and out of my home and teach them to get a ******* job and pay for things they want.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/castle-doctrine-states
Generally, any time a person comes into your home in the middle of the night, you have a right to reasonable fear and a right to immediately protect yourself, up to and including deadly force.
Hey, 21, here's an idea on how to "protect" thieves, dumbshits, and criminals, i.e.., the base of the (D)im party: Teach them to stay the **** off my property and out of my home and teach them to get a ******* job and pay for things they want.
21, can you post your address so we can exercise this?
yeah, you won't do it.
anyway - this woman has the RIGHT to say whatever her heart compels her to say. We also reserve the right to judge her idiocy and lack of IQ based on what she says. It's a novel idea, I know. Maybe one you should include in your New York Times' bestseller that has never been released.
yeah, you won't do it.
anyway - this woman has the RIGHT to say whatever her heart compels her to say. We also reserve the right to judge her idiocy and lack of IQ based on what she says. It's a novel idea, I know. Maybe one you should include in your New York Times' bestseller that has never been released.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 3,734
- Reaction score
- 7,026
- Points
- 113
I never questioned free speech, just the lunacy she is spewing and the fact that she has decision making capabilities in the US Government. Now, if you want to talk about suppressing free speech, look no further that your party that wants to turn the US into North Korea, Russia, etc.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 2,921
- Reaction score
- 831
- Points
- 113
steeltime, This bill has nothing to do with anyone retreating within their home. Texas has a much broader castle doctrine than any other state that includes places outside the home. I believe
it also includes a persons workplace. This bill only applies to outside the home.
The bill won't ever pass, but this lady pretty much was trying to prevent people from opening fire on people committing crimes outside the home when their is no physical threat to the homeowner.
Might not matter much in rural areas, but preventing gunfire in populated neighborhoods, might help protect innocent bystanders.
it also includes a persons workplace. This bill only applies to outside the home.
The bill won't ever pass, but this lady pretty much was trying to prevent people from opening fire on people committing crimes outside the home when their is no physical threat to the homeowner.
Might not matter much in rural areas, but preventing gunfire in populated neighborhoods, might help protect innocent bystanders.
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2014
- Messages
- 3,320
- Reaction score
- 3,237
- Points
- 113
That is not what she said....she specifically advocated for the criminal to have a weapon and homeowner to not. Don't twist the story. Here is the bottom-line....if she is so worried about a homeowner and usage of the castle doctine then maybe she should focus her thoughts on the criminal signing their own death warrant and prevent their actions. They criminal came to the homeowner....not the other way around.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 11,463
- Reaction score
- 17,444
- Points
- 113
While I disagree with the legislation proposed, that quote is fake. Google her statement. None of that stuff is true.
She doesn't "get" it. Maybe because she's so damn fuggly that she doesn't have much to worry about with rapists and whatnot. Man...seriously.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,589
- Reaction score
- 29,951
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
Bullshit. You really need to stop getting your information from **** sites like the Daily Kos and crap like that. Seriously. Here is the Texas "stand your ground" law:
Texas' "castle doctrine" is as follows:
https://guides.sll.texas.gov/gun-laws/stand-your-ground
Both laws model similar "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine" laws in other states. You have conflated the reference to protection at work in the "stand your ground" law, where one can use deadly force to protect against kidnapping or physical harm at work, with the "castle doctrine." Try and get **** right.
Read the actual goddamn law, would you? The right to use force applies only "when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property." Therefore, if a homeowner sees a guy peeking in his daughter's window, even when his daughter is not home, he can use reasonable force to protect the property. Generally, that involves a determination as to who did what and when to decide the threat to the property and the degree of force reasonably necessary to answer the threat. Laws are almost always written that way since it is literally impossible to cover every conceivable confrontation (peeking in living room window, peeking in bathroom window, peeking in window at night, peeking in window during day, prying window, breaking window, and on and on and on and on) in the statute.
You are not just a wanna-be lawyer, 21, you are a horrible wanna-be lawyer who does not bother reading the statute, comparing it to other similar laws, and who then simply states something read on some ******* web site without bothering to learn that your claim is 100% false.
Finally, for the second time you say, "Oh, the bill won't pass" and obviously miss the point I made earlier. I had believed my point was patent as I wrote, "Every current stupid government edict started somewhere, usually the diseased brains of idiot leftists in academia who think they can vote on **** and make the world a better place. ... The really stupid idea is shot down, but never killed. It comes up again and again until finally by dint of mere repetition, enough morons believe it might be a good thing."
So the fact the stupid leftist idea is laughed at originally give me no comfort at all. Leftists are stupid, selfish, dumb, destructive, idiotic, and lazy, but they are persistent. All the stupid ideas we currently have polluting our society began with idiot leftists and were originally shot down, only to keep re-appearing. Seriously, thirty years ago would any American believe that we would allow men to "declare" themselves women and use the women's bathroom?
Get it? If not, talk about it with Flog and have Flog's 8-year old nephew explain it.
I would be interested in reading what you base this statement on. I look forward to actual links from those 49 states confirming your opinion.
21 doesn't support anything he spouts. He has beliefs and damnit they are right.
