Author Topic: US Constitution - 2nd Amendment (Read 2650 times)

Kanth · « **Reply #90 on:** April 08, 2004, 05:59:27 PM »

maybe you did misunderstand me lazs.

they were two separate points.

My fear being that sometime in the future some group in power (judges, president, congress whoever) will decide to interpret the constitution and find that we never really did have that right.. and take it away, based on their lack of understanding of the wording used. Because our language is ever changing.

As far as our representation, I'd really like to keep a closer eye on whats going on without making a full time job of it, and I'd like technology to help me.

In both of these statements, I haven't said the constitution needs to be changed and I haven't touched on voting.

both items are basically my mistrust for the government and their powers to change my life over a loophole or to make decisions I'm not even aware of.

If you need further explanation let me know.

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
Kanth... you said

"Also, in this age of technology we should have better representation for the people's will. "

I said that you intimated that we should be able to vote on rights such as this. I do not know any other way that we could remove the right to bear arms using the "peoples will" that does not entail voting (at least for representitives) but..

maybe you could explain what you meant? You did just claim that the constitution needs to be changed did you not? How would we change it?

messing with the constitution brings us such proggressive things as prohibition.

lazs

lazs2 · « **Reply #91 on:** April 08, 2004, 06:10:55 PM »

I believe I might kanth... In my opinion... the constitution should be interpreted in the context and language that it was written in. Case in point... as someone else pointed out "well regulated" meant, at the time of the writing, that something well regulated be functioning properly.

I still don't understand the part about the "peoples will" .... The constitution is there specificly to subvert the peoples will if needed... meaning, that rights are not a pervue of the peoples will.. We can't vote to send all black citizens back to africa for instance.

soo... what difference does technolodgy make in the constitution? I do agree with you tho that the government will try to find loopholes whenever they can... that is why we have a constitution. and why we need to keep it as it was written.

lazs

AKcurly · « **Reply #92 on:** April 08, 2004, 06:28:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
It is correct in Texas.

If I have to shoot you to stop you from taking my property I am allowed by law to do so. Would I personally shoot someone over property, I doubt it.

Iron, are you sure of that? If you are correct, then how are the limits defined? I mean can you shoot someone stealing old tennis shoes from your yard? Nah, I doubt it. OTOH, if a guy walks up to you and says "give me your Nikes or die" while brandishing a pistol, yeah, I'll wager you can kill him and be within the limits of the law.

I think Texas law (although I don't know) permits you to defend yourself. Defense of property can lead to deadly consequences.

curly

bullett308 · « **Reply #93 on:** April 08, 2004, 06:34:18 PM »

I asked a cop who came out to file a report on my car after someone tried to steal it.
I asked him what can I do If I catch him next time ?
He said SHOOT him.
I laughed and asked him If he was for real.
he looked at me like I was some kind of Idiot and said yes shoot him you are protecting what is yours.

Now this is at night I really dont know If that has anything to do with it or nor though.

Stoned Gecko · « **Reply #94 on:** April 08, 2004, 06:43:53 PM »

OK guys. Here it is. Taken from Texas law - http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/cqcgi?CQ_SESSION_KEY=QQJHCHSLQGJS&CQ_QUERY_HANDLE=125542&CQ_CUR_DOCUMENT=66&CQ_TLO_DOC_TEXT=YES

Quote

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
      (1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
      (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
         (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
         (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
      (3) he reasonably believes that:
         (A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
         (B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

bullett308 · « **Reply #95 on:** April 08, 2004, 06:47:40 PM »

Yup SHOOT em
God bless Texas.

hyena426 · « **Reply #96 on:** April 08, 2004, 07:22:57 PM »

Quote

as ive said before i dont have anything against people owning guns...i just dont like em owning assault weapons

more killings are done with regular hunting guns and cheap pistol's than assault guns,, hands down,,real good assault guns are not cheap!!,,,i think the last fully auto killing in usa was done in the 1930's or 40's <~~somthing like that,,lol,,i notice alot of the antigun messages comes from people out of the usa,,which is no biggie,,but why are you so against us having guns when you dont even live here?

if people want to kill,,doesnt matter if they got a gun or not,,it will happen,,with cars,knifes,bats,poisions,and whatever they feal like to get the job done,,sad but true

im glad i got a little pistol to carry with me while im out walking my dogs threw the mountains,,ran into a lot of crap,,cougars,,rattle snakes,and just weird people who are out to do who knows what to you,,,im glad i got a firearm when im out there,,lol

AKcurly · « **Reply #97 on:** April 08, 2004, 07:25:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Stoned Gecko
OK guys. Here it is. Taken from Texas law - http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/cqcgi?CQ_SESSION_KEY=QQJHCHSLQGJS&CQ_QUERY_HANDLE=125542&CQ_CUR_DOCUMENT=66&CQ_TLO_DOC_TEXT=YES

Whoa! So in other words, I can't shoot a little kid stealing from me, but a large, beligerant male can be plugged.

curly

Stoned Gecko · « **Reply #98 on:** April 08, 2004, 07:33:02 PM »

Nah. The little kid you chase down and beat the crap out of. Then you shoot his large, beligerant dad when he comes over to kick your ass.

Steve · « **Reply #99 on:** April 08, 2004, 08:56:55 PM »

Quote

I asked a cop this very question.And he said yup bust a cap in his arse but ya better be able to prove he was trying to steal your stuff.

The cop is not entirely correct. You see, I did some research before I took up the argument. I made it clear I was stealing the bike from your front yard at NOON on Sunday.

Stoned Gecko · « **Reply #100 on:** April 08, 2004, 09:22:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Steve
The cop is not entirely correct. You see, I did some research before I took up the argument. I made it clear I was stealing the bike from your front yard at NOON on Sunday.

In that case it does look like you are right. The link I posted is expired, but you can go to http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/statutes.html and run a search for "deadly force property". I believe it's Penal Code chapter 9, paragraphs 41 and 42. You can only use deadly force at nighttime.

Steve · « **Reply #101 on:** April 08, 2004, 09:26:52 PM »

Sir Gecko, this is the same reference I used. nice work.

bullett308 · « **Reply #102 on:** April 08, 2004, 09:32:10 PM »

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
      (1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
      (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
         (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
         (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
      (3) he reasonably believes that:
         (A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
         (B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

hawker238 · « **Reply #103 on:** April 08, 2004, 09:34:47 PM »

No way should you be able to shoot someone over property. If someone's life is endangered, only then should lethal force even be considered.

bullett308 · « **Reply #104 on:** April 08, 2004, 09:35:07 PM »

Ya gotta read between the lines.
It aint just night time you may take action.
It all depends on the actions of the bad guy.

And If I read It right you can even shoot him If he Is trying to get away after he commits a crime LOL.

Yep Us folks In Texas still have some rights .
God Bless Texas.