Democrats new bill

[04FXSTS]

Going back toward the reason this thread was started I remember a couple things that make about as much sense as this bill. IIRC there was a female democrat aldercreature in NYC that did not believe people should be able to carry. She had been robbed on the street by a purse snatcher and as they ran away with her purse she wished she had a gun so she could shoot them. Logical then, no one should be able to carry a gun because she thought about shooting a purse snatcher.
This one I remember well in 2013 in Illinois when they were following a federal court order to allow some form of carry outside the home. Mary Flowers a democrat from a really bad area of Chicago declared that she would not vote yes for the CCW bill. Her reasoning was to many people in her district were felons so would not be able to take advantage of the new law. Jim.

 

[KG1]

It was a state representative from Irving, Texas who introduced the bill and made a statement:
[FONT=&amp]
Posted on 12/9/2020, 1:49:29 AM by yesthatjallen[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Texas has a law that allows a home one to protect themselves and their property. This has long been a target for the left. See Below.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]In Texas, State Representative Terry Meza (D-Irving) has introduced HB196. Her bill would repeal the state’s “castle doctrine.”
This doctrine allows a homeowner to use deadly force against an armed intruder who breaks into his home.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Now listen to what she has to say...
”I’m not saying that stealing is okay,” Meza explained. “All I’m saying is that it doesn’t warrant a death penalty.
Thieves only carry weapons for self-protection and to provide the householder an incentive to cooperate. They just want to get their loot and get away.
When the resident tries to resist is when people get hurt. If only one side is armed fewer people will be killed.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Meza was quick to reassure that her bill “would not totally prevent homeowners from defending themselves.
Under the new law the homeowner’s obligation is to flee the home at the first sign of intrusion. If fleeing is not possible he must cooperate with the intruder.
But if violence breaks out it is the homeowner’s responsibility to make sure no one gets hurt.
The best way to achieve this is to use the minimum non-lethal force possible because intruders will be able to sue for any injuries they receive at the hands of the homeowner.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]“”In most instances the thief needs the money more than the homeowner does,” Meza reasoned. “The homeowner’s insurance we reimburse his losses.
On balance, the transfer of property is likely to lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth. If my bill can help make this transfer a peaceful one so much the better!"

IMHO...if you take the time to look her up, just one look and you'll see she's a complete nut-case!
And, when she says "I'm not saying that 'stealing' is okay." she's actually lying because later in her statement she says it is 'okay' to steal when she says
"On balance, t[/FONT]he transfer of property is likely to lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth."

Theft by armed thieves is her idea of equitable distribution of wealth because your insurance company will reimburse you. WTF?

 

[BigRed]

Theft by armed thieves is her idea of equitable distribution of wealth because your insurance company will reimburse you. WTF?

Yep.

Typical BLM BS

 

[1nderbeard]

If you think of this in purely economic terms, this bill is reducing the incentive to let anyone who breaks in your home survive. Dead men tell no tales, so to speak. You are severely penalized if you let someone else, who is likely to be favored under this new law, tell his/her side of the story.
It's like the old rule in China if you maimed someone in an accident. You were responsible for taking care of them for life. However, if you killed them in an accident you only paid a fine.

 

[KG1]

Yep.

Typical BLM BS

It is. And according to her way of thinking it suggests that they shouldn't be prosecuted because the thief needed the money more than the homeowner. Double WTF?

 

[maxwelhse]

If you think of this in purely economic terms, this bill is reducing the incentive to let anyone who breaks in your home survive. Dead men tell no tales, so to speak. You are severely penalized if you let someone else, who is likely to be favored under this new law, tell his/her side of the story.
It's like the old rule in China if you maimed someone in an accident. You were responsible for taking care of them for life. However, if you killed them in an accident you only paid a fine.

This is exactly what was taught to me back in the days before castle doctrine laws existed and for exactly that reason. It was also frequently said that you had to wait until they all-the-way broke into your house because you didn't want them to die on the front porch.

Castle doctrine laws haven't really changed any of my thinking there.

 

[foszoe]

I had a great uncle in jail pre castle doctrine...I am an ardent supporter of castle doctrine probably more extreme then most. I wish you could lay booby traps

 

[IndyDave1776]

I had a great uncle in jail pre castle doctrine...I am an ardent supporter of castle doctrine probably more extreme then most. I wish you could lay booby traps

Philosophically I am with you but at a practical level booby traps offer too many opportunities for unintended consequences especially if everyone could use them.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I see a fine argument here for having those who use positions of influence and authority who protect and assist criminals share the criminals' consequences.

 

[drillsgt]

It was a state representative from Irving, Texas who introduced the bill and made a statement:
[FONT=&amp]
Posted on 12/9/2020, 1:49:29 AM by yesthatjallen[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Texas has a law that allows a home one to protect themselves and their property. This has long been a target for the left. See Below.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]In Texas, State Representative Terry Meza (D-Irving) has introduced HB196. Her bill would repeal the state’s “castle doctrine.”
This doctrine allows a homeowner to use deadly force against an armed intruder who breaks into his home.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Now listen to what she has to say...
”I’m not saying that stealing is okay,” Meza explained. “All I’m saying is that it doesn’t warrant a death penalty.
Thieves only carry weapons for self-protection and to provide the householder an incentive to cooperate. They just want to get their loot and get away.
When the resident tries to resist is when people get hurt. If only one side is armed fewer people will be killed.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Meza was quick to reassure that her bill “would not totally prevent homeowners from defending themselves.
Under the new law the homeowner’s obligation is to flee the home at the first sign of intrusion. If fleeing is not possible he must cooperate with the intruder.
But if violence breaks out it is the homeowner’s responsibility to make sure no one gets hurt.
The best way to achieve this is to use the minimum non-lethal force possible because intruders will be able to sue for any injuries they receive at the hands of the homeowner.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]“”In most instances the thief needs the money more than the homeowner does,” Meza reasoned. “The homeowner’s insurance we reimburse his losses.
On balance, the transfer of property is likely to lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth. If my bill can help make this transfer a peaceful one so much the better!"

IMHO...if you take the time to look her up, just one look and you'll see she's a complete nut-case!
And, when she says "I'm not saying that 'stealing' is okay." she's actually lying because later in her statement she says it is 'okay' to steal when she says
"On balance, t[/FONT]he transfer of property is likely to lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth."

That's the craziest thing i've read in awhile, why are these democrats such nut jobs.

 

[BigRed]

That's the craziest thing i've read in awhile, why are these democrats such nut jobs.

Democrats are the spawn of Hell.

 

[indykid]

So it is ok to steal as long as you promise not to hurt the homeowner.

Castle doctrine and the right to self defense. Let me see, in Great Britain self defense is illegal. Didn't we get rid of the British and their laws? Why are some of these law makers so anti self defense? That last question is rhetorical, needing no answer.

 

[tbhausen]

Says one that votes for an executive without first reading the candidate's platform on the Second Amendment.

Rep’d!

 

[tbhausen]

It was a state representative from Irving, Texas who introduced the bill and made a statement:
[FONT=&amp]
Posted on 12/9/2020, 1:49:29 AM by yesthatjallen[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Texas has a law that allows a home one to protect themselves and their property. This has long been a target for the left. See Below.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]In Texas, State Representative Terry Meza (D-Irving) has introduced HB196. Her bill would repeal the state’s “castle doctrine.”
This doctrine allows a homeowner to use deadly force against an armed intruder who breaks into his home.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Now listen to what she has to say...
”I’m not saying that stealing is okay,” Meza explained. “All I’m saying is that it doesn’t warrant a death penalty.
Thieves only carry weapons for self-protection and to provide the householder an incentive to cooperate. They just want to get their loot and get away.
When the resident tries to resist is when people get hurt. If only one side is armed fewer people will be killed.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Meza was quick to reassure that her bill “would not totally prevent homeowners from defending themselves.
Under the new law the homeowner’s obligation is to flee the home at the first sign of intrusion. If fleeing is not possible he must cooperate with the intruder.
But if violence breaks out it is the homeowner’s responsibility to make sure no one gets hurt.
The best way to achieve this is to use the minimum non-lethal force possible because intruders will be able to sue for any injuries they receive at the hands of the homeowner.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]“”In most instances the thief needs the money more than the homeowner does,” Meza reasoned. “The homeowner’s insurance we reimburse his losses.
On balance, the transfer of property is likely to lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth. If my bill can help make this transfer a peaceful one so much the better!"

IMHO...if you take the time to look her up, just one look and you'll see she's a complete nut-case!
And, when she says "I'm not saying that 'stealing' is okay." she's actually lying because later in her statement she says it is 'okay' to steal when she says
"On balance, t[/FONT]he transfer of property is likely to lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth."

What. The. Actual. ****?!

 

[spencer rifle]

"If you’re banking on the goodwill of evil people to keep you safe, you are a sucker." - Larry Correia

 

[IndyDave1776]

Someone needs reenact a home invasion with victim at home at this stupid *****'s home and see how she deals with it, tben use her words as a defense in court.

 

[KG1]

I found that this particular line is also complete and utter nonsense. This is so ****ed up in so many ways.

Under the new law the homeowner’s obligation is to flee the home at the first sign of intrusion. If fleeing is not possible he must cooperate with the intruder.
But if violence breaks out it is the homeowner’s responsibility to make sure no one gets hurt.

 

[JettaKnight]

[FONT=&amp]
Posted on 12/9/2020, 1:49:29 AM by yesthatjallen[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Texas has a law that allows a home one to protect themselves and their property. This has long been a target for the left. See Below.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]In Texas, State Representative Terry Meza (D-Irving) has introduced HB196. Her bill would repeal the state’s “castle doctrine.”
This doctrine allows a homeowner to use deadly force against an armed intruder who breaks into his home.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Now listen to what she has to say...
”I’m not saying that stealing is okay,” Meza explained. “All I’m saying is that it doesn’t warrant a death penalty.
Thieves only carry weapons for self-protection and to provide the householder an incentive to cooperate. They just want to get their loot and get away.
When the resident tries to resist is when people get hurt. If only one side is armed fewer people will be killed.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]Meza was quick to reassure that her bill “would not totally prevent homeowners from defending themselves.
Under the new law the homeowner’s obligation is to flee the home at the first sign of intrusion. If fleeing is not possible he must cooperate with the intruder.
But if violence breaks out it is the homeowner’s responsibility to make sure no one gets hurt.
The best way to achieve this is to use the minimum non-lethal force possible because intruders will be able to sue for any injuries they receive at the hands of the homeowner.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]“”In most instances the thief needs the money more than the homeowner does,” Meza reasoned. “The homeowner’s insurance we reimburse his losses.
On balance, the transfer of property is likely to lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth. If my bill can help make this transfer a peaceful one so much the better!"
[/FONT]

State Rep Meza never said anything like that. This whole quote is fake.

I found that this particular line is also complete and utter nonsense. This is so ****ed up in so many ways.

Yeah, 'cause it's satire.



Jimmy Crickets, people.
/r/atetheonion


The reality:

Vince Leibowitz, spokesman for Meza, told the Associated Press that the bill deals only with situations outside the home, leaving intact Texas law relating to situations inside someone’s own “habitation,” defined in the state penal code as “a structure or vehicle that is adapted for the overnight accommodation of persons.”

 

[Route 45]

 

[KG1]

State Rep Meza never said anything like that. This whole quote is fake.




Yeah, 'cause it's satire.



Jimmy Crickets, people.
/r/atetheonion


The reality:

This is ****ed up in so many ways then. Satire is one thing but if quotes are directly attributed to someone then that goes beyond satire and should be an actionable offense.

In this case I don't blame anyone's reaction for taking those attributed quotes seriously.