Texas wife indicted after lover killed

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i am most thankful that you can't vote. all of your pissing and moaning about the rights being lost due to this act or that act, and apparently this right means nothing to you, the one right that the founding fathers intentionally put there to insure the people have the ability to revolt against the government should the government not remain "for the people". so you're all ready to give that one away, regardless of what anyone else thinks. you do have the ability to vote with your feet and return to that ever so great britain

on this topic, you can bet i'm going to disagree with a liberal view

As I said, I'm not forcing you (or anyone) to agree. You clearly don't - believe it or not I can live with it. I just wonder why you seem to feel so threatened by that.

par·a·phrase (pr-frz) KEY

NOUN:

A restatement of a text or passage in another form or other words, often to clarify meaning.

The restatement of texts in other words as a studying or teaching device.

in other words, it's a chance for you to put your own interpretation on things, a chance for you to spin things. that's the point, got it? i've clarified it numerous times, so perhaps it can't sink in? and were i to play that game of paraphrasing then i could say that your pov is "i don't like guns because i'm a left wing liberal and you can't have them"

in the future, do try to stick with quoting instead of paraphrasing, it gets you in much less hot water.

and yes, i can too have a monopoly on how people interpret my words. they are, after all, my words, and if you muck up the statements to further your own agenda then expect to be called on it.

furthermore, your school bully act and your inability to admit you're wrong is amusing.

Again Charles - if I made a unreasonable interpretation of your words then (for the third and final time) please feel free to clarify them, otherwise all you are doing is arguing for arguments sake. And if you think there is only one possible interpretation to a person's statements, how is it that several people can read the same newspaper article and come to vastly different conclusions?

yet such is currently a person's right but apparently not if you have your way. just because you've not been victimized does not mean everyone should give up their guns. should i paraphrase that into "i've never been victimized, so no one needs any form of protection due to my own experience" now?

Actually that's a fairly good summary of my argument - though (to clarify) I should suggest that on the basis of my experience (and the poll I ran in the other thread that confirms my suspicions) I don't think there is a much of a "criminal" threat that justifies people 'en-masse' owning guns for that reason (though I don't believe I ever said the word "ban"). Again, you don't agree. Again I can live with it - but you're not going to win me over with ridicule and "exaggerated outrage".

Edited April 6, 2007 by erekose

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Again Charles - if I made a unreasonable interpretation of your words then (for the third and final time) please feel free to clarify them, otherwise all you are doing is arguing for arguments sake. And if you think there is only one possible interpretation to a person's statements, how is it that several people can read the same newspaper article and come to vastly different conclusions?

it's already been stated. you used a term that i disagree with and then made your own meaning out of it.

i never equated a firearm to being a tool. what more is there to clarify? are you that dense, really?

yet such is currently a person's right but apparently not if you have your way. just because you've not been victimized does not mean everyone should give up their guns. should i paraphrase that into "i've never been victimized, so no one needs any form of protection due to my own experience" now?

Actually that's a fairly good summary of my argument - though (to clarify) I should suggest that on the basis of my experience (and the poll I ran in the other thread that confirms my suspicions) I don't think there is a much of a "criminal" threat that justifies people 'en-masse' owning guns for that reason (though I don't believe I ever said the word "ban"). Again, you don't agree. Again I can live with it - but you're not going to win me over with ridicule and "exaggerated outrage".

you sure have hinted on banning them, and i doubt you'd shed a tear should such occur. i just find it quite strange that you rant and rave about losing "rights" when you would like to see this one right disappear.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Again Charles - if I made a unreasonable interpretation of your words then (for the third and final time) please feel free to clarify them, otherwise all you are doing is arguing for arguments sake. And if you think there is only one possible interpretation to a person's statements, how is it that several people can read the same newspaper article and come to vastly different conclusions?

it's already been stated. you used a term that i disagree with and then made your own meaning out of it.

i never equated a firearm to being a tool. what more is there to clarify? are you that dense, really?

I interpreted your meaning along the lines of "what do these three separate things mentioned in the same sentence have in common?". I don't see that as a massive (or unreasonable) leap of logic from what you said.

you sure have hinted on banning them, and i doubt you'd shed a tear should such occur. i just find it quite strange that you rant and rave about losing "rights" when you would like to see this one right disappear.

Well then - to clarify I don't believe in "banning", I believe in "control" (specifically I oppose concealed carry laws). My personal belief is simply that the criminal threat (for the purposes of having a gun for protection) is exaggerated. Therefore, I (personally) would not have one for that reason.

As someone else pointed out however, there are (many) reasons why a person might own one. I can accept that - I however don't feel I need one for protection for the reasons I have said because I feel its based on an unjustified fear.

Edited April 6, 2007 by erekose

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

I interpreted your meaning along the lines of "what do these three separate things mentioned in the same sentence have in common?". I don't see that as a massive (or unreasonable) leap of logic from what you said.

probably due to i've seen firearms being referred to as a tool before, which some may feel is accurate, i don't feel it is accurate. i can't recall any instance i've seen of kids playing with a hammer and accidentally killing someone. imo, to label a firearm as a tool groups it in with other items that may or may not be as lethal. yet the ones i cited also kill, and they were mentioned as things that too should perhaps be banned if one is really trying to save lives.

Well then - to clarify I don't believe in "banning", I believe in "control" (specifically I oppose concealed carry laws). My personal belief is simply that the criminal threat (for the purposes of having a gun for protection) is exaggerated. Therefore, I (personally) would not have one for that reason.

As someone else pointed out however, there are (many) reasons why a person might own one. I can accept that - I however don't feel I need one for protection for the reasons I have said because I feel its based on an unjustified fear.

and i strongly believe in concealed carry laws. when the drive thru at luby's occured in killeen, texas, i lived about a mile from there. i could have quite easily have been in there. one woman in there obeyed the law and didn't have her firearm with her. if she'd had it, a greater tragedy could have been averted.

ever carry condoms in your wallet? if so, why? because perhaps it's better to be prepared and not need it, than need it and not have it? that's my opinion on cch btw

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

ever carry condoms in your wallet? if so, why? because perhaps it's better to be prepared and not need it, than need it and not have it?

I have never truly used free speech as the founders intended (ie petition the government for a redress of grievances). So should we get rid of the first amendment since it's not useful to me?

(I would have a right I don't need than need a right I don't have. Maybe that's too logical for some)

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

ever carry condoms in your wallet? if so, why? because perhaps it's better to be prepared and not need it, than need it and not have it?

I have never truly used free speech as the founders intended (ie petition the government for a redress of grievances). So should we get rid of the first amendment since it's not useful to me?

(I would have a right I don't need than need a right I don't have. Maybe that's too logical for some)

Isn't the point that things change over time, and that what might have been appropriate 200 years ago just might not be appropriate today?

As I said, I'm for "control" as opposed to "ban".

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

ever carry condoms in your wallet? if so, why? because perhaps it's better to be prepared and not need it, than need it and not have it?

I have never truly used free speech as the founders intended (ie petition the government for a redress of grievances). So should we get rid of the first amendment since it's not useful to me?

(I would have a right I don't need than need a right I don't have. Maybe that's too logical for some)

Isn't the point that things change over time, and that what might have been appropriate 200 years ago just might not be appropriate today?

As I said, I'm for "control" as opposed to "ban".

'Control' is no picnic. Washington DC has some of strictest gun laws and the most crime. I guess criminals can count on people being unarmed. Easy pickings.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

ever carry condoms in your wallet? if so, why? because perhaps it's better to be prepared and not need it, than need it and not have it?

I have never truly used free speech as the founders intended (ie petition the government for a redress of grievances). So should we get rid of the first amendment since it's not useful to me?

(I would have a right I don't need than need a right I don't have. Maybe that's too logical for some)

Isn't the point that things change over time, and that what might have been appropriate 200 years ago just might not be appropriate today?

As I said, I'm for "control" as opposed to "ban".

'Control' is no picnic. Washington DC has some of strictest gun laws and the most crime. I guess criminals can count on people being unarmed. Easy pickings.

There is evidence that ownership reduces crime, but I think that's really shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted.

There are also cultural issues too - most (if not all) of the other countries I've lived in and visited have either strict control or total prohibition, and yet still don't have the level of gun-related crime you see in the US. My guess is its something peculiar to this country.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

There is evidence that ownership reduces crime, but I think that's really shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted.

There are also cultural issues too - most (if not all) of the other countries I've lived in and visited have either strict control or total prohibition, and yet still don't have the level of gun-related crime you see in the US. My guess is its something peculiar to this country.

That's a completely different discussion. Demographics and crime.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

As I said, I'm for "control" as opposed to "ban".

control is just a step towards a ban. ever heard of a slippery slope?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As I said, I'm for "control" as opposed to "ban".

control is just a step towards a ban. ever heard of a slippery slope?

Arguably. There are controls on the consumption of alcohol but you don't see that being banned in the near future.

[Nessa 23]

Arguably. There are controls on the consumption of alcohol but you don't see that being banned in the near future.

Controls on the consumption of alcohol? How so? Never heard of such.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Arguably. There are controls on the consumption of alcohol but you don't see that being banned in the near future.

Controls on the consumption of alcohol? How so? Never heard of such.

Well...

Alcohol laws of the United States by state

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

As I said, I'm for "control" as opposed to "ban".

control is just a step towards a ban. ever heard of a slippery slope?

Arguably. There are controls on the consumption of alcohol but you don't see that being banned in the near future.

we've seen alcohol banned in the past. however, the difference is people can make alcohol a lot easier than they can guns/ammo, plus using a gun is a lot louder than having a drink.

[Christine n Carl 0]

Im not surprised by someone from New Jersey would claim "If they had Northeast style laws he would be alive", that may or may not be true, the husband may have used a tire iron. Don't be so short sighted, everyone has a right at self preservation and you ideals of Northeast sytle laws increase crime rates and consequently higher murder rates (facts are facts, no matter how you twist them).

I think what is being done is exactly right!! As stated in the article and thats all I can make an opinion by, the husband acted to protect his wife who falsely cried rape and therefore in his eyes was in distress, he acted within his rights to protect her. Yes, its too bad the gentleman was killed, but lets not forget he put himself in that situation (having sex with a married woman), a situation which historically can lead to voilent acts by angry husbands. In this case it didnt but if you play you must think about the consequences or your actions. The woman who initiated the infidelity, who new what her husband was capable of and who falesly claimed to be in a dangerous situation, should bear the brunt of justice as she first and foremost caused this chain of events to occur and could have prevented it. n