NY Times attacks the Castle Doctrine

TinySA45 · August 8th, 2006, 11:13 PM

The NY Times rolls out the typically distorted article concerning self defence, or for that matter firearms in general. "Shoot First" is as dumb a slogan as anti-gun folks have come out with in a while; obviously I am going to shoot first if my life is in danger, waiting to shoot second doesn't make much sense. That being said, does anyone know anything about the shooting over the trash bags? I have to believe there is more to it than presented in this article or the shooter would have been charged...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/07/us...=1&oref=slogin

thirtyonebravo · August 9th, 2006, 12:08 AM

liberals write for the NY Times? shocking! hehe.

Benjaminm0110 · August 9th, 2006, 02:13 AM

rather be in court than six feet under...

SixBravo · August 9th, 2006, 03:26 AM

Ben, I believe you are looking for the phrase "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6." And damned if I don't agree.

JeffP · August 9th, 2006, 10:22 AM

“In effect,” Professor Sebok said, “the law allows citizens to kill other citizens in defense of property.”

Um. Idiot. They BROKE INTO MY HOME! WTF do you want me to do, offer them tea and hand them the remote?

randytulsa2 · August 9th, 2006, 11:22 AM

Who cares what those idiots in NYC think?

I've got an anti sister-in-law (who otherwise is a lovely person- intelligent, pleasant to be around, easy to get along with, etc.) who reduced her stance to one little (shortsighted) phrase: "We don't have any need to kill".

Well, ORDINARILY she has no need to stop a threat. But may God help her if/when she does. Then she is absolutely helpless.

And she would probably blame her being robbed, raped and murdered in her own home on the availability of guns.

That, of course, absolutely ignores the possibility that she could have prevented the robbery, rape and murder by using a gun, in which case she could (properly and logically) point to the availability of guns as a good thing....

Others think a dead victim morally superior to someone who kills a life-threatening BG.

To each his own. I know where I stand.

Sorry for the rant, folks. I just got back from D.C........

gregarat · August 9th, 2006, 01:45 PM

Is the N.Y. Times still in buissness? I thought they were loosing money.

Benjaminm0110 · August 9th, 2006, 05:23 PM

Thanks for the correction Six, I like that even better

Sheldon J · August 9th, 2006, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benjaminm0110

rather be in court than six feet under...

That is know as "It's better to judged by 12 than carried by 6"

August 8th, 2006, 11:13 PM	#1
TinySA45 Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Indianapolis Posts: 22	NY Times attacks the Castle Doctrine The NY Times rolls out the typically distorted article concerning self defence, or for that matter firearms in general. "Shoot First" is as dumb a slogan as anti-gun folks have come out with in a while; obviously I am going to shoot first if my life is in danger, waiting to shoot second doesn't make much sense. That being said, does anyone know anything about the shooting over the trash bags? I have to believe there is more to it than presented in this article or the shooter would have been charged... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/07/us...=1&oref=slogin

August 9th, 2006, 01:45 PM	#7
gregarat Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Central NYS Posts: 856	Is the N.Y. Times still in buissness? I thought they were loosing money. __________________ “Little beat big when little smart. First with the head, then with the heart.” Geel piet. From the movie “The Power of one”

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

August 9th, 2006, 12:08 AM	#2
thirtyonebravo Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Pennsylvania now Posts: 182	liberals write for the NY Times? shocking! hehe.

August 9th, 2006, 02:13 AM	#3
Benjaminm0110 Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 47	rather be in court than six feet under...

August 9th, 2006, 10:22 AM	#5
JeffP Ex Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Arkansas Posts: 48	“In effect,” Professor Sebok said, “the law allows citizens to kill other citizens in defense of property.” Um. Idiot. They BROKE INTO MY HOME! WTF do you want me to do, offer them tea and hand them the remote?

August 9th, 2006, 11:22 AM	#6
randytulsa2 Distinguished Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 1,447	Who cares what those idiots in NYC think? I've got an anti sister-in-law (who otherwise is a lovely person- intelligent, pleasant to be around, easy to get along with, etc.) who reduced her stance to one little (shortsighted) phrase: "We don't have any need to kill". Well, ORDINARILY she has no need to stop a threat. But may God help her if/when she does. Then she is absolutely helpless. And she would probably blame her being robbed, raped and murdered in her own home on the availability of guns. That, of course, absolutely ignores the possibility that she could have prevented the robbery, rape and murder by using a gun, in which case she could (properly and logically) point to the availability of guns as a good thing.... Others think a dead victim morally superior to someone who kills a life-threatening BG. To each his own. I know where I stand. Sorry for the rant, folks. I just got back from D.C........

August 9th, 2006, 05:23 PM	#8
Benjaminm0110 Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 47	Thanks for the correction Six, I like that even better