Bill Would Allow Texas Teachers to Use Deadly Force Against Students

a reply to: JBurns

Funnily enough another thread I've been in went from discussing gun laws in the U.S. to discussing the origin of the phrase "Put another shrimp on the barbie".

Maybe it's just the day for it?



EDIT: Plus what Crazyewok said below

originally posted by: JBurns
Wow, this topic has seriously been hijacked. How does WW2 play into a discussion about Texas use of force laws?

Cause when UK and USA people are talking some numb skull form the US who gets there history from Hollywood brings WW2 up..... And since many Brits died fighting for our freedom long before the US got involved we get pissed at that.

a reply to: crazyewok

That is not a deflection.

It GOES to CONSISTENCY.

Remember now it's evil to kill people over property.

Not so much to kill people by abortion.

a reply to: crazyewok

Our history lessons do not come from Hollywood they come from school just like yours! how come I don't see a bunch of Americans posting on this site about how Europeans should run their counties and school but I always see Europeans running their mouths on how we should run our country? In case you people did not notice my ancestors had the intelligence to leave Europe and not be ruled by a queen and king unilike you serfs who still live there! Long live the queen lol !

a reply to: macman

Again, you are merely muddling in political terminology you apparently have no understanding of ... but you've labelled the opposing view so IN YOUR MIND ONLY it's now written off.

Funny thing is, that doesn't mean anything to the rest of us. Progressive, progressive, progressive. Yada yada.

Sounds a little like a parrot who only knows, one word, LOL

Seriously, no one is pushing ideas on someone else, Progressive, Regressive or otherwise. Is this the only verse of the song you know?

We're talking, having a discussion, you know ... what we do at ATS. Gun rights have been brought up multiple times in the discussion; perhaps you should actually read what has been said before you pontificate?

Your anecdote is, as usual, meaningless. Concentrate on the argument, not on describing your opinions of individual posters.

And, not unexpectedly, your "very, very, very simple" summation is textbook extremism.

Black and white, Us and Them, Yer Either fer us er agin' us, spewing logical fallacies ad infinitum.

I'm amazed you never get bored with reading the same things come out of your fingers.

Here, I'll help.

Here's the issue at hand:

Should teachers in classrooms be authorized to not only carry their weapons into the class, for personal and student protection, but also, to put down any student they feel might be harming school property?

I'll put you down for "of course they should."

See, easy-peasy and we're done.

/eyerolls like slots

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: crazyewok

That is not a deflection.

It GOES to CONSISTENCY.

Remember now it's evil to kill people over property.

Not so much to kill people by abortion.

No one kills by abortion, except maybe "God" ... don't forget, right around 50% of ALL pregnancies naturally abort.

Can you quote where anyone said here that it's always "evil to kill over property"?

Or, are you just inserting whatever you think will diffuse a discussion that you don't like the direction of?

Hmm?

a reply to: Kali74

I have not read the legislation, but if teachers in other school shooting incidents had been armed there would be a lot more children alive today.

The very first school shooting of note, in Pearl MS, was stopped by a teacher who went and got a rifle from his pickup.

In Denver, in Newport....the children were nothing more than fish in a barrel for someone to shoot.

Gun free zones? Sounds more like a hunting ground for predators.... those predators will not observe the "gun free" status of schools.

Gun control works so very well in Chicago and Detroit, amiright?

a reply to: bbracken677

The sad truth is liberal progressives love it when there is a massive school shooting because in their minds it brings them closer to disarming all of America accept for the military, police and their own private security guards. It's impossible to overtax a well armed population! Guns are just a tool if you outlaw them people will still have them one way or another. Now with 3D printers people can make them at home lol!

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: crazyewok

Due process is for the Govt.

That is why I can kill someone in self defense. The Govt has the trial process to adhere to, in order to kill someone.


I don't have to offer due process to anyone.

Due process is for every person on US soil. Texas seems to think it has the right to deny that to people by making theft and property damage/destruction a crime punishable by death without proof of guilt determined by a jury of peers. It is

a reply to: Kali74

Show me a case where the state of Texas says it has this right. In fact under our constitution it's illegal for any state to do this all states have to follow federal law when it comes to the appeals process! Now if you are referring to Texas state law where homeowner has the right to shoot a trespasser or someone who is breaking into their neighbors property many other states have a similar law on their books!

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: neo96

Trade is about PROPERTY as in goods and services needed to live, on and sell to make a living.

let me get this straight......to you money is more important than life ?

Have i got that right or am i missing something ?

That was funny since life is so 'important' but when it comes to ABORTION.

The same people crying in this thread sing a different tune.

it was a yes/ no answer....no crying just curious.....no need to ask you again i will just assume the answer was a yes

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs


I have travelled... I've also mingled with different cultural backgrounds within the UK...
& also book smart...

Point?

Traveling to somewhere on holiday, and having drinks with people does not equate to knowing and understanding any foreign land.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

Pitching morality is what one should do in a case of an unjustifiable law.
You don't have to like that, but it is what it is!

Interesting.
Guess it goes both ways.
YOU don't have to like the law, but it is what it is.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
I commend you for thinking clearly, despite it taking a while...
Maybe you could tell me why you wouldn't shoot someone for petty theft?
The answer to this may either explain, or contradict why you have "no problem" with others doing so!

It is not a contradiction.
I wouldn't do it, unless in certain circumstances.
I have no problem with someone else doing it.
Don't want to get shot...don't steal from people.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
I haven't mentioned "poor people" once...
I did say how I feel it's an injustice to shoot people for petty theft...

And good for you. You don't reside here.
If you don't want it happening in your country, you have a voice.

How or why foreigners feel it necessary to butt into the affairs of others is mind boggling. But..you waxing the light fantastic about what WE in America should or shouldn't do is entertaining.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
& I'd also have no hesitation killing someone breaking into my house, a friends house, families members house, or anyone who is a physical threat to those listed...
So there is some common ground.

Well great. Good for you.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
I don't have a take on your gun rights, I think they're fine...
I'd like the same in London...
I have a problem with legislating a law that allows people to be exonerated for killing someone for petty theft...
That's what I've been discussing.

Very simple. Don't want to get shot, don't steal.
I don't see the problem with this, unless you are okay with stealing. Either for yourself or someone else stealing.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

No not the car, I'm well aware that was a hypothetical line of questioning.

I have made no assumptions about your Laws...
I have expressed a disagreement with them...

So, here is a question. What serves you and your home country better. Dealing with and voicing concern over your own country issues, or issues in the US?

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

You assumed that I think "poor people" should be let off for their infringements!

With this law, and other like it, they pay the ultimate price for their actions.
Very simple again. Don't want to get shot, don't steal.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
You also said;
"As for your fedora, it is just property. I mean, if some poor little hipster needed it, who are you to deny them."

As if to imply I'm advocating no punishment at all for petty theft.

If it is just a hat, why bother.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Those were your assumptions. Also claiming I know "nothing" about your Laws...
That was another.

Great, so do explain your expertise in US law.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

Who mentioned Hollywood?
Another veiled attempt at insulting my intelligence I see. Well done. There's another assumption too.
You're on a roll.

You used the Wild West statement. That is driven by Hollywood make believe.
Thus...Hollywood is very much a driver.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
LoL, "I brought up Gun Rights"?
I don't think you've been paying attention in this thread at all when you say things so nonchalant without basis.

I know some of the history, the Revolutionary stance and protection from tyrannical infringement within the US...
But not even close to all of it though.
& that's why I'm here.

Okay then.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Maybe you can make a thread about it to teach us "foreigners".

Why? I am willing to bet 99% wouldn't get it.
Additionally, there are people here that need better education on this. You know...keeping within the whole taking care of the home country first.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
LoL a Gunman who's never heard the terminology Hollow Tip, that's quite an impressive attempt at being disingenuous over semantics.

So, do explain how it is that you think the term "Hollow Tip" is valid.
I guess you think that bullets are held in a "clip" to feed a rifle or pistol.
Again, if you are going to try to insult using terms, you should probably make sure what you use applies.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

I'm sure you do to, but I've yet to see the wit displayed.

& no, personally if I had to stereotype an appearance of you, I'd say a man with scars, holding his favourite hunting rifle standing over the body of a Deer...
Close?

Don't like deer. I don't have a favorite hunting rifle.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
I don't see how my Fedora plays a part in anything to be honest.
Maybe you could explain what you mean in much more depth...
I'm guessing it's an attempt to emasculate me with dry humour... Fantastic.

It plays the part of what is the business of one person over another.

a reply to: Kali74

No it doesn't. That is a foolish perception based on ignorance.

What Texas is, on the other hand, not so stupid as to charge a home owner with a crime for defending his family from someone breaking into the house while he and/or his family are home. Suddenly the person committing the outrage, the crime, the invasion is the victim. BS

I have the right to defend myself, my family and my home and those stupid, ignorant states who attempt to violate that right are the problem. California has some of the most ignorant laws on the books in the country.

I was born in California. California is a P O S govt swimming in a cesspool of waste and corruption. I will never, ever call it home again. Want to be a criminal? Go to California...your odds are much better there.

Why do we need this law?
Aren't people already allowed to defend themselves? Because they should be. I don't see why we need a law saying people should be allowed to protect themselves...

a reply to: bbracken677

Hey Bracken ... how's it going?

I have a point of order here ... .

You stated above you hadn't read the proposed legislation. How do you even understand what we're discussing? The issue is not, primarily, should teachers have guns in the classroom but whether they should carry a state-enforced mandate to use those weapons against children for offenses related to the "protection of school property."

That was the basis of Kali's comment about property. I'd say you're going off about 1/4 cocked, if you don't mind me saying so. I don't think you're seeing the context of her comment.

originally posted by: Kali74

Due process is for every person on US soil. Texas seems to think it has the right to deny that to people by making theft and property damage/destruction a crime punishable by death without proof of guilt determined by a jury of peers. It is

You *do* realize that self-defense is entirely different from "punishment," right? Completely different concepts.

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Kali74

No it doesn't. That is a foolish perception based on ignorance.

What Texas is, on the other hand, not so stupid as to charge a home owner with a crime for defending his family from someone breaking into the house while he and/or his family are home. Suddenly the person committing the outrage, the crime, the invasion is the victim. BS

I have the right to defend myself, my family and my home and those stupid, ignorant states who attempt to violate that right are the problem. California has some of the most ignorant laws on the books in the country.

I was born in California. California is a P O S govt swimming in a cesspool of waste and corruption. I will never, ever call it home again. Want to be a criminal? Go to California...your odds are much better there.

We aren't talking about home invasion. If an intruder trespasses in your home, your life is in danger and unquestioningly have the right to act as you feel necessary to protect yourself and your family.

What my beef is, is with Texas law that allows someone to kill for stealing a six pack of beer(as linked in the thread) and not be charged with a crime... such law is now being proposed to extend to teachers on school property in defense of school property. This is repulsive in my opinion in originality and now by extension. I don't know how it can be seen as anything but a violation of the 5th Amendment.

a reply to: StalkerSolent

Yes I do. We aren't talking about self defense.

a reply to: tiberius10721

I'm not referring to home invasion. There's cases other posters have linked several times throughout the thread.