Firearms Talk banner

Here's hoping this bill passes in TN.

4K views 98 replies 23 participants last post by  towboater 
#1 · (Edited)
#5 ·
Forget all of the innocent people that would be killed. You really want to be able to kill someone for running off with your lawn mower? Is that the kind of value you place on human life? I don't get that Conservatives are willing to die to protect a fetus, but is willing to kill an adult over a theft of their "stuff."
 
#7 ·
The law should be changed similar to the Tn bill in all states.

Only in modern America would a thief be deemed innocent.

Nobody forced the thief to be a thief.
The result of that action SHOULD lie squarely on the shoulders of the thief.
The proposed bill doesnt say one HAS to shoot a thief , simply that the option is there. There wouldnt be thousands shot because theft would be a rare occurance instead of a daily event.

As to unborn human beings , I suppose I lead a sheltered life but I've no knowledge of " fetuses" creeping around stealing etc.
No. The unborn are innocent and defenseless. The perfect victim for the left.
 
#11 ·
That I agree with. That is why I have a shotgun by my bed. If they come into your home, then they have indicated a willingness to fight you for your stuff.

Protecting life and health is different, to me, than protecting something that, was probably made in China, that I bought at Wal-Mart, and have left unattended in my yard.
 
#10 ·
I think a lot of this Bill's point has been silently attributed to BLM and ANTIFA.
I would not want to shoot anyone for trivial theft. Stealing my car or truck in my driveway at night possibly another issue. "My Property"! But home invasion, rioting, mass looting or burning on my property, Simply put "Payed For"! In that case I would fully support the Bill. And I agree just shooting people by accident could be an issue. Although you know the NAACP as always is going to inject possibilities that in all likelihood would not become factual. And example delivery to the wrong address when the UPS guy might come back to pick it up to take to the right address. Who in the H*** is going to shoot a UPS man in uniform! I could see he might be challenged but in realty no one is going to make the mistake and shoot him. Beside UPS does not work in the middle of the night!;) If you noticed the main point of the Bill was in the night! Point being many a home owner has been killed and especially at night confronting thieves. Theft is a decision!! Don't play the game if you can't take the pain!:rolleyes: Of course the NAACP is a "Poor Me" Organization! Who always wants to protect the criminals and scumbags!

03
 
#13 ·
How did this become about race? Bringing the NAACP into play here tells the largest part of the story. We were talking about thieves. They come in all colors.
 
#15 ·
Simply because they seem to have to challenge every law that might hurt their agenda! As I read the article unless I am mistaken, the NAACP is the ones objecting to the new Bill.

03
 
#17 ·
Chain

I agree with you about holding them at gun point until the law shows up. For us it would probably be at best 20 - 30 minutes.
And I do not think there are many here who would out and out shoot someone even if the Bill passed. I am sure if it does pass here in Tennessee their will be some refinements of its scope not as it is written in the initial proposal.
But on the other hand I would not be present and stand by with my thumb up my ______ and watch someone break in and steal my truck or car.

03
 
#19 ·
It isn't the lawn mower or the TV that are important. If a thief gets one item and you let him he will come back for another. Pretty soon he will feel everything you own is his including your house. The "peaceful" demonstrators were doing the same thing. "We are going to take your house and kick you out on the street."
 
#22 ·
It’s a little harsh to be shooting someone over a lawnmower but wandering around my property at 3am I really don’t know what your doing. If I were to try and hold someone at gunpoint till cops got there I would be very careful that they are not armed or have a buddy with them. I would not generally assume they are there just to steal my yard equipment.
 
#36 ·
Everytime and i mean everytime there is a proposal to repeal gun regulations or ease regulation of self or propert defense you hear the same crys from certain quarters. " There will be blood in the streets" The wild west etc etc .
Do away with conceal carry permits.
" Untrained people will kill thousands accidentally " . Didnt happen.

It never happens of course.
Texas has had the same law about protecting property forever. With none of the doomsday prrdictions coming true.
 
#34 ·
I don’t doubt that. I have ran service calls in rural areas and pulled in the wrong driveway where I was met with a gun in my face. Apologize back out and get moving. I wish people would put their rural mailboxes in front of their own driveways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MisterMcCool
#35 ·
I don't think that the people of Tennessee really want to return to a midlevel justice system, I suspect that the politicians are just playing to their nutty base.
 
#43 ·
But but but, you wanted to kill all the Bundys in Nevada over " public land" with i think gunships?? I may be mistaken about the weapon but result is the same.
They weren a threat to anyones life and limb.
The Bundy's were heavily armed felons, threatening to kill government employees.
 
#44 ·
Bad memory. The Bundys werent then and arent now felons.

They were ranchers threatening nobody. They did stand up for their rights when BLM began stealjng their cattle, surrounding their house with snipers and physically assaulting old women.
But they threatened noone . And werent nor are now felons .

So again now that facts have been refreshed, how does urging the killing of those folks fit into the only a threat to life and limb philosphy.???
 
#47 ·
Yep. Because the court order was for federal land. That land belongs to the state of Nevada. The Fed can constitionally only own land for very specfic things.
None of which are on that land.
And apparently the court agreed.
The charges against Bundy were thrown out of court in Nevada.
In Burns they were found innocent.
Bundy still ranches that land . No charges, no arrests no nothing.
 
#49 ·
Nobody cares about the Bundys...just say'in.

Now, if a porch pirate or two were to end up getting shot while doing their thing, and it got extensive coverage on the local news, you gotta think that incidence of package thefts would drop off for a bit.

Same thing with car break ins and car thefts. It would only take a few thieves being made examples of for it to have an effect.

Unfortunately most states put the rights of criminals ahead of the rights of hard working law abiding citizens. And that will be our downfall.
 
#52 ·
It has nothing to do with the dollar amount. It has to do with someone illegally trespassing on my marked property, and then thinking that they can take something that I paid for, and they didn't.
When it comes to a criminal, their life has no value to me. They made that choice in their life, no one made them choose the life that they lead.
So there is no minimum value that you place on human life. That is good to know. With a little luck, your state will pass its blessing for you to murder.
I place no value on the thiefs life, none. They are nothing but a burden on society. Either they are successful and steal from you or are eventually caught and end up being supported the state. Good riddance to them. Collectively we are all better off without them. This to me is a fundamental truth and I struggle to understand anyone that defends them and their existence.
 
#54 ·
So, if you had it in your power, would you execute everyone in state and federal prisons that are there for theft?
 
#55 ·
I'm going to give an example here.

My MIL is on life maintaining medication (which is regulated as to when and how often it can be refilled). Going without it is life threatening for her. If a thief was in the act of stealing her medication (worth less than a lawn mower) would that in your mind justify the use of deadly force to protect her medication and potentially her life?

See for me the value of whatever is in question is relative and only really understood by the owner. What really is at stake is what is acceptable behavior. Am I suggesting the death penalty for theft; no; but in the heat of a crime you are subject to any and all means to prevent the crime. It is the chance you take being a criminal. And honestly, seems appropriate to me.
 
#63 ·
I'm going to give an example here.

My MIL is on life maintaining medication (which is regulated as to when and how often it can be refilled). Going without it is life threatening for her. If a thief was in the act of stealing her medication (worth less than a lawn mower) would that in your mind justify the use of deadly force to protect her medication and potentially her life?

See for me the value of whatever is in question is relative and only really understood by the owner. What really is at stake is what is acceptable behavior. Am I suggesting the death penalty for theft; no; but in the heat of a crime you are subject to any and all means to prevent the crime. It is the chance you take being a criminal. And honestly, seems appropriate to me.
Great example.

Another one: Seeing someone fumbling with one's mail at the mailbox outside. Heading outside, yelling at the perp to knock it off and head elsewhere ... only to be turned on by the perp. Most folks who won't engage their brains on this type of thing imagine it's "about the mail" and "a death sentence for pieces of mail" isn't justifiable. But, it ain't about the mail. It's about thwarting the violent escalation and putting it down before damage to the innocent occurs, same as any other crime of actual or imminent violence of the sort.

As with your medicines. It ain't about "pills." It's about the threat of death if a few hours without them is forced upon you.

Same with a lawnmower or stack of tools in the shed, or a bicycle out at the side of the house. Confronting someone caught in the act is currently justifiable; as is lawful response to any additional crime of violence attempted by a perp who feels offended at having been caught and commanded to halt. Ain't about the "stuff." It's about the threat to life when demanding the perp halts when it's clear the perp seeks an additional crime of violence tacked on the list.

Pretty simple, really.
 
#62 ·
Legally has nothing to do with squat except cleanup.
If a person is actually determined to shoot someone they will.

Kind of like banning free felons from owning guns when everyone knows they arm themselves in a week of release.

Way to many regulations comcerning the right to self defense and to protect their property now that put the honest armed citizen at a disadvantage to the criminal. This bill would be a small step in the right direction.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top