TexasCHLforum.com

Our usual nemesis in Dallas wrote the following:

Bill condones violence

Re: "Senators back no-retreat bill," Thursday news story.

These "castle doctrine" bills are about far more than protecting home or possessions. They would remove the requirement to retreat in a public place if you feel threatened and allow deadly force as a first resort.

These bills are introduced to satisfy the gun lobby. If passed, this law would do what the same bill did in Florida: allow the lawful shooting of unarmed people.

Our elected officials should say no to the gun lobby and no to more gun violence in Texas.

Marsha McCartney, North Texas Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Dallas

My answer was published this morning, 02/11/07 and was edited to say:

'I don't like it' won't do

Re: "Bill condones violence," by Marsha McCartney, Wednesday Letters.

I see that Ms. McCartney has bestowed her latest pronouncement straight from headquarters. The funny thing about it is she uses Florida's successful "castle doctrine" law as an example of something not to do, because she says it panders to the so-called gun lobby.

It's interesting that the anti-gun lobby can't come up with a good reason, like blood running in the streets of Florida, which they predicted when that law was passed, but merely, "Don't pass it because I don't like it and the other guys do."

The castle doctrine goes right along with our Second Amendment rights. It's the concept that we should be able to feel secure in our homes and persons and that we are competent to defend ourselves.

Jim Longley, Allen


They edited out my insulting remarks about Marsha's participating in the now defunct "Million Mom March" and the illegitimate origins of the Brady Bunch.

But at least my answer, with the salient point, made it in.