cubbyjg wrote:So the police wont help and if i were to try to get to my car, i run the risk of entering into a confrontation. And if things hit the fan, and i have to use my gun to defend myself, i would be in a heated battle where the court would be asking, why didnt i just stay away. I agree that 8 on 1 does not work to my advantage but it seems either way i get the shaft while the punks continue to be punks.
I know exactly how to fix this, but atheists would have a problem with it, and it is probably unconstitutional anyway. As John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” So when you ban religion from the public square, and when you assign depravity as a constitutional right, and when you enable government to usurp the personal responsibilities of the individual, this is what you get.
Welcome to it.
So are you saying that the thugs are atheists? Or that atheists can cause theists to act like punks?
I doubt that they were atheists. Since atheists make up only a small percentage of the population of Texas, I would be surprised if 8 of them were ever in the same place at the same time. Truth is these were probably Christians.
I think you completely missed the point. He was not necessarily attributing the actions to atheists, he was saying that his solution to these kind of situations would have a Biblical flavor to it, and that as such, this would not sit well with the atheist in our country.
I am curious, however, why you think that the actions of this group reflect the characteristics of those who follow Christ (Christians)?
I don't think that the actions of this group reflect the characteristics of Christians, just that statistically since Christians are a large majority in Texas, it is probable that they were Christians.
Maybe I did miss the point. What exactly would a Biblical-flavored solution to this type of situation be?
I am thinking along the lines of II Kings 2:23-24.
I guess i can see the point in using the alarm on your car. I was thinking if i was in that situation i could use the panic button and then call 911 saying i think someone is trying to break into my car right? Wouldnt that warrant the PD to come by then? I could just omit the fact that i set my alarm off
Hook'em Horns!
Class of 2007
“I am actually for gun control. Use both hands." - Gov. Rick Perry
Remember the old joke about the idiot break dancing (spinning like a top) in the middle of the street because he was trying to steal a hubcap when the owner drove off?
Sorry...a bit of poor humor in a serious discussion. My bad.
cubbyjg wrote:I guess i can see the point in using the alarm on your car. I was thinking if i was in that situation i could use the panic button and then call 911 saying i think someone is trying to break into my car right? Wouldnt that warrant the PD to come by then? I could just omit the fact that i set my alarm off
(1st post!)
As I've read all these scenarios, I know I'd be more inclined to confront if PD was not available. Reading more into it, I think the creative solution is the right one COMBINED with a call to PD saying "my alarm is going off with many people I do not recognize surrounding my car." Then insert a Joe Horn statement here that "I'm armed & will defend my property as needed".
That will surely get a faster PD response, right? You don't necessarily confront, but you get a resolution.
cubbyjg wrote:I guess i can see the point in using the alarm on your car. I was thinking if i was in that situation i could use the panic button and then call 911 saying i think someone is trying to break into my car right? Wouldnt that warrant the PD to come by then? I could just omit the fact that i set my alarm off
(1st post!)
As I've read all these scenarios, I know I'd be more inclined to confront if PD was not available. Reading more into it, I think the creative solution is the right one COMBINED with a call to PD saying "my alarm is going off with many people I do not recognize surrounding my car." Then insert a Joe Horn statement here that "I'm armed & will defend my property as needed".
That will surely get a faster PD response, right? You don't necessarily confront, but you get a resolution.
The only problem I see with this is that you've told the 911 dispatcher that you are armed and prepared to shoot. If you end up shooting someone, a lawyer can argue it was premeditated.
The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. James Madison
NRA Life Member Texas Firearms Coalition member
cubbyjg wrote:I guess i can see the point in using the alarm on your car. I was thinking if i was in that situation i could use the panic button and then call 911 saying i think someone is trying to break into my car right? Wouldnt that warrant the PD to come by then? I could just omit the fact that i set my alarm off
(1st post!)
As I've read all these scenarios, I know I'd be more inclined to confront if PD was not available. Reading more into it, I think the creative solution is the right one COMBINED with a call to PD saying "my alarm is going off with many people I do not recognize surrounding my car." Then insert a Joe Horn statement here that "I'm armed & will defend my property as needed".
That will surely get a faster PD response, right? You don't necessarily confront, but you get a resolution.
You'll get a quick response in Plano, but in South Dallas, where I've called the cops before, it may take 30 minutes or more. Have you ever noticed that there are no traffic cameras in South Dallas and Oak Cliff (the "bad" parts)? That's because the peeps there are brazen enough to steal POLICE PROPERTY such as traffic cams. The nasty truth is that if you live in the "bad" part of town, self-defense is gonna be DIY.
I just read another post that suggested turning on the car alarm to ward off thugs on your car. That's a great idea and that's why I read this forum, for the great ideas. Why didn't I think of that? Car alarms with panic buttons are cheap nowadays, too.
cubbyjg wrote:I guess i can see the point in using the alarm on your car. I was thinking if i was in that situation i could use the panic button and then call 911 saying i think someone is trying to break into my car right? Wouldnt that warrant the PD to come by then? I could just omit the fact that i set my alarm off
(1st post!)
As I've read all these scenarios, I know I'd be more inclined to confront if PD was not available. Reading more into it, I think the creative solution is the right one COMBINED with a call to PD saying "my alarm is going off with many people I do not recognize surrounding my car." Then insert a Joe Horn statement here that "I'm armed & will defend my property as needed".
That will surely get a faster PD response, right? You don't necessarily confront, but you get a resolution.
The only problem I see with this is that you've told the 911 dispatcher that you are armed and prepared to shoot. If you end up shooting someone, a lawyer can argue it was premeditated.
Quoting the PC, you are entitled to protect your property. It's not much different than the Joe Horn situation. It's your own vehicle, the alarm is going off, & there are people around it you don't recognize. That's not premeditated. Ask Joe Horn.
cubbyjg wrote:So the police wont help and if i were to try to get to my car, i run the risk of entering into a confrontation. And if things hit the fan, and i have to use my gun to defend myself, i would be in a heated battle where the court would be asking, why didnt i just stay away. I agree that 8 on 1 does not work to my advantage but it seems either way i get the shaft while the punks continue to be punks.
I know exactly how to fix this, but atheists would have a problem with it, and it is probably unconstitutional anyway. As John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” So when you ban religion from the public square, and when you assign depravity as a constitutional right, and when you enable government to usurp the personal responsibilities of the individual, this is what you get.
Welcome to it.
Think before you speak, sir. Like any group, and/or religion there are good & bad that come out of each. I find it funny you don't bring up any of the Deist founding fathers of ours.
The Annoyed Man wrote:
I know exactly how to fix this, but atheists would have a problem with it, and it is probably unconstitutional anyway. As John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” So when you ban religion from the public square, and when you assign depravity as a constitutional right, and when you enable government to usurp the personal responsibilities of the individual, this is what you get.
Welcome to it.
Think before you speak, sir. Like any group, and/or religion there are good & bad that come out of each. I find it funny you don't bring up any of the Deist founding fathers of ours.
I can tell you that some of these men were NOT atheists. Atheism is a non-belief in God. Many people who want to try and portray Washington, Lincoln, and Franklin as atheists only do so in the fact that they rarely or never mentioned Jesus in any of their writings. However, you will find they frequently mention God. Neither did most other people of their time. So, while they may not have been followers of or espoused the mainstream Christan following of Jesus, they in fact DID believe in God. One example for is that Washington and Franklin were Masons, and I can guarantee you they would not have been members if they didn't believe.
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member
