Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Mike Gallagher :: Townhall.com Columnist
A Democrat's hypocrisy comes home to roost
by Mike Gallagher
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


One wouldn’t think that the state of Texas would have much trouble supporting gun owners who should be allowed to defend their family or themselves in their own homes, cars or places of business. But until recently, Texas didn’t have a “castle doctrine” law on the books.

The concept behind a “castle doctrine” is that a man’s home is his castle and if a bad guy is stupid enough to try and enter a man’s home to do him or his family harm, the man should have the right to blow the intruder into kingdom come (provided the homeowner is licensed to carry).

Oddly enough, Texas didn’t have such a law. In fact, the legal expectation was that someone under attack in their own home had a “duty” to retreat before using deadly force.

Finally, Lone Star State lawmakers came to their senses and passed legislation that becomes effective September 1st. From now on, there will be no “duty to retreat” and men (and women) can defend themselves.

But not every elected official in Texas voted for this legislation. One of the spineless wonders who voted against the Texas law is a Democrat from Houston named Borris Miles.

Miles voted vote against House Bill 284, joining a small group of dissenters who amazingly saw fit to deny a Texan the ability to use lawful force against a criminal.

Now it completely baffles me how anyone with a lick of sense would try and make the ridiculous case that a person minding their own business in their home would have any “duty to retreat” before fending off a lowlife scum’s attack.

Based on what happened this week, Rep. Borris Miles agrees with me.

This is rich. While Miles was fixing a leak on the second floor of a home he’s building in the Houston area, he told police he heard a noise downstairs. When he went to investigate, he discovered two men trying to steal copper.

What do you suppose this anti-gun, bleeding heart liberal did when he confronted two bad guys trying to steal copper from him? Do you think he retreated?

He did not. In fact, I’ll give you a clue as to what Rep. Borris Miles did: “BANG!”

That’s right, this hypocritical Democrat pulled out his gun and promptly shot one of the copper burglars.

Now as someone who also had a new construction burglarized by copper thieves, I can relate to the anger and frustration a homeowner feels over some meth-head stealing copper while one is trying to build a new house. But the last time I checked, most people -- and certainly few Democrats – wouldn’t consider copper thievery a capital offense.

Yet here is a man who evidently felt comfortable voting against giving Texans the right to defend themselves while thumbing his nose at his own vote and blasting away at the bad guys.

Do as I say, not as I do, eh?

Incidentally, the guy Miles shot is going to live. Perhaps his shot was as shaky as his vote, he hit the thief in the leg.

Bearing in mind that the new “Castle Doctrine” law doesn’t take affect until Sept 1st, I wonder if Borris Miles might face criminal charges for shooting a guy in his own house?

The only thing more delicious than witnessing yet another Democrat’s rank hypocrisy would be to see a legislator go to jail for breaking a law that he voted to uphold.

Why do some of these clowns make it so easy?

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Mike Gallagher is a nationally syndicated radio host, Fox News Channel contributor and guest host and author of Surrounded by Idiots: Fighting Liberal Lunacy in America.

Be the first to read Mike Gallagher's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Mike
He is not the only one. Tuesday I heard a Gun Control advocate who puts up false or misleading info on billboards near Fenway Park going ballistic on a (oh no) conservative radio talk show and he seemed to think by yelling (several times)...

"I'm a GUN OWNER!! I KNOW BETTER!! And you're a LIAR." (not exact quote BUT real close)

...at the host he was making his point. The only point about his "more federal gun laws" rant that I suddenly found myself agreeing with was that some people should be scrutinized more closely...like him for instance.

I also came away with the impression that he was bragging..."Haha, I've got a gun and you can't have one"...What a hypocrite!

It would appear that to Mr. Miles way of
twisted liberal logic that "the duty to retreat" either means 1)applies to anyone else BUT him, and 2) shoot the intruder while backing away at the same time. Great column, Mr. Gallagher.


Licensed to carry?
Why should a person have to be licensed to carry in order to use force to protect himself in his home?

Asking for help
I'm trying to find that passage in the Bible where it says,

"And yee shall use the most mocking of tones, the most insulting of demeanors, and the most arrogant of manners when confronting the heathens. It is only when the infidels have been brow beaten with the meanest of angry, vile and vicious manners that they will harken themselves unto the Lord. Go and be ugly. Let the meanness and the anger of your most darkest, vile, black thoughts that I have planted unto you escape so that the wickedness can purge that in others."

I was thinking somewhere in John, but I couldn't find it. Perhaps Luke?

Thanks!

Bad research
Sorry, Mike, you should have researched this one.

Texas has always had "castle doctrine". There's never been a duty to retreat inside one's own home (and of course no license is needed on one's own property, either).

What Rep. Miles voted against should be called a "stand your ground" law. It eliminates any duty to retreat when you are NOT in your home.

Lick of Sense?
When he writes that "Now it completely baffles me how anyone with a lick of sense..." he is missing the point. Liberals don't have a lick of sense.

To drivebyposting: Perhaps you were thinking of the Apostle Paul's comment that "As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!" Or Jesus, when he said, "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?"

I guess those guys were not very politically correct.

This same thing happened in
DC when a noted anti-gun advocate and journalist, Carl Rowen shot an intruder with a handgun. This was in DC where it is virtually against the law to own a handgun.

It has always been this way for the anti-gun liberals. This gun ban is for you and not for me. In effect, I will feel safe if you don't have a gun and I do. This falls in with the other hypocrisy that liberals are inundated with such as environmentalism in which they advocate restricted use of energy for everyone but themselves.

What one can never get through their thick sculls is that criminals by their very nature will not comply with any laws written to restrict guns. All that will happen is the honest people become disarmed.

And I am glad that the other posters straightened out the misconception on what the law in Texas is. I did not think one had to be licensed to have a gun in your own home.

What do we know about the Houston 2?
Wait a minute...Were the "Houston 2" gay men who were forced into extracting copper from homes under construction because of gender discrimination? Is Borris Miles homophobic?
Were the Houston 2 possibly undocumented workers who were planning to take the copper to a work site of a poor person who could not afford to buy copper from a rich corporate business? Does Borris Miles condone income inequality in Texas?
Did Borris Miles warn the Houston 2 in their native language to cease and desist prior to shooting? Why isn't Mr. Morris bi-lingual?
Did Borris Miles have an approved government trigger lock on his weapon? If not, why not?
The Houston 2 should be able to sue the gun manufacturer for allowing such a dangerous person as Mr. Miles to purchase a weapon, (assuming the weapon was legally purchased to begin with). And what about the gun dealer who sold Mr. Morris the weapon...he should be sued as well!
The injured half of the Houston 2 should be eligible for disability income and workers compensation for the pain and suffering caused at the hands of Mr. Morris. This should be paid by the taxpayers of Texas.
Oh, yes, Mr. Morris was once seen in the same city with Carl Rove...This connection needs to be explored further by Congress.
Finally, Mr. Morris' indiscretion was caused by global warming, since the heat of the day caused a chemical imbalance which resulted in him to commit an act in an irrational manner. There will soon be an announcement of a contry and western global warming concert to raise money for Mr. Morris.

So Miles is guilty!
Since the "crime" and shooting took place in a house under construction, it was not Borris Miles' "home" and he therefore was required under current law (and the one he voted to uphold) to retreat from the criminals and not simply shoot them. He should also have been in possession of a CC permit (even though I consider it unConstitutional to require a permit for a Constitution right to "keep and bear", own and carry, arms). I surely hope that prosecutor Sutton will be all over this case like stink on you know what.

YouRepubsAreJokers
You see! You just proved my point about liberals; just because he did what he did does not mean that he actually did it. Just like liberals who complain about energy dependence but then refuse to allow us to drill for our own sources. Or how they call us conservatives facsists while at the very same time they try to ramrod their beliefs down our throats whether we want them or not? Or how when republicans win elections then they demand 'minority rights' but when the democrat party wins they proclaim that the people have spoken?
Before you start throwing stones in the name of hypocracy I'd refer you to the Glass Houses department.

You Repubs Are Jokers
I was disappointed that Gallagher failed to mention the knife myself.

That said, reports are that it was a pocket knife. And after he threw it, he was disarmed. So, our liberal hero shot an unarmed man.

I would have myself. But I'm not a hypocrite about it.

correction
I erred. I misspelled hypocrisy. I'm sure the libs want me thrown off of this site for it.

The Actual Text Of The Bill
S.B. No. 378




AN ACT
relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 9.01, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subdivisions (4) and (5) to read as follows:
(4) "Habitation" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.
(5) "Vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section 30.01.
SECTION 2. Section 9.31, Penal Code, is amended by amending Subsection (a) and adding Subsections (e) and (f) to read as follows:
(a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 3. Section 9.32, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and
[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY [AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE]. A [It is an affirmative defense to a civil action for damages for personal injury or death that the] defendant who uses force or[, at the time the cause of action arose, was justified in using] deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's [against a person who at the time of the] use of force or deadly force, as applicable [was committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the defendant].
SECTION 5. (a) Sections 9.31 and 9.32, Penal Code, as amended by this Act, apply only to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. For the purposes of this subsection, an offense is committed before the effective date of this Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.
(b) Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended by this Act, applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act. An action that accrued before the effective date of this Act is governed by the law in effect at the time the action accrued, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.
SECTION 6. This Act takes effect September 1, 2007.





______________________________ ______________________________
President of the Senate Speaker of the House
I hereby certify that S.B. No. 378 passed the Senate on March 13, 2007, by the following vote: Yeas 30, Nays 0.



______________________________
Secretary of the Senate
I hereby certify that S.B. No. 378 passed the House on March 20, 2007, by the following vote: Yeas 133, Nays 13, one present not voting.



______________________________
Chief Clerk of the House


Approved:


______________________________
Date



______________________________
Governor

You Repubs Are Jokers
I never said he was wrong. I implied that he was a hypocrite for voting to disallow others to defend themselves in the very way he did.

If I give you a quarter, will you promise to buy a clue?

Oops!
disallow others the right to defend themselves (sorry)

YouRepubsAreJokers
Good one dude. That one stuck too,nobody has ever called me dumb before. Allow me a second to suppress a tear...
How exactly am I being hypocritical? You have not disproven one thing I wrote. You are simply incorporating the time honored liberal technique of calling names in lieu of producing a cogent argument. Personally, I couldn't care less about this Texas congressman. I am far more interested in the systemic hypocracy that pervaids the whole of the democrat party. You have not and I dare say will not address any of the charges I laid out in my previous post. Punk.

Everything else aside...
What would really drive home the irony is if the would-be copper thief who was shot in the leg turns around and sues Miles...and wins!

Retreat. I Don't Think So
I can only assume that Texas didn't have a "castle law" because Texans didn't think it was needed. It has long been understood that householders can keep firearms in the house (including hand guns) and that you break in only at the risk of your life.


Another shining example
Yet another politician who thinks that the laws of the land apply to everyone else, but not himself. If there is any justice in this world, the good Mr. Miles will be sitting in the dock soon, having his day in court.

Let's not forget
that both Diane Feinstein (in the 80's) and Rosie O'Donnell (in the 90's) have chosen to protect themselves with handguns, while campaigning against these evil weapons for the rest of us plebians.

NEVER GOT AN ANSWER
I often ask libs: What will you do, when an armed criminal breaks into your home, rapes your woman/man (;)), demands money, saying he will kill you all?
(...excuse me, mister bad guy, lemme call cops?)

Although it had been proven many times that a criminal with a gun can be stopped ONLY by the gun,
I have
NEVER GOT AN ANSWER

Yourepubs
As you said "Miles TRIED TO STOP THE SUSPECTS" and "Miles voted against SB378 (to remove the requirement of retreat before using force"

If he was trying to stop them then he wasn't retreating. If he hadn't tried to stop them and had retreated, like he wants you to do, they wouldn't have thrown the knife at him. All he had to do was retreat, but following the laws he votes for is too much to ask for a true liberal.

drivebyposting - was this what you were
Looking for?

"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you."

Ezekiel 25:17 from the Quentin Tarantino version of the bible

borris miles
Would appreciate a picture of the political hypocrite (but I repeat myself) and the district in Texas he represents.

Texas voters woould appreciate this info.

Gimme a break
A GOP Senator (Dave Vitter) who stands for the "Sanctity of Marriage" is busted for going to prostitues.

An evangelical leader (Ted Haggard) is busted for paying a gay hooker for sex.

A Republican congressman (Tom Foley) who sponsors legislation for "child protection" is outed as a pedophile.

And yet you attack Democrats for being hypocrites.
Hahahahaha!

How can you people manage to look at yourselves in the mirror each morning???

The difference is that Vitter, Haggard,
and Foley would become instant heroes were they Democrats while Republicans view them, correctly, as seriously tainted. No hypocricy there.

In fact, we hold Foley in the
the same regard as we do Garry Studds, and (the pardoned) Mel Reynold. We hold Haggard in the same regard as we do Barney Frank. We regard Vitter the same as Bill Clinton. We are entirely consistent. Do you put them all on the same plain?

RE: YouAreAFreakinMoron
"YES, Miles voted against SB378 (to remove the requirement to retreat before using force if the other person is entering your home) UNLESS YOU ARE ATTACKED!"

Uh, thanks for PROVING his point, moron.

Just ignore the swill of Dr. Moron
YouRepubsAreJokers and his 10000000 other names (he has to keep recreating his login because he's been banned from posting AT LEAST 10 times now...FACT) is nothing but a moron. No, not moron in the "insult" sense, but moron in the "a very stupid person" dictionary definition sense.

Every single day he spams these blogs with the same "u stoooopid repukies r postin swill!". Personally, I think he's actually Al "The Dumbest Man In America" Franken in real life.

As for the "substance", as it were, of his swill:

"I can see how you Repub's have a problem when faced with the REAL FACTS."

You, little boy, wouldn't know a fact if one hit you square between the eyes.

"Miles, who is licensed to carry a concealed weapon,
shot a man who was charged with aggravated robbery.
It was a just shooting!"

A shooting that he, according to his vote, thought ought to be a crime, which was the point of the column, little boy.

RE: Hosekuervo
"A Republican congressman (Tom Foley) who sponsors legislation for "child protection" is outed as a pedophile."

And that is a flat out DEMONSTRABLE lie. It turns out that the "children" you Dem liars keep quacking about were 18 and 21 years old, and Foley NEVER touched them.

You can't say the same about your party's hero, Gerry Studds, who ADMITTED that he molested a 17-year-old.

ThighMaster
My point was that Dem's are celebrated for abberant behavior. Dem's expect their representatives to be perverts, child molesters, adulterers, crooks, etc. so when they accomplish those things they get promoted.

We expect better of those who represent us so we, appropriately, send them packing or at least expect repentence.

Not that I would ever defend TOM Foley
but it's Mark Foley to whom you refer.

drivebyposting, 2:18 AM
I understand that you're trying very, very hard to be satirical, but you're actually not all that far off the mark. I think perhaps the most appropriate parallel to the imaginary garbage you concocted, that might explain our attitude, is this:

"1 Why are the nations in an uproar, And the peoples devising a vain thing?
"2 The kings of the earth take their stand, And the rulers take counsel together Against the LORD and against His Anointed:
"3 "Let us tear their fetters apart, And cast away their cords from us!"
"4 He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord scoffs at them.
"5 Then He will speak to them in His anger And terrify them in His fury:
"6 "But as for Me, I have installed My King Upon Zion, My holy mountain."
"7 ¶ "I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten Thee.
"8 ‘Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Thine inheritance, And the very ends of the earth as Thy possession.
"9 ‘Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron, Thou shalt shatter them like earthenware.’"
"10 ¶ Now therefore, O kings, show discernment; Take warning, O judges of the earth.
"11 Worship the LORD with reverence, And rejoice with trembling.
"12 Do homage to the Son, lest He become angry, and you perish in the way, For His wrath may soon be kindled. How blessed are all who take refuge in Him!"

Psalms 2

I do understand that God's scoffing does not necessarily justify our own. However, you need to face the simple fact that liberalism is a nothing more than a wholehearted attempt by foolish men to throw off the rule of God, and those of us who recognize it for what it is quite naturally hold it in appropriate derision.

Hosekuervo
You're correct there is hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle, and as Kilroy stated, we on the right tend to condemn our own when caught red-handed. (We sure as Hell don't hold a pep rally at the White House because Articles of Impeachment have been delivered due to a certain President's hypocisy.)

But another note to make over the different types of hypocrisy is this. When a Republican or Conservative makes a bad choice like those listed above, he tends to due great harm to himself and his family. When a Dem or Lib gets tied up in their brand of hypocrisy, they tend to come out the better. Examples: This very story. Red Nancy screaming about being pro-union, but yet not having a single union employee working in any of her or her husband's businesses. Hillary thinking anybody else's children should be empowered to do really stupid things (sex, abortion w/o consent, etc,) but kept little Chelsae under her thumb. Michael Moore telling people not to invest in equities while owning a stock portfolio. Just about anytime Chomsky or Nader open their mouth hypocrisy spews forth (the list is just too numerous to mention here. By the way, both of these men are very wealthy.) Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinem screaming throughout the 70's how 'you don't need a man.' Yet when the time came, got married. I could list alot more. If gullible people actually lived how these people told them to live, their lives would be lesser for it. Meanwhile, these body-parts live their life in the DIRECT OPPOSITE of their rantings have enriched themselves for it.


hosekuervo
Wrote: "How can you people manage to look at yourselves in the mirror each morning???"

I answer: By adhering to a logically consistent moral philosophy, that's how.

HK (and let's remind ourselves, once again, of what sort of moral character brags about his devotion to alcoholic binges) is part of that cadre of deliberately ignorant moderns who define "hypocrite" as "any person who advocates moral standards but falls short of perfection in those morals." This is nothing but the rationalization of moral slobs.

Morals are important BECAUSE we're flawed. We'll all fall short of moral standards, because we're human. Unless we set high standards for ourselves, we'll degenerate into the barbarian culture that reflects what we truly are without moral training (which is precisely what Democrats advocate, calling it "tolerant").

A man who advocates moral standards that he himself violates, demonstrates his commitment to overcoming his failing. That's not hypocrisy, that's moral courage. It would be hypocrisy only if he pretended not to have any moral failings, and openly condemned those who exhibit the same failings he exhibits in private.

When we advocate sound moral standards, HK and his modernist buddies feel as though we're condemning them, not because we really are, but because their own consciences remind them that they've cravenly fled the fight to become good men.


Licensed to carry
The only problem I have with this law is that is has that stipulation. The second amendment says I have a right to keep and BEAR arms. It doesn't mention a license. Those licenses are expensive, and I think the license to carry legislation was sponsored by people wanting to have a compulsory source of students.

YouRepub...

Not sure how long that post is going to last, but thank you for confirming what has been said to you in so many eloquent ways.

Been banned yet, bucko?

UrePubicFig
Good to see some of you on the Left are almost literate. Not quite, just almost.

Want to congradulate you on a very compelling arguement . You gonna be a speech writer for Cindy Shenanigans campaign?

Paulie
I hope his drivel stays up, I can't think of a better poter boy for he Left.

Yessir ladies and gentlemen, you see before you a real live Democrat in action.

Lib HYPOCRISY
Here’s another great example of Lib HYPOCRISY relating to guns.

Years ago at the so called “million mom march” (which was actually only a few hundred thousand), one of the key note speakers, who represented the Brady Campaign, was a Ms. Harris. Her speech was the usual “Ban All Guns” BS. A few months after her speech, her son was killed by a drunk driver near her home in DC. The driver was convicted, but served only a few years, thanks to our lenient criminal justice system. Upon his release, the distraught Ms. Harris purchased a hand gun and shot her sons’ killer, rendering him a paraplegic. Note that she purchased the gun illegally, in a city with the strictest gun control laws in the country. How’s that for Lib HYPOCRISY? Ms. Harris was convicted of attempted murder and aggravated assault, but also served only a few years in prison.

Well hello there PubicFig
Oh yeah, I can see from your writing now that you are a right leaning sort. Lean right into Pelosi, lean right into Finestien, lean right over for Kerry.

Sorry to hear you're only going to be here for the day, I was really looking forward to seeing you around.

YouRepub
Does your Mommy know you are on the Web?

It seems unlikely
It seems unlikely that Miles will be charged since according to the newspaper account, Miles (who was at a construction site he owned rather than his own home) called out to the theives, and only fired after one of them threw a knife at him. And at that point he only wounded the theif. If so, his behavior would be fully consistent with the old law, and with his objection to the new one.

Of course he could be lying about how things went down. But that would seem hard to prove. Particularly if he only fired one shot given the existence of two robbers (one of whom got away) it does not seem implausible that he acted in the way that he argued for in the legislature. If so, the charge of hypocrisy does not seem so clear. This is not a case of a Vitter arguing that people who have affairs are unfit for public office while indulging in prostitutes.

Jumbo55
Good point re the requirement for a "Permit” to carry, and strict interpretation of the 2ed Amd. This is one of the reasons I’ve carried a gun “illegally”, without a permit, for all of my adult life. And I encourage others to do the same; especially those who have the misfortune, as I do, to live in Lib / Socialist controlled States, which refuse to issue carry permits. Join me in becoming a “criminal”, spelled with a small ‘c’. Note: My “criminal” behavior eventually saved my life.

FigNewton
You still there? Catch your breath and give us some more thoughts from the far right of the Left wing. I'm really enjoying this.

YRF

Everything OK at the asylum? You seem to gone around the bend.

Your deep and edifying posts are the perfect example of what we've been saying around here for some time:

The liberal mindset is apparently not something that can be clinically treated.

At least not with logic.

Perhaps a club would help.

SFASU7392
I think he's out self medicating himself. I hope he stocks up. If anyone ever asks you why you don't vote Democrat, you can point to boy genius here.

This Would Be Funny
If not for the subject of Michelle Malkin's column.

You want me on the jury?
I do not consider a home under construction one's castle.

hosekuervo, 12:29 PM
That's right, HK. Moral depravity is actually ACCEPTABLE if you admit that you're doing it. The only TRUE morally depraved people are those who believe that what they're doing is wrong. Those who behave immorally, but don't believe it's immoral, and even brag about what they're doing -- those are the REAL pillars of society.

This is the sort of "reasoning" that comes out of the mouths of those who have never even made the attempt to be virtuous. It excuses their moral slovenliness.

Welcome to the New Morality of the Left. Boy, are we impressed, hose...

(And let's not forget to remind ourselves what sort of moral character actually brags about engaging in drunken binges...)

It was my understanding...
...at the time that this law, or actually ammending to existing law was brought about as a result of civil suits. Big suprise there, huh?

Criminals shot and wounded, or suvivors of terminally wounded criminals in cases of better aim, were finding lawyers who would file civil proceedings for wrongful injury. They were argueing that if you had just done more to get out of a situation or exited your house through the back door the crook would have left peacefully with you TV, car, stereo, whatever and nobody gets hurt.

Most of these cases were being laughed out of court, but you still end up in court, with your own lawyer on your own time and that ain't cheap. The crook isn't out anything cause he's probably in jail already anyhow, his lawyer is court appointed (you're paying for him too) and if he looses the case no way are you going to collect compensation for your costs from him. So for him it's a roll of the dice, who knows maybe he gets a brain dead jury or one full of Democrats. Repeated myself there didn't I, sorry.

Bytheocean
My home under construction may not be a castle yet, but it is still my property.

As far as you being on that jury, unless you are saying that you cannot make judgements with an open mind to the facts and in respect to the law, then why should I not want you on a jury.

The Bible According to Hosekuervo
It is more desireable to be a sociopath than a hypocrit.

Mike, you described Boris Miles to a T
Quoting: "Now it completely baffles me how anyone with a lick of sense would try and make the ridiculous case that a person minding their own business in their home would have any 'duty to retreat' before fending off a lowlife scum’s attack".

Hits it on the nail--Miles, a typical Demonicrud, has no sense whatsoever!

hosekuervo
So instead of debating some excellent responses you received from your first post, you twist the argument in another direction.

I'd like to you see actually address the responses that were directed toward your initial claims. You were provided excellent responses as to how the right still can spot hypocrisy when we see it.

To recap:

1. When we see wrong, we are quick to condemn our own.

2. Some things labeled as hypocrisy are really moral failings because some of us will falter although we still set the bar high. Would you rather lower the bar and watch us all degrade to Huns?

3. The times of alleged hypocrisy on the right tend to damage the wrong-doer and their family. Meanwhile, there are many examples of hypocrisy on the left that has actually enriched those very hypocrites by them not living by the very rules they throw down to others.

Your initial points were addressed. Now what say you, and please stay on point.


leroy
You make a good point regarding civil charges one may face using deadly force in self defense.
In civil court the burden of evidence is far less, and a jury vote need not be unanimous. Ask O.J. If you kill rather than wound an attacker, there’s less likely to be civil action. The reason is that survivors of a deceased, assuming there are any, often know the perp was a scum bag and therefore don’t sue. But if the perp survives, the chances of having to defend yourself in civil court, at considerable expense, increase significantly. That’s why Ive upgraded my “illegally” carried gun from a 9mm to a .45 with “specially designed” ammo. It significantly reduces chances of survival for the perp, while increasing my chances of Financial Survival. Others should take note.

The People...
What is meant by "The People"???

It shows up 9 times in the Constitution.
The first time in the very first 3 words.
.... anyone remember "WE THE PEOPLE"?

Is it unreasonable to assume that "the people" meas the same thing every time it is used in the Constitution?

A well regulated militia being essential to the security of a free state,
[comma]
the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!

The Constitution was not written for schollars, it was written for the common man to understand. If you make it so only schollars can understand, then it is subject to the same interpretation found in George Orwell's Animal Farm. (Oooops, where have I been, seems that very thing is happening.)

Anyway, how is the requirement for licensing NOT an infringement when in one's own home?

just my thoughts
jd

Dear Ragnar Danneskjold
Nix the specialty ammo. That's a fast track to being sued for Wrongful Death by the perp's family.

What you do is simple;

When you've shot an intruder, regardless of how many rounds you've pumped into him, fire one more shot into the cieling or floor.

Next, don't even thing of calling the police, instead, when you dial 911, call for an ambulance or the Fire Department Rescue Squad (rest assured, they will notify the police)

You, however, now have two pieces of critical evidence.

1.) you fired a warning shot

2.) when the danger was passed, your first concern was the health and safety of the perp.

Those will be important in court.

jd

To Bman
The best description was on Wiki. I also found a lead to an article from the NYT which describes it but it wants you to pay them to get the whole article. This is what Wiki says:

Rowan gained public notoriety on June 14, 1988, when he shot a teenage tresspasser, Neil Smith, who was taking a dip in Rowan's swimming pool in Washington, D.C.. Rowan used an unregistered .22 LR pistol. Critics charged hypocrisy, since Rowan was a strict gun control advocate. In a 1981 column, he advocated " a law that says anyone found in possession of a handgun except a legitimate officer of the law goes to jail -- period." In 1985, he called for "A complete and universal federal ban on the sale, manufacture, importation and possession of handguns (except for authorized police and military personnel)."

I'll be out again for a few hours. Will try to check later tonight. How about that, shoots a guy for using his pool. I guess I did that once too, but the guy I shot was long and thin with a real white looking mouth....e.g. a water moccasin.

jaydee
Thanks for the good advice. I'll definitely remember it if the need ever arises. Hopefully it never will. Re; the “special ammo”; it’s not custom hand loads, which others have also advised me not to use, for reasons you've well stated. It’s Factory purchased, Hornady P++, notched, semi jacketed hollow points. It’s very nasty stuff, and classified as factory ammo. But I suppose an attorney could still make an “issue” of it. Perhaps more conventional Fed. Hydro Shock ammo would be more reasonable, as a .45 is still a significant step up from my old 9mm.

Ragnar
I gotta agree with you, that 9mm is like my little .22, they're a lot of fun to shoot if you are plinking around in the pasture but if you need to put a serious hole in something that .45ACP is mighty handy.

Hosekuervo
"If you want to tell everyone how they should live, then you had better be willing to follow the rules you set down for others."

Which, I guess, leads us to Conspicuous Consumer of Fossil Fuels Al Gore

Hosekuervo
I don't know why you come in here and take these asanine stands where you attempt to claim some kind of moral high ground by declaring up front that you have no morals. This post-modern deconstructionism nonsense that they taught you in undergrad english is complete bullshi*. You preach tolerance for everything yet have none. You preach that it is wrong to pre-judge yet heap upon 99% of republicans the failings of the 1% who does the kind of crap you celebrate in others. You are the biggest fraud and hypocrit in here.

Leroy and Ragnar
Benelli M4...
You'll get your perp AND all his friends!

leroy
Yes. My old 9mm was pretty anemic; especially given the fact that it wasn’t even an “adult” 9mm, but a baby .380 Makarov: good for concealment, but not much else. Im a lot more comfortable with my Glock .45, but will likely change to more conventional ammo to avoid potential legal problems, as pointed out by jaydee. Should I ever have to use it here in the “Peoples Republik of California”. I’ll have enough problems dealing with the fact that I’m carrying it without a CCW permit.

MarineDad
Agreed, the Benelli M4 is an awesome weapon. However, I carry a concealed weapon, illegally, in San Francisco and crime infested Oakland CA. As you may know, it’s impossible to get a carry permit here. So for my purposes, the compact Glock Mod. 30 seems to be the ideal weapon for concealment.

MarineDad
Agreed, the Benelli M4 is an awesome weapon. However, I carry a concealed weapon, illegally, in San Francisco and crime infested Oakland CA. As you may know, it’s impossible to get a carry permit here. So for my purposes, the compact Glock Mod. 30 seems to be the ideal weapon for concealment.

Democrat hypocrisy
Yeah---just like the black chicago columnist who shot the kid in his back yard......big time hypocrite.....just like fonda and her husband hayden who held a burglar at gunpoint...even though they were both against private gun ownership...too bad Gallagher didn't do a little more research to point out how widespread their hypocrisy is..........

Personally, I applaud the Texas hypocrite in his action, condemn his lousy aim, condemn his hypocrisy, and would hope the jerk spends more time at the gun range, where he might get to know more of his constituents and realize how far out of touch he is with them.......


Ragnar
Oh man, a .380? Yeah almost anything short of a .25 ACP would have been an upgrade there. The .380 would have been useful keeping the bad guys laughing until you could find some rocks to chunk at them.

My youngest has a Glock in .45, he gets a kick out of shooting at my targets while I'm having to reload the 1911A1.

Democrats with guns ???

It's the same as Drugs... ban cocaine and the criminals find more.

Ban alcohol... we make our own.

Ban Guns... criminals find more... and make their own.

I'm more worried about party stores stocked with 5 tons of illegal fireworks.

Hosekuervo
In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon"

Yet another gun-grabbing hypocrite.
This clown is just the latest edition to a long litany of hypcrites who bad-mouth private gun ownership, yet unapologetically arm themsleves and thus assert the same right they'd deny to their fellow citizens. Dianne Feinstein, Carl Rowan, Hanoi Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, and Ed Asner all come to mind.

Stupidity
Well Mike Gallagher that is a good story. For every stupid democrat you find I can find a stupid republican. Democrats don't hold a monopoly on stupidity as some seem to think.

An American Democrat
I am an American first and a Democrat second. As I look at my party, I realize that American patriotism is a distant memory for many Americans, while some look upon our great country with disdain, distrust, and even disgust.

My inspiration and foundational political views as a young American came from words spoken by an American Democrat who paid the ultimate price, "My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

Where are the John F. Kennedy democrats today? I would like to be counted as one of that group. Everything that I have written on my website, http://www.AnAmericanDemocrat.com, is dedicated to the spirit of his words.

If you have time please check it out. I want to advance the discussion as much as I can.
Thanks
Paris
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.