Get off my property

[Redleg]

Fortunately it is not. I keep learning from this thread though. For instance that the word 'agenda' seems to have become short-hand for 'different ideas than the President' in your country. The President has no agenda. Not do the woman's family members who lick his boots in ways that would please Adolf Hitler. It is the woman who has an agenda => is a traitor => is not American.

When I used the term agenda for Mrs. Sheehan its because with the professional handlers - she has shown by her actions that she has more in mind then a simple talk with the President - ie she has an agenda she wants to accomplish. However I see that you want to assume that I think that the President has no agenda - Every President, in fact every politician has an agenda or they would not be politicians. (But don't let my opinion cloud your blanket generalization.)

I was thinking, Kaiser: wouldn't you agree the deceased son was a traitor as well? I mean, with him dying for the country over there in Iraq and having the wrong Mom back home and all?

A little below the belt I think Kaiser and a few others are wrong to call Mrs Sheehan a traitor - because she is exercising her rights as a citizen - within the United States, but that comment well smacks of something foul.

[Devastatin Dave]

And Bush was an ass when it happened. He did not know the name of Ms. Sheehan nor her son's name. You think that is a little problem?

I think the Bush should talk to Sheehan, I mean can't he give up one damn hour of a bike ride to talk to someone. Besides from a purely pragmatic view point it helps him because he talks to her honestly, she either a) leaves, media finds out about missing girl in *insert country* people forget about the protest, Bush wins, b) stays, looks like an ass for getting what she wants and demanding more, losses all credibility except with a few fringe groups, Bush wins.

Check it out...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=45800

I guess you can get more love from the media if you trash your dead child's honor and go after Bush. Sorry for your loss Cindy, but now you're just a leftist media whore...
I love her latest rant saying that the terrorist will stop if Isreal got out of "Palistine", if that's not Michael Moore speach, i don't know what is. My how here opinion has changed sine the left has started financing her.

[Devastatin Dave]

Oh and one more thing...

well, a couple...

If that guy that was shooting off his shot gun in the air, then he needs to be put in jail. A lot of people lose their lives because of irrestponsible dumbasses each year shooting their guns at a wedding. One one last point about good old Cindy... It is an ALL VOLUNTEER FORCE!!! Her son JOINED the military and in fact reenlisted to go to Iraq. It was his decision and knew the risks. I salute him for it. I did 10 years and DECIDED to get out. That's the biggest problem I have with this attention whore. Instead of honoring her son's decision she's basically pissing on his grave. She is in fact going around telling people that this country is not worth dieing for. Osama should hire her because she is doing a better job of spreading his lies than he ever could. Of course I'm sure there is plenty on this board that "understand" where she and Osama are coming from.

[Xiahou]

The part of the Texas Firearm Law that applies i this instance.

c. It is unlawful to discharge a firearm in a public place or
on or across a public road.

Now depending how close he was to the road or the public place - then he just might of committed a violation of the law.

And that's precisely why it was legal. The sheriff indicated the it was fired from and entirely on the guys own property.

Question

Can I legally shoot at people (not on them) with a sniper rifle after taking a few beers if I miss them intentionally, is shooting from my property, and hunt with it so I'm using it for practice for the hunting season?

Would you defend this guys rights too? If no, what's the difference?

Hey, in Texas, if they're tresspassing and its after dark, you can even shoot them.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Protesting is one thing, making the lives of the President and his neighbors hell is somthing totally different. If someone held a protest on my lawn I'd chase them off with my cavalry saber or Katana. You want to protest? Do it in front of senate for a day. Don't do your best to annoy the s**t out of the president so he gives you the interview.

You lost the election. Get over it.

[Redleg]

As it ought to be in all states. One's home is one's castle, and they should be able to defend it as they see fit.

Yes one should be able to defend one's home - however what the individual did was not defending his one. It was something else by his own words.

Frankly this just an examble of an irresponsible use of a firearm by an individual. His actions had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment or protection of the home, it was nothing other then an attempt to frighten individuals who were on public land next to his home.

The individual was upset because of the protestors being next to his home - he acted irresponsible, he might be within the law - but his actions were not one of being responsible with a firearm.

He has absolutely no justification for discharging a weapon near a crowd - and even his own words show that it was not about practicing or preparing for Hunting.

[Redleg]

Protesting is one thing, making the lives of the President and his neighbors hell is somthing totally different. If someone held a protest on my lawn I'd chase them off with my cavalry saber or Katana. You want to protest? Do it in front of senate for a day. Don't do your best to annoy the s**t out of the president so he gives you the interview.

The problem is the protestors were not on his land - but on public land. If you chased protestors with the Katana - you would be arrested and rightly so for reckless endangerment.

You lost the election. Get over it.

Yes some need to get over the fact that President Bush was elected not once but twice - however that does not prevent them from protesting or speaking out on public land.

[Red Harvest]

As it ought to be in all states. One's home is one's castle, and they should be able to defend it as they see fit.

The section actually reads "trespass" and "to land" IIRC. Would be interesting. Under your interpretation I could just cork those illegally hunting on my property...rather than sneaking up on them and giving them a surprise and ordering them to leave and not return. Tempting just to shoot them, but if we did that, there would be more hunters taken than deer in the average season.

Guess I could have put a hole in a sheriff's deputy too...hunting on my land. My wife suggested as much when she saw him. But I recognized him through the scope at about 400 yards as a former classmate. He was hunting on the back 40 of course, wasn't wearing a uniform, and we saw him sneaking across the neighbor's fence in the woods. He's a nice guy, but he has a real habit of poaching; I already knew that.

I sure would have a stack of bodies after a time...wouldn't make very good eatin' though. I'll stick with common sense when it comes to pulling the trigger, hope some others find a little.

[ICantSpellDawg]

wouldnt a large angry mob of protestors hanging around ones property constitute a threatening environment?

so he fired a gun - he didnt break any more laws of intimidation than the megaphone wielding mob outside of his house did

[Redleg]

wouldnt a large angry mob of protestors hanging around ones property constitute a threatening environment?

Did the angry mob of protestors threaten him or his property in any way shape or form?

so he fired a gun - he didnt break any more laws of intimidation than the megaphone wielding mob outside of his house did

Ah but defending his irresponsible and idiotic attempt at intimidation does not support the 2nd Amendment nor does it support a common sense approach at looking at this situation.

Its a case of blind idealog wanting to make the protestors the bad guys and responsible for this individuals stupidity.

The shotgun welding individual was within the law barely in my opinion - however according to the Sherriff he was within the law - but it was still an irresponsible and stupid act by the neighbor because protestors were on public land byside his property. The responsible thing to have done is what other citizens have already done - filed a complaint with the county to get the laws changed.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Did the angry mob of protestors threaten him or his property in any way shape or form?



Ah but defending his irresponsible and idiotic attempt at intimidation does not support the 2nd Amendment nor does it support a common sense approach at looking at this situation.

Its a case of blind idealog wanting to make the protestors the bad guys and responsible for this individuals stupidity.

The shotgun welding individual was within the law barely in my opinion - however according to the Sherriff he was within the law - but it was still an irresponsible and stupid act by the neighbor because protestors were on public land byside his property. The responsible thing to have done is what other citizens have already done - filed a complaint with the county to get the laws changed.

i understand that it would have been the "responsible" thing to do, but he didn't break any laws and he probably had a good time doing what he did. I don't particularly like anti-war protestors.

I didn't say that he should have shot AT them - but i am a firm believer in getting your point across to a crowd while almost breaking the law, but not quite. I never said that they didn't have the right to protest - i am just saying that he had the "right" to fire his weapon

i am sure that both of those legal things are annoying

[Papewaio]

Well the farmer had better prey that a oil or mineral company doesn't find a load under his property... because then he would see how much he really 'owns' the land... also default on a mortgage... or fail to pay rates... or a major roadworks go through...

[IrishMike]

Sheehan is a traitor. She has no right to impede on the president or his neighbors as she does. This is Amerika. Love it, or get the hell out.

Wait, did the people not elect him? Does he not answer to the people? Last time I checked the constitution said that we were his boss, not that he was our boss. So shouldn't he be able to just talk to this girl for a few moments? After all he has to justify things to us, not we have to serve him blindly. He doesn't have to give an arm or make a huge effort, its just a talk. I don't know about the rest of you, but last time I checked people talk all the time, so..... it should be that hard to talk to this women. Unless he feels guilty about something.

But to say that she is impedeing him is quite absurd. She is just taking it up to another level in actually voicing an opinion, whether it be right or wrong is not the point. The point is I don't care if he met her 2,000 times before, its his responsibility to the people to be avaliable after all he does work for us.

[Papewaio]

Isn't the whole concept of the right to have arms is so you can overthrow an unjust government?

So the farmer has the right to arms is tied to the protestors right to protest.

Remove the right for the protestors to protest and then the reason to have arms gets activated and a revolution starts...

[ICantSpellDawg]

Isn't the whole concept of the right to have arms is so you can overthrow an unjust government?

So the farmer has the right to arms is tied to the protestors right to protest.

Remove the right for the protestors to protest and then the reason to have arms gets activated and a revolution starts...

i dont believe that they should not have the right to protest
i just believe that property owners in certain parts of the country should be able to discharge weapons wherever theyd like on their property whenever theyd like unless the law says not to

otherwise the protestors would be curtailing a private citizens rights on his own property

i also think that private harrassment of a public display is ok as long as it is within the realm of what is legal

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A rich discussion do far!

Sheehan has a perfect right to advance her views in any lawful way she wishes. Her heart is very much behind her words and it is pretty sharp of the left wing propagandists to take up her cause here. If Bush meets with her, she gets to tell him he's wrong on everything with a national audience, if he doesn't, they can label him as a callous imperialist. Putting your political opponent in a lose/lose situation is the whole point.

I think she's distraught and departing from the rational, but that's only my opinion.

Our Dove Hunter, though probably within his legal rights in a strict sense (TX isn't a particularly restrictive state on gun issues), isn't exactly a poster-child for maturity. Alcohol and firearms are rarely -- never -- a good combo.

If the protest is on a public right of way, got their permit, and aren't constituting a public hazard, "Bubba" will just have to learn to cope.


As to gunfire and trespass, it varies with the state/locality in question. In some places you can drop 'em without warning for being on your property, in others, you can shoot them if the represent a direct threat to your safety or ignore a warning to depart, and in a few other places you can't shoot them if they're running away -- even if they have your computer and TW series games in their arms as they skedaddle.

In most locales, however, the firecrackers would be illegal, even on your own land. You might be justified in shooting them depending on the situation, but lobbing M-80's at them would get you jailed.

SF

[PanzerJaeger]

So shouldn't he be able to just talk to this girl for a few moments?

She already did! And she said he was very compassionate! THis is how the MSM distorts things..

Why on earth would Bush want to talk to a whore of miky moore? She had her chance before she turned to moores tit.

Shes nothing but a hack and is using her sons death to push an agenda he didnt even believe in.. as witnessed by his father and stepmother and stepfather, who is divorcing her.

Do a little research, dont get your news from the MSM, and you'll see shes in bed with the far left and her son wouldnt even approve of her.

[JimBob]

Sheehan is a traitor. She has no right to impede on the president or his neighbors as she does. This is Amerika. Love it, or get the hell out.

You wanna talk traitors? Talk about the guy who runs over the crosses with soldier's names on them . But more to the point, she has every right to do what she does, it is refered to as civil disobedience, make a ruckus and people notice. When you sign up for the Presidency you don't go in thinking people are gonna give you a free ride. I protest, I disagree, does that mean I hate America?


At DDave, I've heard rumblings of story chaging in the past day or two. Apparently there's a transcript floating around of what she had to say about the meeting, until I find and digest that I'm not going to say anything for fear of putting my foot in my mouth

(side note: why is there no smiley for that? :footinmouth: would be the most used on the boards)

[Adrian II]

When I used the term agenda for Mrs. Sheehan its because with the professional handlers - she has shown by her actions that she has more in mind then a simple talk with the President - ie she has an agenda she wants to accomplish. However I see that you want to assume that I think that the President has no agenda - Every President, in fact every politician has an agenda or they would not be politicians. (But don't let my opinion cloud your blanket generalization.)



A little below the belt I think Kaiser and a few others are wrong to call Mrs Sheehan a traitor - because she is exercising her rights as a citizen - within the United States, but that comment well smacks of something foul.

Agenda, professional handlers, foul play -- whichever way you put it, it looks like blaming the victim to me. And as for Bush, I don't think Abe Lincoln would have treated the mother of a dead Union soldier this way. Bush gives the impression that he is afraid of her. And Sheehan is starting to make the news the world over.

[bmolsson]

Wouldnt they have to be on his property?

Maybe he intended to purchase the property.....

[bmolsson]

Firing weapons near a crowd - even in the air shows reckless disregard for your fellow human beings. Its irresponsible and idiotic. Serves no purpose other then an attempt to scare other people. Therefor its not a non-violent demonstration.

Agree fully....

The demonstration might have been stupid, illegal or what ever. It doesn't change the responsibility of the gun owner...

[Adrian II]

I just read that another neighbour has offered the demonstrators an acre of his land for their campsite. Seems that even the neighbours are falling out over the President's policies now...

I don't believe this neighbour has fired his gun in the vicinity of the President yet. Why not? It' s dove season for everyone.

[Papewaio]

I don't believe this neighbour has fired his gun in the vicinity of the President yet. Why not? It' s dove season for everyone.

Because the Democrats are Doves while the Republicans are Hawks.

[Redleg]

Agenda, professional handlers, foul play -- whichever way you put it, it looks like blaming the victim to me.

The thing is she is not a victim. Once the professional handlers came into play - its all about politics. The victim of war was her son

And as for Bush, I don't think Abe Lincoln would have treated the mother of a dead Union soldier this way. Bush gives the impression that he is afraid of her. And Sheehan is starting to make the news the world over.

Lincoln would have had her arrested and sent to the south.

[Adrian II]

The thing is she is not a victim. (..) The victim of war was her son.

You wanna play blind? OK, end of discussion.

[Redleg]

You wanna play blind? OK, end of discussion.

Come on now Adrian - you can't be that idealogical baised.

Again how is she the victim? She, Mrs Sheehan has decided to protest the war with professional handlers using the death of her son to support her cause. If she was just a victim - she would not need professional and organized handlers to protest the death of her son in war. Her actions have shown that she is far from being a victim. You might want to check out what the rest of the family has to say on the issue

In fact if you bother to review all of what she has said and done - it begins to paint a picture of someone who is not a victim - but something else.

However I find it amusing that instead of discussing the issue - you say end of discussion.

[Adrian II]

Lincoln would have had her arrested and sent to the south.

You didn't research that, did you? Nor did I, but I Googled around and found a little biographical gem, a tear-jerker of the kind that usually bears only a tenuous relationship to reality.

Shortly after the battle of Gettysburg, Edward, the elderly White House usher, showed a careworn, tearful woman into Lincoln’s office. Her husband and both of her sons were in the Army, she explained, and she was finding it hard to survive. Could she have one of her sons back?
The way she told her story moved him. He stood by the fire, his head low, keeping a grip on his emotions. ‘I have two [sons] and you have none,” he murmured. He stepped over to his desk and composed an order that would secure her youngest son’s discharge.
A few days later, Edward came to tell him, “That woman, Mr. President, is here again and still crying.”
“Let her in.”
The grief-stricken mother confronted him. She had found her son’s regiment, she told Lincoln, only to be informed that he had just died of wounds suffered in the battle of Gettysburg. Could she not have her surviving son.
Again he said softly, “I have two and you have none.” He sat down to write out another order. She stood beside him, and as he wrote, she stroked his wild mane, shooting in all directions and showing gray tints, as a mother might stroke a child’s. He stood up and thrust the order into her hands. He did not trust himself to say more than “There!” Then he hurried out of the room before he gave way to tears.

Geoffrey Perret, Lincoln’s War (Random House, 2004), pp. 346-347; from Michael Burlingame, ed., An Oral History of Abraham Lincoln (Carbondale IL, 1996), pp. 81-82

Well, there we have it -- good ol' Abe comforting a war widow and granting her family no less than two discharges. Even if we take this story with a lump of salt -- and we have to -- you will agree that it is a far cry from the callous treatment you suggested.

[Redleg]

You didn't research that, did you? Nor did I, but I Googled around and found a little biographical gem, a tear-jerker of the kind that usually bears only a tenuous relationship to reality.

Shortly after the battle of Gettysburg, Edward, the elderly White House usher, showed a careworn, tearful woman into Lincoln’s office. Her husband and both of her sons were in the Army, she explained, and she was finding it hard to survive. Could she have one of her sons back?
The way she told her story moved him. He stood by the fire, his head low, keeping a grip on his emotions. ‘I have two [sons] and you have none,” he murmured. He stepped over to his desk and composed an order that would secure her youngest son’s discharge.
A few days later, Edward came to tell him, “That woman, Mr. President, is here again and still crying.”
“Let her in.”
The grief-stricken mother confronted him. She had found her son’s regiment, she told Lincoln, only to be informed that he had just died of wounds suffered in the battle of Gettysburg. Could she not have her surviving son.
Again he said softly, “I have two and you have none.” He sat down to write out another order. She stood beside him, and as he wrote, she stroked his wild mane, shooting in all directions and showing gray tints, as a mother might stroke a child’s. He stood up and thrust the order into her hands. He did not trust himself to say more than “There!” Then he hurried out of the room before he gave way to tears.

Geoffrey Perret, Lincoln’s War (Random House, 2004), pp. 346-347; from Michael Burlingame, ed., An Oral History of Abraham Lincoln (Carbondale IL, 1996), pp. 81-82

Well, there we have it -- good ol' Abe comforting a war widow and granting her family no less than two discharges. Even if we take this story with a lump of salt -- and we have to -- you will agree that it is a far cry from the callous treatment you suggested.

Oh wait - then you will like this one. My research was alittle more then yours. From a interesting little book in my collection at home.

These mass deportations were dramatic and emotional but the relatively unheralded by the press. The banishment of a former Congressman from Ohio, attracted far more public interest.

Less then a month after Maj. Gen. Ambrose Burnside has used his Order No. 38 to forbid persons within his Department of the Ohio to express sympathy for the Southern cause, on May 4, 1963, a crowd gathered to hear a speech by Clement L. Vallandigham. The former officeholder said that he, "spit upon the Burnside order and trampled it under his feet." Denouncing Lincoln as a dictator, he called for an armistice that would end the fighting.

Late that night solders under Burnside's command broke down the door of Vallandigham's residence and carted him off to a military prison. Tried by the commission of eight officers, he was convicted of "publicly expressing sentiments designed to hinder suppression of rebellion."

Lincoln was placed in the difficult position of deciding whether to support the harsh military verdict or to set it aside. Concluding that the planned punishment of Ballandigham would do more harm then good, he directed that hte culprit be banished into Confederate Territory.

now this part is even more interesting

Placed aboard the gunboat Exchange at Cincinnati, the former lawmaker eventually reached the headquarters of the Union Army at Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Since he still strongly voicd his loyalty to the Union whose policies he challenged, he found himself unwanted by the Secessionist. Ordered off Confederate soil, he made a long and circuitous journey to Canada as the only man banished from both the United States and the Confederate States.

And you might want to read this -

Proclamation Suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus

Abraham Lincoln
September 24, 1862
Printer-Friendly Version

Proclamation Suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A PROCLAMATION

Whereas, it has become necessary to call into service not only volunteers but also portions of the militia of the States by draft in order to suppress the insurrection existing in the United States, and disloyal persons are not adequately restrained by the ordinary processes of law from hindering this measure and from giving aid and comfort in various ways to the insurrection;

Now, therefore, be it ordered, first, that during the existing insurrection and as a necessary measure for suppressing the same, all Rebels and Insurgents, their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice, affording aid and comfort to Rebels against the authority of United States, shall be subject to martial law and liable to trial and punishment by Courts Martial or Military Commission:

Second. That the Writ of Habeas Corpus is suspended in respect to all persons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the rebellion shall be, imprisoned in any fort, camp, arsenal, military prison, or other place of confinement by any military authority of by the sentence of any Court Martial or Military Commission.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington this twenty fourth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, and of the Independence of the United States the 87th.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

By the President:

WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/l...p?document=425

[Adrian II]

My research was a little more then yours.

Those quotes tell us nothing about Lincoln's attitude toward mothers of dead Union soldiers, do they? They show that Lincoln had little time for people who openly sided with the enemy. No purprise there, I'm afraid.

In fact, what you are suggesting here is that Mrs Sheehan is siding with Saddam or Al-Zarqawi, which to me seems to be even further from the truth than anything else you wrote about her.

[Redleg]

Those quotes tell us nothing about Lincoln's attitude toward mothers of dead Union soldiers, do they? They show that Lincoln had little time for people who openly sided with the enemy. No purprise there, I'm afraid.

Lincoln would have had little time for Mrs. Sheehan - other then to feel sorry for the loss of her child. Which is exactly what the Suspending of Writ of Habeas Corpus shows. Linclon had the measure signed to squash any protesting of his action that he or his generals deemed necessary. There is a big difference from getting the President to have emptahy and sympothy for the loss of your loved one - and using the loss of your love one to protest. By all accounts of the Civil War - Mrs Sheehan would of been arrested with the Writ of Habeas Corpus having been signed by Lincoln - either at his direction or most likely under the direction of one of the Military officers under his command.

I can reference many instances were civilians were arrested for protesting the war which is one of the reason for the suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus

In fact, what you are suggesting here is that Mrs Sheehan is siding with Saddam or Al-Zarqawi, which to me seems to be even further from the truth than anything else you wrote about her.

That is not what I have stated - I what I have said is her use of professional handlers show that she is pursueing an agenda beyond just getting answers about why her son died from the President. BTW here is what I initially stated about Mrs. Sheehan

And in that they are wrong. If you think this woman is doing it for a noble cause - well that is fine, But, when an individual has professional handlers well it shows something about her agenda

You are assuming facts not in evidence in the discussion. I question her motives not her loyalties.