TexasCHLforum.com

There was a nice little article in my local paper this morning about castle-doctrine and CHL. Nothing ground-breaking or anything, but it definitely was not anti-gun, which was nice to finally read.

http://www.amarillo.com/stories/091508/new_news5.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good read. Is it safe to assume you're a guitar player based on your handle?

I’m sorry, but I think the article wreaks with anti-gun bias.

For example:

Wentworth, R-San Antonio, is the author of last year's castle-doctrine law which -even though it doesn't mention firearms - gives Texans the right to attack an intruder in their home, car or workplace.

(emphasis added).

When BG is in my home and I shoot the BG…I am “defending” my house and family…not “attacking” the BG.

Or:

However, Wentworth makes it clear that in his opinion, the castle-doctrine law does not apply to the Pasadena case because Horn's home had not been invaded and he was safely inside. Nonetheless, a grand jury decided not to indict him.

He was not indicted because other laws allowed him to use deadly force.

Or:

Aside from the Pasadena case, the lawmaker is satisfied that the castle doctrine is working the way it was intended, even if critics claim it allows people like Horn to take the law into their own hands ... just like in the vigilante-justice days of the Wild West.

(emphasis added)

Come on…this does not sound biased to you?

pt145ss wrote:I’m sorry, but I think the article wreaks with anti-gun bias.

For example:

Wentworth, R-San Antonio, is the author of last year's castle-doctrine law which -even though it doesn't mention firearms - gives Texans the right to attack an intruder in their home, car or workplace.

(emphasis added).

When BG is in my home and I shoot the BG…I am “defending” my house and family…not “attacking” the BG.

Or:

However, Wentworth makes it clear that in his opinion, the castle-doctrine law does not apply to the Pasadena case because Horn's home had not been invaded and he was safely inside. Nonetheless, a grand jury decided not to indict him.

He was not indicted because other laws allowed him to use deadly force.

Or:

Aside from the Pasadena case, the lawmaker is satisfied that the castle doctrine is working the way it was intended, even if critics claim it allows people like Horn to take the law into their own hands ... just like in the vigilante-justice days of the Wild West.

(emphasis added)

Come on…this does not sound biased to you?

This honestly does not sound that biased to me. Reading the overall tone of the article, I think the author used a poor choice of words when he said "attached" rather than "defend" because I absolutely agree with you, I am defending myself.

In regards to the Pasadena case, I think the author was just making a statement about the specificity of the castle-doctrine. I think we was just clarifying that the castle-doctrine did not apply to that case.

And to your third comment, I don't think we are reading it the same way. I don't think it's the authors opinion that this is vigilante-justice.....I think he is saying that CHL critics think it is vigilante-justice.

I honestly felt that overall, it wasn't anti-gun. I felt that it was more of a statement to BG's that more and more people are armed and have every right to defend themselves without fear of persecution (or prosecution).

Just difference of opinion I guess!

....and to Wilder....you assumed correctly, I am a guitar player.

It seemed a good article to me, also.

Maybe I feel it is biased because of this...when I originally read the article...I had read it from a different web site which has a totaly different tag line. Maybe that set the tone for me.

However, I must say, re-reading the article from the web site that the OP posted did not make me feel that it was any less biased. At the very least it was poorly written...if not biased.

http://lubbockonline.com/stories/091308 ... 6874.shtml

WOW! The title for the article on the Lubbock site does give it a whole new tone.

A poor choice of words has led to the banning and confiscation of countless firearms and the loss of much freedom and liberty. Be careful of what you judge a "poor choice of words".

Anygunanywhere

PetrucciFan wrote:WOW! The title for the article on the Lubbock site does give it a whole new tone.

Definitely! I almost feel sorry for those poor home intruders who are being shot to death.

PetrucciFan wrote:WOW! The title for the article on the Lubbock site does give it a whole new tone.

It is amazing to me how the news media can play with words and change the whole meaning of the story. Take something good and turn it into bad. When I read the first account I did think it was a good story, but just the heading of the other account, changed the whole thing!

-geo