She's kinda hot....Gainesville ain't that far away.....
Desparate?
And besides her not having her toys any more, she's going to be high-maintainance what with legal bills and such.
You'd probably be better off picking from Craig's List.
stay safe.
She's kinda hot....Gainesville ain't that far away.....
How about her right to do as she wants on her own property so long as she doesn't harm anyone?
Some Hunters were hunting on land they leased and even though they were over a hundred yards away, their bullets managed to strike two children playing basket ball. I think one died? According to your logic, we should outlaw hunting all together and only allow target shooting at designated ranges.
The constitution isn't all inclusive, according to the constitution.
This argument, and no offense to the poster, is sophistry. You're attempting to categorize a tragic accident in the same light as a pointless and dangerous stunt to validate an invalid comparison. One was a useless exercise in reckless behavior, another was an unfortunate and coincidental result of a legitimate and lawful activity. The two are hardly the same. Accidents happen as a result of responsible behavior every day and they are unavoidable. But the intentional exercise of ignorant stupidity regardless of locale should be dealt with by law and common sense.
This argument, and no offense to the poster, is sophistry. You're attempting to categorize a tragic accident in the same light as a pointless and dangerous stunt to validate an invalid comparison. One was a useless exercise in reckless behavior, another was an unfortunate and coincidental result of a legitimate and lawful activity. The two are hardly the same. Accidents happen as a result of responsible behavior every day and they are unavoidable. But the intentional exercise of ignorant stupidity regardless of locale should be dealt with by law and common sense.
Ladies and gentlemen, I introduce you to Eye95's wife.This argument, and no offense to the poster, is sophistry.
Incorrect, I'm comparing reckless and criminal negligent behavior with reckless and criminally negligent behavior. Mind your backstopYou're attempting to categorize a tragic accident in the same light as a pointless and dangerous stunt to validate an invalid comparison.
Great! We agree that kids destroying other people's property due to their reckless abandon is just that, reckless behavior. Useless, however, is in the eye of the beholder. I think hair dyes are useless, but some may disagree.One was a useless exercise in reckless behavior
Whether them hunting was lawful or not bares no relevance on this argument. Since the entire argument is about whether or not the government has a right to meddle in the affairs of private citizens when they harm no third party.another was an unfortunate and coincidental result of a legitimate and lawful activity.
I suppose you could call this an accident, but it wasn't an innocent one.The two are hardly the same. Accidents happen as a result of responsible behavior every day and they are unavoidable. But the intentional exercise of ignorant stupidity regardless of locale should be dealt with by law and common sense.
Ladies and gentlemen, I introduce you to Eye95's wife.
Incorrect, I'm comparing reckless and criminal negligent behavior with reckless and criminally negligent behavior. Mind your backstop
Great! We agree that kids destroying other people's property due to their reckless abandon is just that, reckless behavior. Useless, however, is in the eye of the beholder. I think hair dyes are useless, but some may disagree.
Whether them hunting was lawful or not bares no relevance on this argument. Since the entire argument is about whether or not the government has a right to meddle in the affairs of private citizens when they harm no third party.
I suppose you could call this an accident, but it wasn't an innocent one.
Nice try though.
I would love to see this land of lolly-pops and fairytails you speak of.
Accidents from drunk drivers and people texting happen all the time. It is preventable but law and common sense have nothing to do with it since the law does nothing about it. Here in Idaho we have mutiple people with multiple DUIs. One of which just got his 14th DUI. It is nice to know that the law and common sense is protecting us.
If someone is on private property they should be able to blow things up as long as it stays on their property. It is far different than the drivers that drive on the public roads, they are not even comparable in that aspect.
Are you kidding me? What the heck does DUI or texting while driving have to do with something that was presented as an accident from a lawful activity? No, people should not be able to blow things up on their private property and in fact, no where is such a thing legal and that is how it should be. So just because people do stupid stuff regardless of the law, then this justifies that law should be stricken? You make no sense in your post.
You guys are just arguing with me for no other reason than to come up with some irrelevant garbage to make me out to be wrong even when its not an issue of right or wrong its an issue of opinion..
So your saying the goverment can tell you what and what you can't do on your private property even though it doesn't hurt or affect anyone and 'isn't illegal"?
Well they got the drones flying over head so you must agree with those also so the goverment can make sure nobody is having any fun. Lets out law your free speech next, where does the goverment stop if you can't do legal things on your own land?
Oh c'mon..you are taking this waaaaaaaaaaaaayyy too far. Again, you're being argumentative just for sake of argument. Why? I didn't make the law...and I will gladly concede that if a person can demonstrate that the detonation of an explosive device on their property can factually have no effect on others lives or property then sure, whatever..Be an idiot if you want to be an idiot. But due to the stupidity of people in general we just can't have folks making this decision with zero accountability. The problem is that too many people are not smart enough to ensure safe conditions are met. Therefore, the law, unfortunately must make that decision for them. That being said I would have no objection to such a practice being allowed with a permit after their blast zone was inspected to ensure no collateral damage off property could be suffered or at very minimum guidelines established such as distance from structures or property lines etc...
It's not an insult. The two of you have some similar viewpoints.I have no idea who eye95 is but I gather that was indeed an insult. Can't you just discuss without the BS?
Please point this out.Your eye roll should be towards your own nonsense. Talk about a flip flop..you go back and forth a lot on your points and there isn't any consistency to your argument.
There is no need for that.Sounds like your just want to be right vs. any other aspect of the discussion, yet another message board bully, what a surprise..
I referenced an example of criminal neglect during an otherwise lawful activity. I did not specify it was criminal negligence. I thought it was inferred by the context of the discussion, I was wrong. For that, you have my apologies.And I saw what you did there..Told me nice try on a statement with no link to any facts other than what you gleamed then posted a link AFTER the fact providing details that completely change the accident to one of criminal negligence.
The argument isn't that I have that right by law, but that I should have that right. An example, I can not lawfully resist an unlawful arrest, with the sole exception of an arrest, lawful or otherwise, where the officer uses greater force than necessary to effect the arrest. But should I not have that right? Should I be forced to subject myself to a kidnapping because the perpetrator is wearing a badge? The supreme court thinks apparently, but Texas law states otherwise.What a garbage argument. So according to you ...If you live on say a half acre lot in a subdivision you should be able to blow up whatever you want in your backyard? It's not that cut and dry is it? The devil is always in the details. You don't have the right to do whatever you want on private property period. You can argue pointless semantics all day but you can't back that up with anything qualified by law now can you?
You're absolutely right, the devil is in the details. In Texas, it is legal to shoot on your land, provided it meets the criteria set out by the legislature, this criteria is immaterial to the discussion at hand, so I wont risk misquoting the law. However, assuming your land meets the criteria, then you may shoot on your land so long as your bullets do not cross property lines. I see no reason why this same standard can not apply to explosive. If I detonate an explosive on my property and no one is injured, no fires started that require emergency services, no property damage to my neighbors. Then where is the harm?The devil is always in the details.
It's not an insult. The two of you have some similar viewpoints.
You seem rather paranoid. Honestly, the comment about Eye95 was not an insult. Actually, I think a quite a number of people liked Eye95.Oh c'mon dude. Don't try and camouflage this as some friendly comparison. It was a zing and you know it. At least have the gumption to stand by your insults when you make them. I'm just not that stupid.
You're reading me all wrong. For what purpose would I want to stay at odds with you? It's illogical.My point of you flip flopping was I see a lot of ambiguity in your points, they could be interpreted in either direction. You seem to adjust them as necessary just to stay at odds with me in this discussion. But I'm not interested in diverging into some nonsense sidebar that is nothing more then the forum King of the Hill game.
No one is proposing completely unregulated use of explosives. What we're saying is that the government needs to stay out of your business so long as you do not harm anyone or anything else.You can't just allow un-regulated use of explosive devices dude. You can't!
It IS illegal.If for any other reason then to stop stupid people from blowing things up without really understanding the results and potential collateral damage. Those kids that destroyed our greenhouse and burned down our neighbor's barn along with nearly 4 acres of forest never thought that would happen. They didn't do it intently. But because they were not careful, mature or responsible enough to understand all factors in explosive detonation they caused about $300,000 in damage. So yes, this should be illegal.
This argument sounds familiar, where have I heard it before?It's not always about you. It's about protecting the public interest at times. And that often means we must be subject to laws even when we specifically would not be so reckless.
Laws aren't really meant for the responsible, the mature, the intelligent and the rational sane non-criminal minded person. They are meant for stupid people that lack the insight and objectivity to police themselves. You can't distinguish between those two demographics in the law as that would be discriminatory. Those of us who are responsible enough to never cause harm to others must unfortunately suffer the consequences of the fool at large. That is the price of a civilized governed society.
This argument sounds familiar, where have I heard it before?
T
When I was growing up some teenagers were playing around with some "explosives" adjacent to a greehouse we had back in our woods. Though they detonated their toys on their property shrapnel and burning debris caused significant damage to our green house and it's contents even though "ground zero" was over 100 yards away.
Line item is best! Provides context, structure and allows responses to remain short and simple.A: I have zero respect for message board posters that respond like that.
I haven't misunderstood anything you said, I have responded to your points with facts and cites. You have responded to my points by attacking the argument. You haven't put forth a valid argument since your original post in this thread, everything has been an attack on the arguments, rather than a rebuttal of the points.Sentence for sentence quotes only send a message "I'm obsessed with proving you wrong and uninterested in your position on any level. Therefore even if you cite facts or valid points I will ignore these and intentionally misunderstand everything you say"
I didn't say you were, only that you were using the same argument. Everything is an insult to you, isn't it? You're far too emotional, perhaps you need a breather? Not everything is an insult.B: FU dude..I ain't no damn anti-gun rights hippy jerk off and I am emphatically insulted at that BS! I posted over your head and all you can do is resort to off kilter comparisons because you didn't grasp any of what I was saying.
My comparison to Eye95 has come full circle. He too liked to ignore people that did not agree with him. :lol:Welcome to my ignore list.
That is a perceived right vs. one qualified by law. The Constitution doesn't even give you any rightful protections as what you are suggesting. And no where in the available press releases over this story does it state emphatically that she was detonating her "hobbyist" explosive devices on her property, folks are just assuming that. Americans love to assume.I think it's gaining status as the most popular sport rivaling Football.
When I was growing up some teenagers were playing around with some "explosives" adjacent to a greehouse we had back in our woods. Though they detonated their toys on their property shrapnel and burning debris caused significant damage to our green house and it's contents even though "ground zero" was over 100 yards away. The blast started a fire that also burned down another neighbors barn resulting in two classic cars being destroyed. There is good reason that blowing things up is NOT anyone's right. And should be done for useful legitimate purpose vs. some stupid immature stunt. I can appreciate the fun in watching something go boom as the next person. That act in itself I don't consider criminal. But that being said some laws, as much as it pains me to admit, are for the common good and should be obeyed..