Dallas man found Shot

[StormTrooper]

Good!

It made the news this am. A man trying to break into a residence through the window was shot by the home onwer though the same window. Homeowner was in that very bedroom sleeping when he awoke to the shatter of glass, apparently had a gun nearby, grabbed it fired through the window. Suspect is in the hospital awaiting to go to trial. Homeowner catching up on sleep at this time.

Thats a real scenario......

[Wynterbourne]

And the homeowner probably didn't even have to go to the station to make a statement.

Sweet Goddess, I do love Texas.

[Double Naught Spy]

Thats a real scenario......

No. It is not.

A scenario is an outline or model of an expected or supposed sequence of events. Since the event in question actually occurred, it is not a scenario, but history. Of course you could ponder that such a scenario could happen to any of us given that you know this type event has happened.

[exoduster16]

I think I'm moving to Texas first chance I get.....I'm starting to think that maybe Texas should be it's own country. All the people seem self-sufficient and willing to take arms against those that try to break-in to their homes. They seem to get what they need when they need it, not when someone else determines they need it. I'm from Pennsylvania (And God knows I love this state) but DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS!!!! lol:D :p

[Steve499]

Now, if only we could get Texas to recognize concealed carry permits from all states. They won't honor Missouri's for some reason. ?????????
Steve

[Double Naught Spy]

Texas does not honor the concealed carry permits from states where the background checks are not sufficient to Texas' standards, or at least that used to be how it was. In Texas, you get a more thorough background check for a CHL than for becoming a LEO and there are facets that can disqualify a person from getting a CHL that would not disqualify that person from becoming a LEO.

[20cows]

I'm starting to think that maybe Texas should be it's own country.
We tried that a long time ago, but weren't ready, economically, at the time. Maybe we need to try it again.

[stephen426]

As great as you guys seem to think Texas is, splitting from the U.S. is considered treason. It is our diversity that makes us great. See what happens when the next natural strikesand there is no Federal assistance. See how Texas would stand up to agressions from other countries or terrorism on its own. We are called the United States of America. Lets enjoy the benefits of each state and leave it to that.:rolleyes:

[Sulaco2]

"...splitting from the U.S. is considered treason."

Considered such only by power and control happy feds. There is nothing in the constitution that forbids a state from leaving except armed force by the government in power which has been used once in the late unpleasentness between the north and south. Today it would be fought out in Fed court until the courts ruled as our owners in DC want then they would leave anyway....

Thats a real scenario......

As too TX surviving without the Feds, consider how much money they would have without the Federal claw in their pocket. Most people live on less than 25% of capacity the rest is stolen, upps I mean taxed away. I think a state with that much "diversity" would do very well. The term "diversity" now is just group think for speech control and "we control the political spoils system so shut up".

[DimitriS]

splitting from the U.S. is considered treason.

What if your Canadian like me and you support a state if they wanted to seperate. Because unlike Canada's provinces which are part of the country, in the US as I understand it and as what "UNITED STATES" as there name points out, is that they are a union kinda like the UN, NATO, EU and the like therefore you could seperate/leave I think ?? :confused:

I mean in Quebec they did have a reformerndom to see if they were gonna seperate or not and something like 45% of the population voted for it and they wernt "all" charged with treasion, and in the US its the States that formed there union so they should be able to leave if they please. ;)

Well thats my point of veiw. :D

Dimitri

[Dwight55]

Columbus, Ohio had 2 home invasions today, . . .

In one, . . . bg got some stuff and headed out before homeowner could even know he was in there. Went in thru a transom window over the rear door.

In the other, . . . three bg's with guns tied up the homeowners and robbed them of cash and stuff, . . . grabbed the car keys and headed out. Something went wrong outside though, . . . cause there was a shootout and one of the bg's was later found there, . . . dead.

Keep your doors locked and your powder dry.

May God bless,
Dwight

[butch50]

IIRC from my history lessons, Texas has one potential way of removing itself form the Union within the context of the Contract it signed when joining the Union. Texas has the legal right to split itself into 5 separate States at any time. This would give Texas 10 Senators, and 10? more Congressmen and the extra Electoral College votes as well.

Should Texas decide to do that, it would virtually take over the Federal Govt. Given that this would be an unpopular move then there is a real chance that the Union would fight against it. That would create a breach of contract and Texas would regain it's status as an independent Republic.

As an independent Republic, Texas would be one of the wealthiest nations in the world, having the 8th largest economy in the world today; and would be quite capable of sustaining itself, and enjoying a prosperous future, without having the likes of California or Louisana clinging onto it's back.

Treason? Not even close.

[jcoiii]

Sounds like the ultimate SHTF answer is to move to texas and secede. (If and only IF the .gov decides to ..... well, we all know what I mean)

[butch50]

Jcoiii: The original Texans of the old days were quite largely from Tennessee, so we are the Sons of Tennessee in many ways....some just got here sooner than others, that's all:D

[StormTrooper]

Ha!!!

DoubleNaught, i didn't think you were going to slap me with Websters Dictionary, now come on. Fine an actual event to which scenarios can be derived from....happy now. j/k.

Exodus, be happy to have you as part of The Republic of Texas.

20Cows, don't give up man, we still got plenty o' fight left in us.

steve499. What damn state do you think it was that gave all they had to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. That is just one fine example of the Unity towards the rest of the country here in the Great state of Texas. There were in fact other states that had refused any of those evacuees to thier soil for whatever excuse they could manage at the time. Is that treason? Many of those people are still today living with families who opened thier doors for those people.

[StormTrooper]

"steve499. What damn state do you think it was that gave all they had to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. That is just one fine example of the Unity towards the rest of the country here in the Great state of Texas. There were in fact other states that had refused any of those evacuees to thier soil for whatever excuse they could manage at the time. Is that treason? Many of those people are still today living with families who opened thier doors for those people."

My apologies, thats for Stephen426 and no hard feelings, but we're not about treason.

[imur_huckle_berry]

+1 Butch50
+1 Stormtrooper

I believe we are the only state to retain the right to separate from the Union after the Civil War.

[FirearmFan]

ExoDuster,

PA is not bad. I think we are the only liberal state when it comes to allowing permits in the Northeast. Our neighbors NJ, Delaware, and New York are really anal about it. I think if a shooting happens outside the city your ok as long as it was self defense. The city doesn't know what to do about CCW but, as long as the crime rates high I don't think they will have much to say.

[Long Path]

In Texas, you get a more thorough background check for a CHL than for becoming a LEO and there are facets that can disqualify a person from getting a CHL that would not disqualify that person from becoming a LEO.Not really, but the background check is pretty thorough.

[jrklaus]

Was stationed in Texas for several years at Fort Hood. Great state! Was born and raised in Tennessee, so feel afinity for Texas from that standpoint too. Don't leave, Texans. The U.S. would be a far poorer country without you.:)

[20cows]

I believe we are the only state to retain the right to separate from the Union after the Civil War.
Nope, part of the conditions of "reconstruction" (which was worse than the war for Texas), rendered all the pre-war deals null and void.

[butch50]

Yes, but any and all agreements made during reconstruction were made under coercion, and as such do not stand the test of being legally binding.:D

[chris in va]

That's ok guys, Mexico will take the state back for you. They're already halfway there.

[Double Naught Spy]

You know, Stormtrooper, sometimes clarification is a good thing. I probably would not have noticed had you not called it a "real" scenario. It turned out to be an interesting bit of research to figure out if you can have "real" scenarios or not. From what I found, "we" tend to use the term quite loosely, actually wrong in many cases and I have done it as well.

-----

Long Path, as I understand it, unprosecuted incidents of domestic abuse will not negate a person from becoming a LEO in Texas, but those incidents most certainly can keep a regular person from getting a CHL. Plus, the regular person's juvy record is part of the CHL background which I don't believe is part of the LEO background check. So a CHL applicant can be kept from getting a CHL based on crimes as a juvenile.

-----

Under no known documents or treaties between Texas and the United States was Texas ever given the right to secede by Texas' own choice. The supposed right is simply a Texas tall tale. Some folks claim that the right to secede was penned in the original agreements of annexation or on entering the US again after the Civil War, but these documents have been lost and their original text supposedly rewritten without the section on the right to secede. Of course the claim is bogus. How would Texas historians know the secession text actually existed if there are no documents anywhere to support their claim?

Here are some references along with links to original texts...

http://www.snopes.com/history/american/texas.asp

http://www.wepin.com/rotstuff/Texas%...0of%201845.htm

http://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/about...march1845.html, but that didn't allow for anything concerning secession either.

As a product of annexation, Texas did give up territory to the US government, the territorial holdings of Texas inclusive of lands that are now part of 5 additional states Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Wyoming and in exchange, the US assumed all of the Republic of Texas' debts. http://www.answers.com/topic/republic-of-texas. So, as a part of being annexed, the US took over all of our debts. Since they took over our debts, there would be no way that they would allow us to secede, otherwise, we would have joined the US to get our debts handled and then just secede and return to our previous independent status, but with no debts.

-----

In response to stephen426's statement...
[/QUOTE]...splitting from the U.S. is considered treason. [/QUOTE]

Sulaco2 countered with
Considered such only by power and control happy feds. There is nothing in the constitution that forbids a state from leaving except armed force by the government in power which has been used once in the late unpleasentness between the north and south. Today it would be fought out in Fed court until the courts ruled as our owners in DC want then they would leave anyway....[QUOTE]

Sure enough Sulaco2, it would only be considered treason by the federal government and not by those wanting to secde. That is how treason works. Treason is a crime of disloyalty to one's own nation which is usually recognized by intentional acts that result in harm to the nation. Secession by Texas would harm the US and steal from it a large section of its geography.

You are right in that there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids a state by seceding. Then again, the Constition doesn't cover many things. So, not being in the Constitution, however, does not mean states can secede as part of a unilateral decision on the state's part without the blessing of the US. The Constition does not give the US the right to annex lands. It does not provide the guidelines for how lands can be annexed. Think about it, the Constition is not the only document written that governs our country.

So, where would you find information on how the US annexes lands and stipulates the conditions for annexation?

These things can be found in the Articles of Confederation. Check Article XIII. You will see that as part of the agreement to join the US, states agree to a perpetual relationship with the US. The only way a state can legally secede is by approval of the US gov and its other states making up the US.

Here is article XIII...

[QUOTE]Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

[StormTrooper]

did we all just get schooled a little bit?

DBLNaught, thanks for all that insight. I think Texans or not, we're all still americans and can do more together. Texas is still a paradise though. Beer swillin', gun totin', two steppin' and keepin' it country.

[Sulaco2]

00Spy: Good civics class perhaps but sounds like it was written by a lawyer not free men. What you seem to be saying is that the slaves must obey the masters and agree to be slaves if the masters so order? And when have they not? "None dare call it treason if you win", that does not sound like the right quote but its close in spirit. I don't think those in the South considered it treason, they were after freedom, correctly or not after all. Those that held the power after the war declared it such, treason that is and made it stick with guns and ropes. Such is the way of histroy and all governments. Lawyers and law come from the barrel of a gun nothing more unless those under such agree. When the only "agreement" allowed is to remain slave then the "contract" is a lie. Its kind of like the feds picking our pockets with their taxs at the point of a gun then forcing us to say thank you. Where is the contract there?
Only thing you can do to a free man is kill him.