[SeMissourian.com] Overcast ~ 36°F  
River stage: 14.68 ft. Rising
Thursday, Dec. 18, 2014

Speak Out 1/4/08

Friday, January 4, 2008

Protecting our homes

OPPONENTS OF the so-called castle law are concerned that there will be more killings by individuals protecting their homes. Isn't it time for law-abiding citizens to be able to protect their homes against the criminal whose hand only gets smacked by the justice system? A question for those who are against this law: Whom are you trying to protect?

Service to Cincinnati

REGARDING THE comment about the loss of air service to Cincinnati, saying that "Cincinnati will be out of our lives": I have family in Cincinnati, and I'm sure others do too. We enjoyed the convenience of flying a few times to visit. We will miss that.

Young deadbeats

DEADBEAT DADS. Deadbeat moms. What about deadbeat children?

Fighting terrorists

I WANT to comment about Benazir Bhutto's assassination and the election in Pakistan. This war on terrorism isn't over. We're fighting them over there. Otherwise they would be over here bombing us. There haven't been any bombings in the last seven years. We were hit nine times before President Bush took over. Some people want to cut and run and ignore the enemy. That's basically what they did with Hitler, and we had a massive world war. So you really want people in the White House who think you can negotiate with people who want to kill you? No. You've got to go kill them, or they will come here and kill American citizens. Look what they're doing to their own people over there.

Tactics that work

I'M GLAD the CIA destroyed any torture tapes. That's what I expect my government to do: to be smart enough to protect itself. It's ridiculous to think you can ask terrorists, "Who is your leader? Who's behind this?" and expect them to answer. Waterboarding is not the worst that can happen to them. The worst happened Sept. 11 when we had American citizens jumping out of windows.

Pallbearer honor

I WAS at a funeral last week and saw something unusual. Two girls were pallbearers. What an honor that must have been.

Deadbeat moms

IF THE shoe fits, wear it. There are many deadbeat moms in this world. They don't work, do drugs, drink and live with different men. But they still expect the father of their child to support them. Most times the child doesn't benefit.

Fact Check
See inaccurate information in this story?

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on semissourian.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Fighting terrorists

Hmmm, been living in a cave with a radio tuned to Michael Savage and following the administrations press conference propaganda on your Dick Tracy wrist television?

It is sad that there is an element with America who actually believe such nonsense as you espoused in your tangy little piece.

"For the end of ignorance and stupidity in America, and the restoration of Light, Let us pray to the Lord." "Amen."

-- Posted by Brill on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 1:14 AM

Tactics that work

What did "Fighting Terroists" do, hang up and call right back in to Speak Out? There must be something in the water in southeast Missouri, flouride, or, ag chemicals leeching into the soil, that promotes such ignorance and gosh awful stupidity in some of the people. Try drinking distilled water. Reline your tin foil hat with tissue paper, I fear that yours may have a severe energy leak, allowing your brain waves to be concentrated into a fine cylindrical pattern and ported into space via the hole in your hat.

No one with any gray matter really believes the garbage that you put forth in your rehash of old propaganda.

It's a shame that these two posters couldn't return to their home planet in time for the holidays to be among their own kind.

-- Posted by Brill on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 1:25 AM

Deadbeat Moms

Missouri is not a "Dad" friendly state. If you have children and a worthless wife who does not work, you are screwed when you go to court.

-- Posted by Brill on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 1:27 AM

Colonel Jimmy Sabow, USMC

"At the time of his death, he was the Assistant Chief of Staff at El Toro, MCAS, California."

January 22nd, will mark the 17th anniversary of the murder of US Marine Colonel Jimmy Sabow. Sabow had uncoved drug trafficing at Marine base El Toro, that involved shipments aboard military aircraft, when he was murdered on January, 22nd, 1991.


Here is a cold case file that I would very much like to see solved. However, due to the likelyhood that very high ranking Marines were involved in the drug trafficing at El Toro, Marine Base, the chances of their coming to justice is just about as good as George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton coming to justice for their CONTRA day drug profiteering in Mena, Arkansas.

Just my opinion, and that of quite a few others. Just ask the Colonel's broher, Dr. J.D. Sabow.

-- Posted by Brill on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 1:56 AM

Yeah, I know. Not all wives who do not work are "worthless." It is just a turn of phrase that fits only some of them, especially those who strip their former husbands, soulmates, and bed pardners down to their shorts when they take them to court..

-- Posted by Brill on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 2:06 AM

New Ron Paul website going viral. Post articles, comments, lots of information.


-- Posted by Brill on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 6:06 AM

Hmmm. Somebody doesn't agree with his theories and a long-winded poster here immediately resorts to name calling. Typical reaction from his type!

-- Posted by Data48 on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 6:55 AM

Yes, there are deadbeat kids; they're the result of parents who give them everything, expecting very little in return.

-- Posted by sosassy on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 7:33 AM

I no longer suffer stupidity and ignorance lightly.

His type of rant and propaganda is dangerous, as some people continue to believe that idioticy. You know, like Saddam was involved in 9-11, theyhad nukes, weapons of mass destruction, etc. It has to be firmly ocuntered, and refuted.

-- Posted by Brill on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 7:52 AM

Hrm...maybe I should get the fire lit today...

because my next comment is bound to bring it out.

Personally--I don't give a flying flipping second thought to waterboarding terrorists!! I don't believe that they are American citizens and entitled to the rights of our Constitution.

I believe they are enemy combatants...and if they have information that protects our servicemen...then we shouldn't stop till we get it.

Waterboarding is nice compared to some of the tactics that could be used...and probably should be.

When you had to worry about more than if you were going to get your free clothes, three square meals, and cable television in prison (or captivity) then you were more apt to give your information....and you were more apt to be dang sure you believed in what you were fighting for.

-- Posted by SuperBethie21 on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 8:10 AM

Torture may be a necessary evil and to be sure I know I don't want to know about it. There are times when ignorance is truely bliss. However Bethie just because someone is not an American they are still entitled to fundamental human rights.

Deadbeat kids,

At what age can one become a deadbeat kid? Is a lazy teenager a deadbeat kid? What about a 5 year-old who won't pick up their toys? In this case ignorance is not bliss.

-- Posted by SWBG on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 8:23 AM

Those very same people aren't giving rights to our citizens and soldiers.

Since when is cutting someone's head off on TV a basic human right?

I think if you are going to fight people who respect nothing...they deserve the same.

Just my opinion.

If you are fighting a government or group who doesn't participate in such actions...then offer them the same.

As for not knowing about it...

It's a personal preference thing.

They don't need to send me a video...but I'm not going to flip out like it's suddenly big news if I hear something. It's just not realistic to pretend certain "non-niceties" of the world don't exist.

-- Posted by SuperBethie21 on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 8:33 AM


If you truly have a "worthless wife", maybe you should have used "better judgement" in the first place. Every parent is responsible for the children they bring into the world. If the dads and moms weren't ready for that responsibility, they should have stopped!

-- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 8:36 AM

Sorry, but the blunt honest truth is, that teen charged with murder in Scott City....dah! Looks like a meth head.

-- Posted by fajar154 on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 8:54 AM

Protecting our homes,

There is nothing like the *** puckering sound of a 12ga being locked and loaded in the dead of night. If someone is brave enough to break into your house. Then they must be brave enough to play "Dodge the bullets!"

It's a quirky game. Sponsered by the NRA and guntoting citizens who believe in Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

-- Posted by fajar154 on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 9:05 AM

First of all if Donnie is reading these posts today, We are very proud of you and your department. It seems to have been a busy week for you all. What a wonderful job, keeping our city safe.

Second, anyone who Thinks that Daddy Bush was involved with drug trafficing really needs to seek mental help. Your obsession and hatred for the Bush's is going overboard.

Third, Bethie I agree, our troops waterboarding is minute to what our enemies are doing to prisoners.

-- Posted by Aggiefan/Twiggy on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 9:13 AM


Actually the government says it is their responsibility to raise our children.

Have as many kids as you want no matter your poor economic situation and the taxpayers will foot the bill.

Gov't wants to provide healthcare for our kids. (At no cost to the parents)

Abortion on demand without parental consent for all teens.

Free birth control handed out to school kids without parental consent. (But god forbid give them an aspirin for a headache without parental consent)

Schools responsibility to teach sex ed.

Network TV must show X amount of hours of educational shows for the kids.

CDC (and the AMA) asking family doctors to ask kids if parents have a gun in the house.

The list goes on, so why should the parents take responsibility for their kids when our politicians are falling all over themselves to see who can "mandate" the most for our kids? Have you never heard of commrade Hillary's "It takes a village to raise a child?"

-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 9:20 AM

And I agree with Fajar---

If your dumb enough to think you should be able to come into my home uninvited and rob me, assault me, or otherwise attack myself or my property...

You should hear nothing but the growl of my big dog and the sound of my shotgun priming.

If you don't want to risk that...stay in your own home and work for your possessions!

-- Posted by SuperBethie21 on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 9:20 AM

Protecting our homes:

"A question for those who are against this law: Whom are you trying to protect?" How about the prosecutor's ability to prosecute intentional murders? Just a few examples:

Mrs. Partner is upset with Mr. Partner because he stayed out all night. Whoops Mrs. Partner shoots and kills Mr. Partner because Mrs. Partner "thought" he was an intruder.

Mr. Drug Dealer wants to off a Mr. Buyer because he won't pay up; invites Mr. Buyer over to party for free. Whoops Mr. Drug Dealer shoots and kills Mr. Buyer, because Mr. Drug Dealer "thought" he was an intruder.

Daddy doesn't like daughter's boyfriend because he knocked her up. Boyfriend comes over to pick up daughter for a date, whoops Daddy shoots and kills boyfriend, because Daddy "thought" he was an intruder.

Ms. Teenager is in a love triangle, Mr. 17 year old is visiting her parents home. Mr. 16 year old rings the doorbell, she kindly invites him in. Mr. 17 year old knows where Mr. Man of the house keeps his shotgun, because they have been hunting together. Whoops Mr. 17 year old shoots and kills Mr. 16 year old, because Mr. 17 year old "thought" he was an intruder.

-- Posted by coke zero on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 9:27 AM

In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

An intruder must be making an attempt to forcibly enter a premises uninvited

The intruder must be acting illegally -- i.e. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to shoot officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties

The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm, or death, upon an occupant of the home

The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit a felony

The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit arson

The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit burglary

The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force

In all cases, the occupant(s) of the home must be there legally, must not be fugitives from the law, must not be using the Castle Doctrine to aid or abet another person in being a fugitive from the law, and must not use deadly force upon an officer of the law or an office of the peace while they are performing or attempting to perform their legal duties.

Note: the term "home" is used because most states only apply their Castle Doctrine to a place of residence; however, some states extend the protection to other legally-occupied places such as automobiles and places of business.

-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 9:33 AM


Never thought of it that way, oh by the by, you want to come over to my house for no aparent reason?

Just kidding lil lady.

Like I've said before,"Bad things happen to good people all the time." Your senerios DO happen, but what other option do we have?

The alternate is to flee?

Someone in YOUR house at 2AM...you have to run. Because you would be charged with murder if you defend your property, family, self.

Sorry, but I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

-- Posted by fajar154 on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 9:40 AM


I understand the laws intent, but didn't want to take up three screens with my post by adding all the "thoughts". LOL

The point, it turns into "he said" "she said" situation, with one "said" DEAD. I "thought" he was "acting illegally", "intended to inflict serious bodily harm, or death", "intended to commit a felony" etc etc etc

-- Posted by coke zero on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 9:40 AM

As much as I have been called a bleeding heart liberal, I have never understood the idea that a home invader has the right to sue me if I hurt them in the process of robbing my home. Been told my whole life that if someone breaks in and you shoot or stab them, make sure it is fatal. And if by chance they make it out the door before dropping, drag their sorry butt back inside before calling the police. This whole idea that I was no longer in danger because they were leaving is a bunch of sh*t.

Having a gun in ones home is not dangerous even if there are children in the home. As long as the children are taught it is not a toy, and that playing with it is not an option. It makes no sense to have a gun in the home for protection and then keep it locked in a closet or safe. The home invader is not going to let you say, "oh, can you wait just a sec while I unluck my gun before you assault me, my wife and my children?"

That being said, I personally don't own a gun, but just because I don't doesn't mean that others can't. I guess I would be a lousy jurist for the defense if I ever ended up on a trial of a home invader trying to sue the person they tried to rob and got hurt. lol

-- Posted by Pups on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 9:43 AM

fajar154 & librule,

Honestly...I was playing the devils advocate, as I see both sides of the debate. BEWARE...better watch out if you sneak into my house at 2am. I will worry about the consequences of MY choices after the intruder is taken care of. LMAO

-- Posted by coke zero on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 9:44 AM

As with the Concealed Carry Law, many opposed the "Castle Doctrine" Law with dire predictions of carnage which just has not happened. Missouri was certainly not among the first to pass this law and will most certainly not be the last. There have been no known problems with this type of legislation and it did not drastically change the existing laws in many of the states with the exception of the civil liability aspect. Contrary to what some seem to think, we are not all a bunch of killers just looking for way to do so "legally". Take my word for it, the taking of someone's life, no matter under what circumstances is not something you will ever get over.

-- Posted by D'oh on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 9:46 AM


Sorry but I'm going to disagree with you on this one. Just because some might use the idea of 'home invasion' as an excuse to commit murder is not a reason not to allow a law abiding citizen to protect their home.

Would hope the local police department in all those senerios would be able to see thru the disception of each of those. Shooting someone sitting on your couch and claiming home invasion is not realistic. Though I am sure some out there might thank your for the idea. LOL j/k

I am not saying you won't have to justify how and why you shot the home invader, but protection of myself and others in my home should not be forfited because someone tries to illegally use the law to commit murder.

-- Posted by Pups on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 9:51 AM

My grandpa(good ole southern gentleman)once told me this after I received his double barrell 20gauge savage shotgun as a gift.

he said,"Boy,if ever someone breaks into your home use this for your protection".

He smiled and then a very firm look came upon his face as he said "And Boy!,if his heart is still beating after you shoot him,

load up and shoot him again because dead men tell no tales"!I will never forget his advise and I will use it if ever necessary!

-- Posted by GREYWOLF on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 9:53 AM

I agree KJT..

Those interested in protecting their homes overwhelmingly hope they never have to use it. They just want the freedom to do so when some thug breaks in and offers them bodily harm.

My husband and I talked about that with concealed carry when we lived in a state that offered it. I was interested--he wanted to be VERY sure that I understood and intended to actually use it if it attacked...

because if you don't really intend to use it..they will take your weapon and kill you anyway. Unfortunately...we have now moved to the socialistic state of Illinois...

so all that theory discussion between us has been on hold till a later date.

-- Posted by SuperBethie21 on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 9:54 AM

When states started passing "right to carry" laws, the doomsdayers said we would revert to the Old West with our streets running with blood. Never happened.

When state started passing the Castle Doctrine laws, the doomsdayers said the streets will run with the blood of the innocent. Hasn't happened.

Stop worrying about the "law abiding" becoming murderous gun nuts because of sensible guns laws. As far as the "unlawful", they are going to commit murder no matter the law, Castle Doctrine or not.

-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 9:54 AM

"Though I am sure some out there might thank your for the idea. LOL j/k"

Pups, You know I actually debated whether to post them for that very reason, but I've seen them all on Law and Order or CSI a dozen times. LOL Like I said, I can see both sides and don't have a strong view either way.

-- Posted by coke zero on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 9:55 AM

"the doomsdayers" Hey...you calling me names? :-)~

How many shootings have taken place in Cape and Scott County in the last month?

-- Posted by coke zero on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 9:57 AM

Actually, there was a story today about a man in Festus (a preacher) who shot his brother-in-law (a policeman) who he thought was breaking into his house. This is what is wrong with the law...shoot first and ask questions later.

-- Posted by juan2kmo on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 10:02 AM


If Illinois is so bad, why did you move there?

-- Posted by allen6177 on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 10:03 AM


Quite a few shootings, and none by "law abiding" citizens with the excuse of Castle Doctrine.


Thank Trial Lawyer John Edwards and his ilk along with the politicians who collect 10's of millions in campaign contributions from said ilk for our sue happy nation.

-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 10:05 AM

Ahh Melange,

I guess I posted to quickly. LOL I have been known to play devil's advocate on occassion. Oh ok, more then on occassion LOL

But, the shootings of late are a different catagory all together. Taking someones life because they are leaving you is never justified. Might be explained away by mental disorder, but still is murder. Protecting oneself and property is defense. Might be a gray line to some, but is still a big difference when pertaining to gun ownership. Would think in those recent incidents if a gun was not available they would have used other means to commit the crime of passion.

-- Posted by Pups on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 10:09 AM


Why I moved to Illinois is a bit of a lengthy story.

We thought we were buying a mobile home in Missouri---however, the company selling that home did not have the legal right to do so. We discovered that when an individual from the true company left a note on our door asking us to contact them because they were going to have it fit for wheels and axels. A lengthy mess ensued where we weren't sure we were ever going to get the property that we had paid a lot of money into...

so we had to move.

When looking for something in our price range my inlaws brought the home behind theirs to our attention. It was a mess and in need of repair--when we contacted the owners who really wanted to sell we got a 3BR 1BA home for $15,000...which we could afford currently as our family is expanding. It's not our end goal home--it's a starter. Sometimes you have to take things in locations you don't really love because it's what you can afford.

I also don't run in fear from what I don't like. I still believe individuals can invoke change....I just think it's going to be very hard to do. So, I'll either work toward change for the better here...or I'll work toward changing my location to elsewhere.

-- Posted by SuperBethie21 on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 10:12 AM

Darn it, I should have stated my question about the recent shootings better. I was referring to this comment: "When states started passing "right to carry" laws, the doomsdayers said we would revert to the Old West with our streets running with blood. Never happened."

-- Posted by coke zero on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 10:14 AM


This in fact might be a case of 'shoot first, ask later", but again will wait to see if they find that the Brother's in laws were having any problems. Would think the police officer would have been smart enough to identify themselves before trying to enter the locked home, even that of a relative. Maybe I'm a conspiracy nut on this one, but would think there is more to the story then just a 'mistaken' shooting.

And if in fact it was a mistake, the preacher will have to deal with the fact that he 'shot first', before knowing what was happening. Not saying mistakes don't happen, but if you are going to own a gun and shoot at anyone knocking on your door, maybe you should rethink your protection options.

-- Posted by Pups on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 10:15 AM


No law or lack of law would have prevented the unfortunate situation in Festus. The man obviously felt threatened and his self survival instincts kicked in. I doubt seriously that the preacher said to himself, "Missouri has the Castle Doctine law, therefore I will shoot first and ask questions later."

-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 10:15 AM

SuperBethie- Wise young woman that knows herself and the world around her. Though from the sounds of it, one should probably never sneak up behind her and say boo. Might get more then you bargined for, or then again..... hehe

Just had to tease ya a bit.

-- Posted by Pups on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 10:22 AM


Those shootings would have happened with or without "right to carry"

-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 10:24 AM


they may get inside my home and turn right around and go back out. *eyes the whip*

I might not even need additional defense.

*winks at Pups*

-- Posted by SuperBethie21 on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 10:25 AM


The policeman brother-in-law broke in to scare the preacher, guess it worked. The world of full of what if's that can make you dead. What if he missed and it wasn't a family member?

IF SOMEONE IS IN YOUR HOUSE AND YOU DIN"T INVITE THEM, HOW ARE YOU TO DEFEND YOURSELF? Harsh language? Plead for your life? Wait for the police? Crack jokes?

Run? What if your elderly or handicaped? What about your wife and kids?

This is a nonissue if you have half a brain and a quarter of a heart for the well being of your family.

Back to the preacher, at least he drove the cop to the hospital.

-- Posted by fajar154 on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 10:27 AM

Ooops.. willow, I guess I need to appologize. Didn't realize the police officer was trying to scare the preacher. That just wasn't smart of the police officer.

-- Posted by Pups on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 10:35 AM


Thanks for the wink. Kind of invisioning a pregnant Vixin(sp) from the Amazing race here in our quiet little town of Cape. LOL

-- Posted by Pups on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 10:38 AM

Yeah, the preacher was right, in mu opinion. The brother-in-law snuck in to make him think someone was breaking in. How stupid do you have to be to try this. I am all about practical jokes. But that is like jumping in front of a semi on the freeway to play a joke..lol.

-- Posted by allen6177 on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 10:38 AM

It is pleasing to see that there are those who aren't afraid to defend their homes. With this attitude, it will send a message out to hoodlum's to take warning.

But in turn, the court system are failing in America because of over-crowding. Most charges are reduced or probation is constantly used as an out.

For instance, a local hoodlum, was arrested for assault on his girlfriend AND on a peace officer. I looked his case up on Case.net yesterday and he recieved 2 yrs probation.

He has a rap sheet a mile long and still got off.

What kind of message does this send out?

-- Posted by Aggiefan/Twiggy on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 10:38 AM

I have decided that I am not going to fajar's unless I have a bottle of Crown in tow. Then again, don't think I would be stupid enough to try and scare someone that I know owns a gun and knows how to shoot it. LMFAO

-- Posted by Pups on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 10:40 AM


I'll have to look her up and see what she is like. I haven't watched the Amazing Race in a few seasons...I'm pretty limited on my tv watching. LOL

Ironically enough--I almost made my screenname Vixen---it's my paintball callsign and has been for about 11 years. =)

-- Posted by SuperBethie21 on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 10:41 AM


Is that because the system is overloaded, or because the system is too leanant(sp)?

-- Posted by Pups on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 10:43 AM


Goth, whips, guns, and now paintball!!!!?? Librule best mind his p's and q's. or his presidential campaign will be over before it begins.

-- Posted by Pups on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 10:48 AM

Pups: I'm not too familier with Mo. court system or even if we have a over crowding issue here.

I know back home it is a major issue. I believe , if I remember correctly, that my mother was constantly at the "SO" reading rights to those arrested. A little like "open door" policy.

-- Posted by Aggiefan/Twiggy on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 10:48 AM

I'm all sorts of trouble. *grinz*

But only the good kind.

-- Posted by SuperBethie21 on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 10:48 AM

We are walking out the door, see ya at lunch.

-- Posted by Aggiefan/Twiggy on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 10:49 AM


Gotta make room in our prisons for those evil pot smokers. Putting violent criminals behind bars takes up valuable space. And let's not forget that if we put people in prison for gun crimes, it would prove that our current gun laws will work, and our politicians wouldn't have an excuse to push more unecessary and ineffective gun laws on the law abiding.

-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 10:51 AM

Well, out of here for a bit. Will check back in later. Have a great day SuperBethie!!!! Look forward to the day your training is complete my young Skywalker. Ooops my bad. LMAO

-- Posted by Pups on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 10:58 AM

As to prison "overcrowding" and use of probation, I really wish more people would get involved and contact their local officials and legislators. I also encourage people to check out the Missouri Sentencing Commission Website. I believe that both probation and parole, while very effective for some, are over utilized and someone needs to be held accountable. Unfortunately, I don't see this happening.

And SuperBethie21, I agree, do not have a weapon if you are not absolutely sure you can use it properly. Also the second most important piece of defense equipment is a very good flashlight. I use one mounted on my weapon with a laser sight, so there are no mistakes.

-- Posted by D'oh on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 11:32 AM

You people scare me sometimes. Does everyone in SE Missouri/heartland have a loaded shot gun lying by their bed?

-- Posted by coke zero on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 11:36 AM


"you people"? ;)

We don't leave ours lying by our bed...but it's accessible if needed.

-- Posted by SuperBethie21 on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 11:44 AM

This discussion reminds me of my friend Bill who was having a 'one night stand'. Just as they snuggled in bed the lady put her hand on Bill's chest and asked, "You do pratice safe sex, don't you?" Bill replied, "Yeah baby, You can see the shotgun over there in the corner and I've got a 38 in the drawer. We'll be safe."

-- Posted by TheCamp on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 12:22 PM

I live in IL too...and the laws here have NEVER stopped me from doing what I felt necessary to ensure my safety...as they say, it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Down here in Southern IL, the cops are far less likely to hassle you about your guns than in Chicago. What a lot of people fail to realize is that you are fully within your rights and not breaking any STATE laws if you carry a concealed weapon (even OPEN carry is legal) so long as you are on your own property. Several years ago, there was an incident on my street involving a garbage truck and a telephone pole, and I had my .45 on my hip when I answered the knock on the door....it turned out to be a Jackson County Sheriff's Deputy, and it didn't seem to bother him at all that I had it on me.

-- Posted by dixietrucker on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 12:53 PM

Look, as far as laws about guns and an Americans Constitutional rights all I can say is that times change. Back when the constitution was written, people hunted for all their meat, defended their land against intruders because all they had was maybe one sheriff in town, and all other kinds of reasons why they may have needed "arms" back then. We now have police stations in almost any town over a population of 500, all kinds of state and federal police officers as well. There is no need to argue "I need a gun to defend myself." What are you doing that you need defending? If you want a gun to hunt with, then please, by all means, hunt and then put it in your house. But there is no need to carry your gun to town, to go shopping, or when eating at a restaurant. Now, I know that if all guns where outlawed or the laws would dramatically change, criminals would still get there hands on them. So if you want home protection, by all means have the gun, but if you are at the mall shopping, someone robs the place at gunpoint and you just so happen to "bear arms" and try to be the hero, you may end up hurting more than you save. Think about it. Own a gun, keep it at home, and keep it away from the public. Times change and so should Amendments!

-- Posted by Samus on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 2:12 PM

Buckmaster: Honey, now why would YOU want to talk that way about YOUR step-brother for????

-- Posted by Aggiefan/Twiggy on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 2:21 PM

I totally disagree with you Samus.

The Police respond to a crime after it has already occurred or while it is progress. If you are in your home being attacked in the middle of the night---you are not going to want to wait 12 min for the local police to respond. The instead of investigating why you shot an intruder they are going to investigate a homicide with slim to no leads.

Do some research and see it for yourself.

Also...in a crowded department store..

if a nutjob walks in intending to kill us all...


I would much rather stand next to the hero and have a fricking chance (or be the hero) than hide under a clothes rack and pee myself.

If you look--concealed carry individuals who have stopped violence in progress have not been shooting bystanders...they have only shot the offender in progress.

How are they harming anyone who is not already threatening their life and the lives around them?!!!

-- Posted by SuperBethie21 on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 2:26 PM

Your FATHER married his MOTHER which by LAW makes him YOUR step-brother, SIS.

-- Posted by Aggiefan/Twiggy on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 2:27 PM

Your mother said , you got that right. But like you have said you cant choose your parent. Wait, yes YOU can, I'm here.

-- Posted by Aggiefan/Twiggy on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 2:31 PM

I don't disagree that you can't have a gun in your home. That was not my argument. If someone breaks in, then shoot them. My argument was to Funny Alien Rabbit with the comment:

"It's called the Second Amendment. Read it sometime. It says what it means, it means what it says.

Nearly all gun laws are un-Constitutional."

I don't think that people need to be walking the streets with guns. And if someone is robbing a store and the hero decides to take action, won't he be nervous? Will he make and accurate shot and not hit anybody else? Is the criminal really intending on shooting anybody? There is no need to play a hero and shoot somebody in public. Let the police handle it. That is what your tax dollars are paying for.

-- Posted by Samus on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 2:32 PM

LMAO I know

-- Posted by Aggiefan/Twiggy on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 2:38 PM

I see.

I still disagree with you.

I would much rather not have to wait 10-12 minutes hiding in a clothes rack when someone could have just shot him. If he is wandering around shooting people..how many of us can he kill in 10-12 minutes?

And I would say most concealed carry owners while not looking to shoot someone feel adequate enough to not be "nervous" and have enough training to be accurate.

These are not "Barney Fife" types.

-- Posted by SuperBethie21 on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 2:40 PM

That has got to be THE biggest load of crap I've ever heard. The police, who are RARELY in the right place at the right time to prevent a violent crime, have no legal obligation to protect you or anyone else (and the courts have ruled on that repeatedly).

The primary intent of the Second Amendment was to make sure the people had the means to take back their government in the event that the government overstepped its powers, as well, as well as to allow the people the tools necessary to protect their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Now, you are claiming that because the government is so big and powerful with a strong police presence, that we no longer need the Second Amendment? That is EXACTLY WHY we need the Second Amendment. Our Founding Fathers knew that an armed population is the ONLY way to keep the government from infringing upon any and every other Right enumerated in the Constitution. The Second Amendment is FUNDAMENTAL to preserving the rest of our Constitutional Rights.

So perhaps since the times have changed so much, maybe its time that the government mandates that everyone should be a Christian....or perhaps the government should control all speech and press and incarcerate those who do not agree with the administration....or perhaps since times have changed, we should no longer have the right to peaceably assemble (after all, these days there are a few "peaceful" gatherings that turn violent....perhaps it is time to outlaw gatherings larger than 10 people?)

It amazes me how so many "educated" people can have their heads so far up their posterior on the Second Amendment, which is written very clearly in the Constitution....while claiming to have such an open mind on other "rights" to allow them to argue for protections that are nowhere to be found in the Constitution.

-- Posted by dixietrucker on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 2:47 PM

Thank you, Dixie. You popped up on the other aspect--I was just waiting for it.

I totally agree.

-- Posted by SuperBethie21 on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 2:50 PM

...and yes, ANY law that infringes upon the Right of a law-abiding person to KEEP and BEAR Arms is Unconstitutional. If you don't understand what those words mean, look 'em up in any dictionary. We shouldn't NEED special permits to carry...the Constitution has it pretty well covered.

-- Posted by dixietrucker on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 2:57 PM

Wow!!! I stand corrected. Remind me not to walk into the same room with you. That gun that you hide in your jacket will make me nervous!

-- Posted by Samus on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 2:58 PM

Why would you be nervous? I suppose that is what I am not understanding.

The person in question is a law-abiding citizen who went through TONS of qualifying tests and training. They aren't going to randomly turn and shoot you for the heck of it.

Do you ever get nervous of the criminal out in the places of business you frequent that you don't know is standing next to you?

-- Posted by SuperBethie21 on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 3:03 PM


I'm pretty good with knives too. Got the guns for the wife.

BUT! If you have Crown or Grande Marinier you may enter unobstructed.

-- Posted by fajar154 on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 3:05 PM

That's the beauty of CCW....you wouldn't even notice that .45 under my jacket...until, of course, a criminal started shooting the place up at which point I'm sure you'd be thanking whoever you pray to that there was SOMEONE around to save your sorry @$$ from the murderous thug.

-- Posted by dixietrucker on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 3:07 PM

Hey, Librule: Metioning "It Takes a Village"...Just a little something most people don't know (or want to know): The majority of the book was written by ghostwriter Barbara Feinman; it took her 7 months, for which she was paid $120,000. After publication, Feinman complained about lack of acknowledgement or credit for her work, while Hillary insisted she wrote the book, & all Feinman did was some editorial drafting, etc., for the amount of money.

IMHO: I still believe it takes parents/family to raise children--not the neighbors, the government, etc.

-- Posted by gurusmom on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 3:21 PM

Here's some more food for thought:

If it is OK for a bank to hire an armed rent-a-cop to protect federally insured money, why is it wrong for a mother or father to be equally armed to protect an even greater (and less replaceable) asset?

-- Posted by dixietrucker on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 3:22 PM

Well I can see I am out numbered. I do not own a gun, never shot one, and never will. I am not a hunter or law official. I don't like guns period. If I see a regular citizen with a gun, I will walk the other way, sweaty palms, and heart thumping. That is why I feel that people don't need to carry guns. Even though I am outnumbered in this forum, I am sure there are millions that are just like me. I just don't think today's society needs people carrying on the streets. Sorry, my personal feelings, I am entitled to them as are you!

-- Posted by Samus on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 3:27 PM

PUPS: Who on earth would call you a bleeding heart liberal? They must have a wierd sense of politics, hm?

Thank you for the thoughts about gun ownership and child responsibility. There was a time when I owned a shotgun...it was kept loaded and under our bed. It might have saved my life one night, out there on the farm with two toddlers, and their father working out-of-town throughout the weeks. It might not have saved my life if I'd had to unlock a box, load it, etc. Oh, no, I didn't shoot the escaped convict--firing the first load over his head had him fleeing.

In today's world, I guess that is not possible, because no one seems capable of doing what we did back then: Children were not allowed in our bedroom without permission, and children did not play with our guns.

-- Posted by gurusmom on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 3:36 PM

Oh Funny Rabbit! You are so right! You know everything about me. I don't own a gun so how could I ever defend myself or my family from an intruder. Thank you for calling me a sheep. Now I know my place in the world.

Go ahead and break into my house. My hatchet may miss you as I throw it but my ball bat will look nice upside your head as will my 9-iron. That is if my dogs don't mangle you first!!!

-- Posted by Samus on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 3:42 PM

I agree that the teaching of private space seems to have fallen by the wayside.

People think I'm oddity because I plan to teach my children to respect personal space--

you can enter my bedroom when invited and you may knock. I will knock on your bedroom. Future siblings will knock and you will ask permission to use/play with things that do not belong to you.

Most people I know function like a commune. =/

-- Posted by SuperBethie21 on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 3:43 PM

And once again, I do NOT deny the right to own a gun and keep it in your home. Just don't bring it on the streets is my argument!

-- Posted by Samus on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 3:44 PM


Why doesn't that surprise me about Hillary's book? The Clinton's always had/have very large egos.

-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 3:53 PM

Your taking this way too personal. Look, as I have said in earlier posts, OWN A GUN. I don't care if you have 25 of them. If you want to keep them in your car, then go right ahead. As I said before, it is my personal feelings and opinion and I am entitled to them as are you! This will make the second time I have said it. I am not infringing upon your rights, I am merely expression my right of "Freedom of Speech"!

Have a nice day, wolf!

-- Posted by Samus on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 3:59 PM

Very good, SuperBethie--"Most people I know function like a commune" My admiration for you just keeps on growing! ;)

A son has a problem with me: When the gr.children come to visit, I do not allow them into my bedroom uninvited, & I nicely inform them that they do not look through my desk drawers. He believes a grandparent should allow the kids to do anything they want to do. It's a modern thing, I guess. Strange, though--they appear to have much love and respect for me!

-- Posted by gurusmom on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 4:00 PM

Good for you SuperBethie, kids need to be taught to respect other people and their things and their space.

-- Posted by Twiggy60 on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 4:01 PM

My mom always expected that of me...

and I turned out alright. LOL

I just feel like it's important..

If you can't respect your brother enough to ask to borrow his skateboard..

how are you going to manage to respect people in the real world when I release you to it?

I think some of our family members will have a hard time adjusting. They are going to think we're "too strict."

I'm not a super strict person--there is room for creativity, self expression, and opinion---I just think you have to recognize boundaries because you will face them throughout life.

LOL Guru---I'd be in trouble for lightly smacking little hands for digging through desk drawers!!! I don't allow that either.

-- Posted by SuperBethie21 on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 4:06 PM

keep [keep] v

possess something: to hold or maintain something in your possession

bear [ber] v

carry something: to hold or support and transport somebody or something

arm [aarm] n (plural arms)

military weapon: a weapon, especially one used in warfare (often used in the plural)

Encarta World English Dictionary & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

I'm not sure how you can think you are not infringing upon my right to keep and BEAR Arms if you don't think I should be allowed to carry them on my person as I go about my daily business....seems pretty cut and dry to me.

-- Posted by dixietrucker on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 4:12 PM

"The Second Amendment does more than guarantee to all Americans an unalienable right to defend one's self. William Blackstone, the 18th century English legal commentator whose works were well-read and relied on by the Framers of our Constitution, observed that the right to keep and bear firearms arises from "the natural right of resistance and self-preservation." This view, reflected in the Second Amendment, promotes both self-defense and liberty. It is not surprising then that the generation that had thrown off the yoke of British tyranny less than a decade earlier included the Second Amendment in the Constitution and meant for it to enable the people to protect themselves and their liberties."


-- Posted by dixietrucker on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 4:29 PM


Unfortunately, our gov't feels that it is their natural right to keep it's people on leashes and that the gov't "natural right" trumps the people's natural rights. Sadly, the majority of the people just accept it.

-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 4:32 PM


Are you suggesting we don't need laws to encourage social norms?

Or are you saying the representatives that we elect do not truly represent the whole, when they enact laws?

-- Posted by coke zero on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 4:40 PM

Gurusmom and SuperBethie,

My parent's room was the only room with a constant closed door. You were not to go in there at all. And my Mother,GRHS, could tell if we went in while she wasn't home, even if we never touched anything.

Oh, and Gurusmom, I do tend to "bleed" a little now and then. LMAO

-- Posted by Pups on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 4:42 PM

Although I agree with that statement, it was not mine. Follow the link to read the entire article written by a former US Senator who is currently running for President.

-- Posted by dixietrucker on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 5:00 PM


Cool, I have a collection of daggers, swords, and knives. And lets just say if the intruder doesn't get to them first, he's toast. LOL

-- Posted by Pups on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 5:05 PM


I'm saying that the gov't represents no one but themselves. And I would also say that gov't has no business in our social norms. That is for the individual to decide.

The Fed. Government's role should be to help protect the individual from force and fraud. Nothing more, nothing less. Jeez, I'm sounding more and more like a libertarian everyday.

-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 5:08 PM


...you ever hear the saying "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight"? Sorta like that scene in Indiana Jones....

-- Posted by dixietrucker on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 5:15 PM

Librule, I suppose that would be one possible solution. It would put an end to some debates:

*increase the demand arms

*decrease the demand for prisons

-- Posted by coke zero on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 5:16 PM


I know the knives and such are no match for a gun. Though, do get a chuckle out of that scene in the movie.

Just saying that I'm not totally helpless in defending myself at home. But like I said, if the intruder figures out they aren't just the "for display" type, I'm pretty screwed. LMAO

-- Posted by Pups on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 5:42 PM

hilleco, That is sad.

-- Posted by coke zero on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 5:46 PM

Samus, I spent over thirty years in law enforcement and have relatives who still are. There are not nearly as many LEO's out there at any given time as you think. I have radioed for assistance on more than one occasion only to be told that no one was available. Depending on where you live, "help" may be forty-five minutes to an hour away if at all. Having dealt with the criminal element for many years and knowing what can happen, I continue to carry my old duty weapon anywhere I legally can even though I am now retired. You have a choice not to own or carry, the laws of this state say I can and I so choose. I don't think everyone should, but everyone should have that option. I am sorry it makes you nervous, but I can certainly live with that.

-- Posted by D'oh on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 7:01 PM


Though I am afraid to say this with all these guns around, I am with you. There is something very scary about "citizens" carrying guns who are willing to use them when they feel they need to do so. Mistakes like shots fired, unlike misspoken words, cannot be taken back!

-- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 7:05 PM

Always thought, rather than "carrying concealed," it would make more sense for us to be allowed to wear our guns right out in the open...a Don't-Mess-With-Me message. Probably not much that would be scarier than a semi-senile, grey-haired old lady with a go-ahead, make-my-day gleam in her eye, toting her gun in a holster--unsnapped, of course--on her ample hip. ROFL

-- Posted by gurusmom on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 8:27 PM

PUPS..."And my Mother,GRHS, could tell if we went in while she wasn't home, even if we never touched anything" I know, I know! Used to astound me the things my mother/grandmother knew...until I became a mother. Scary, isn't it?

True of most of us who aren't radical, my friend...we have the occasional bleeding heart, and the occasional tough-skinned attitudes. Seems to me that's more ideal than being one or the other. Makes us more human than robotic.

-- Posted by gurusmom on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 8:32 PM

Agree, Librule. Frustrating that with our system, with our busy population, with the size of our country and our government, there's little we can do...even though many will argue that "voting" is the answer--Obviously, it isn't.

Wild as it sounds, retirees living in Mexico, when asked what they like best about living there, place "not having to see/think about/deal with" the American governmental mess pretty much right at the top of their list.

-- Posted by gurusmom on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 8:39 PM


Is the eyes in the back of the head, the internal lie detection devise, and the ability to deduce who did what when something get broke a super power that women get after giving birth???? :-)

-- Posted by Pups on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 8:44 PM

Absolutely, PUPS! Although, either each generation is diluting those special qualities mothers have, or they are diminishing due to lack of interest...LOL

Did love it though when one of more of my kids would say, "How did you know that?" Actually, they still do, proving that it is a lifelong power that we have!

-- Posted by gurusmom on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 9:06 PM


You might be correct. Two of my sister have the "mom" super power, but one does not.

Btw,,, Now have a new found deeper respect for you. The image of you packing heat and riding your motercycle makes you cool in my book. Can't wait for the day the we get both you and SuperBethie to lunch at the same time. :-)

-- Posted by Pups on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 9:37 PM

The biggest problem with open carry is that you lose the element of surprise. A criminal won't attack a victim they KNOW is armed in the same manner as one who they ASSUME is unarmed.

Also, weapon retention becomes more difficult. If you think it's bad when a pickpocket steals your wallet, how much worse would it be if that same criminal picked your gun? If it's concealed, they don't know you have it, and if they don't know you have it they won't try to take it.

-- Posted by dixietrucker on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 9:37 PM

Valid point Dixietrucker.

-- Posted by Pups on Fri, Jan 4, 2008, at 9:38 PM

PUPS, (Hangs her head, with a sad look upon her face.) Guess to be popular you have to be a whip snapping, gun slinging, bike riding chick! I once again, have no chance at winning prom or homecoming queen. LMAO

-- Posted by coke zero on Sat, Jan 5, 2008, at 6:57 AM

Cape Library Director Betty Martin was not honest with citizens by telling them that if they voted for a substantial tax increase the library would be expanded. If you drive by the library you can easily see that it has been almost completely torn down. Cape is getting an entirely new library. We are spending much more money than what would have been necessary to rebuild, especially considering that libraries are soon to be obsolete due to computers. I am tired of being lied to by city officials wanting tax increases for their pet projects. Betty Martin should be terminated immediately along with her accomplices.

-- Posted by Make no mistake about it on Sat, Jan 5, 2008, at 8:22 AM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account on seMissourian.com or semoball.com, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.


Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.