<<<Other than that, your #2 - who cares?>>>
Then I guess you don't care about facts. Other than my #2 are facts from the article. Seems silly to try to engage in meaningful dialogue with someone without them. Yes, my story was speculation....and you totally failed to see the point of why I even bothered to respond to: "The latest liberal example of PC speak."
<<<I personally think the fact that the two knew each other should have been stated earlier in the article, which would have made the "uninvited house visitor" comment make more sense.>>>
Well, in reading the entire article before forming an opinion, it did make sense. What didn't make sense was bagger's post.
<<<Therefore, IMO, that's a mistake that the news outlet made themselves that just invited such comments as baggers OP view. It's of their own making.>>>
Disagree - laziness on the reader's part doesn't equate to a mistake on the news outlet's part. The cure for foot-in-mouth syndrome? Read an ENTIRE article before commenting.
<<<Show up with a gun at my house, you take your chances, your #3 - that tends to happen when a homeowner sees someone with a gun and is unarmed himself and decides to try to disarm him, your #4 - In Texas, if it's on your property, it's on your property - inside the house or not.>>>
*I* have no # anything. Again, # facts from the article. Yes, defend yourself on your property...from those you know and those you don't know. Who would argue anything to the contrary ?!?!?!?!
<<<The last paragraph in your reply is totally from your own imagination, unless you have another source with more information you didn't share via a link. Personally, I found it amusing reading it, however, in a way, it actually feeds into baggers OP of some trying to soft-peddle a very serious incident and downplaying the truth.>>>
Glad you got a chuckle out of it. As for "soft-peddling and downplaying the truth about a very serious incident".....<sigh> puh-leeze!!
|
