TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:The Klingons use "Because"?

They do if they feel like it...PUNY HUMAN!!!

Stupid wrote:You want to call yourself American? Go get a gun, and better yet, get an AR15 with EOTech.

Can I still call myself an American if I splurge and get an ACOG instead?

well, honestly, i don't much care where or how they were shot. 9.43 doesn't say where or how they need be shot and I'm not sure self defense does either. someone can be retreating and I might still consider them a threat. That's all true, and I'm not suggesting that my hypothetical was a requiremen...

Thanks for proving my point so brilliantly.

Anyone else have any opinions as to my offered scenario as a potential explanation for the facts of the case as they've been reported?

I must have forgotten to read the part where the Colombian had trained with Chuck Norris. Some of you folks have been playing way to many video games. :smilelol5: OK...so let's assume the Columbian who was shot in the side of the back had martial arts skills. I guess the one shot dead in the back w...

Then why aren't psychologically unsound people prohibited from speaking? Because the state cannot demonstrate a compelling interest in such prohibitions. It can, however, demonstrate a compelling interest (public safety) in prohibiting you from yelling "fire" in crowded theater, "I h...

I must have forgotten to read the part where the Colombian had trained with Chuck Norris. Some of you folks have been playing way to many video games. :smilelol5: OK...so let's assume the Columbian who was shot in the side of the back had martial arts skills. I guess the one shot dead in the back w...

KD5NRH wrote:Which is exactly why the First Amendment should always have the same "reasonable restrictions" as the Second.

It does. Well, not "the same" restrictions, but restrictions that are recognized based on the same legal theory.

Hamburger helper, eh? You rich people.... I had to have beans or rice. Not beans and rice, beans or rice. Lookshoory! Why, we used to live in hole in road! Me da' used to whip us to sleep wi' a bootcha' knoif! "rlol" Hamburger helper, eh? You rich people.... I had to have beans or rice. N...

There is nothing rational about believing a man shot in the back was on the attack. How familiar are you with what is meant by "in the back" in this case? In the instance of one of the BGs, it meant mostly the side, but toward the back. Not exactly precise terms there, in any event. It is...

Hamburger helper, eh? You rich people.... I had to have beans or rice. Not beans and rice, beans or rice. Luxury! We used to have to get out of the lake at three o'clock in the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of hot gravel, work twenty hours a day at the mill for twopence a month, come home ...

agbullet2k1 wrote:And the politically correct term is "gun enthusiast"

Another correct term is "oenologist". But I still call myself a "wino".

All the man wanted to know if his 19 year old daughter could have a pistol in her car. And that question was clearly answered in the affirmative multiple times. This is about the biggest thread hijack I've seen in a while. Really? The ensuing diversion was a relatively minor one that was still quit...

My beliefs are arrived at the same way yours are. By how I see the evidence. Maybe your beliefs are simply because they are what you want to believe, since you brought this possibility up first. First off, I never stated a "belief". I simply presented the evidence. Secondly, my assessment...

The usual thought process about shooting someone in the back is that it usually means they are trying to get away from you...which means they were no longer a threat. I will say this...I don't believe for one minute these two BG's charged a guy holding a shotgun on them. I believe they were trying ...