TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote: I understand completely. Guys with boxcutters killed the pilot, and took the plane. BGs had the plane. GGs rushed the the BGs that had boxcutters AND the plane. BGs used the plane to kill the GGs.

No. GGs prevented the BGs from using the plane as a missile. The GGs were successful. The BGs failed their mission.

I agree - however, the Mad Moderate was trying to make the point that somehow what was done on the plane was "easier" than a lone person rushing a heavily armed and armored assailant. That was simply not the case. Either action would involve grave risk to, and courage by, the person(s) doing the rushing.

Exactly. But.... My point was that there was a moment when things hung in the balance on those plains, when all the BGs had was box cutters, and there were only 4-5 hijackers on planes with a hundred or more passengers on board. Todd Beamer and crew did not survive their heroism, but they did foil the hijackers' plan to dive that plane into the capitol or the White House. And more importantly, they were unarmed. Not to speak ill of the dead because their deaths were horrible, but the passengers on the other planes did nothing. They waited for rescue that, 30,000 feet in the air, wasn't coming. instead, they meekly submitted, even after they had witnessed the murder of crew members. A quick bum's rush of fifteen or twenty passengers could have overrun and restrained the hijackers. They weren't bad people. They had simply been conditioned not to act. That's what made what Todd Beamer and his cohorts did so exceptional.

The point I was making had nothing to do really with 9/11 specifically as much as it was about how we, as a people, have been conditioned not to act, and we think and expect that someone in authority will rescue us. But sometimes that will not happen unless we are willing to step up and be the agents of our own deliverance. In the final analysis, that is what CHL is all about, even if we confine it's privileges to the protection of ourselves and our immediate loved ones. But whether we carry strictly to protect ourselves, or whether we think of ourselves as sheepdogs, efforts by pantywaists in the democrat party to disarm us are profoundly immoral, because they make the statement that the life of the law abiding citizen has less value than the life of the criminal who is preying on him. That is my point. Disarming the lawfully armed is immoral, and my reply to Ebert is that his attitude is immoral; and I bitterly resent it when liberals use the evil of an immoral argument to try to cast the most rational people I've ever known—America's gun owners—as the ones whose moral compass is broken.....when the opposite is the truth.

C-dub wrote:

The Mad Moderate wrote:Apples and oranges, you cannot compare the two.

Not apples and oranges. Maybe red delicious and granny smith, but still apples to apples.

RSJ wrote:

The Mad Moderate wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote: Of course, I'd have been armed in that theater since their sign is insufficient by itself to deny CHLs to carry.

The laws in Texas are different than anywhere else, in most if not all of the other states a simple "gun buster" sign will suffice. BTW you gonna charge the guy with the AR 12 gauge and a 40 cal??? Be my guest but you will see me looking for cover and concealment. Any of you who have said otherwise are either lying or have a death wish. Like many have said a CHL is not a Batman license, it is to protect me. A theater is going to be fairly dark and with that many rounds fired I imagine a little smoky too. That kind of confusion could easily lead to innocent people being shot when you are trying to help. Courage is not the absence of fear but rather the judgement that something else is more important, my life is important, getting out of the kill zone is important, taking down the gunman and being the hero is not courageous its crazy.

RoyGBiv wrote: Of course, I'd have been armed in that theater since their sign is insufficient by itself to deny CHLs to carry.

gras wrote:

The Mad Moderate wrote:

Bart wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:Someone needs to follow the money. Where did this unemployed kid get the funds to purchase multiple weapons, ammo, body armor, riot helmit, gas mask, neck and groin protector, and sophisticated bomb making materials?

Based on what we know, it's possible he got everything from Holder and Obama. Not directly from their hands, but at their direction. If it was part of Fast and Furious, it explains why Obama didn't want those documents to see the light of day. Continuing the coverup only makes sense if there's more to the plot than providing guns to Mexican drug gangs. For example if they have other plans like this in motion.

Yeah sure, in other new Bush was behind the 9/11 and anthrax attacks.

That sounds like something an Obama supporter would say to distract attention from the truth.

From where I sit, there's strong evidence Obama and Holder were willing to provide guns for gangs to murder innocent Mexicans, because they could use the crisis they manufactured to push their attack on the Bill of Rights. Orchestrating something like this for the same agenda would be totally in character for men like that.

Bart wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:Someone needs to follow the money. Where did this unemployed kid get the funds to purchase multiple weapons, ammo, body armor, riot helmit, gas mask, neck and groin protector, and sophisticated bomb making materials?

Based on what we know, it's possible he got everything from Holder and Obama. Not directly from their hands, but at their direction. If it was part of Fast and Furious, it explains why Obama didn't want those documents to see the light of day. Continuing the coverup only makes sense if there's more to the plot than providing guns to Mexican drug gangs. For example if they have other plans like this in motion.