TexasCHLforum.com

AndyC wrote:Bill Whittle has something to say about freedom of speech:

[youtube][/youtube]

The second half of that cut pretty sharp. The razors edge of truth.

ScooterSissy wrote: how can anyone possibly say that a contest to portray Mohammed in cartoons was not directed at Muslims?

What I was trying (perhaps unclearly) to convey is that..... it doesn't matter what her purpose was..... she has the right to say it.... and at a venue that she paid for. People who don't like it can choose not to attend or choose to protest peacefully. Her motivations are completely irrelevant. You are welcome to think what you may about her motivations. You are free to criticize here on the internet. But none of that should ever impinge on her right to express her opinion within the constraints of the law.

You know what's really the biggest shame here.... ??
Did anyone see even a single cartoon from a single contestant anywhere in any media? Certainly not on TV. Not even on Fox.

If you still think Pam Geller was directing her event AT Muslims, you're welcome to think that. I think she was talking to you and me and all those chickens on TV that didn't show any cartoons. Not even for the news value. That made her point more clearly than anything that was said that day in Garland.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Shameful.

ScooterSissy wrote: I don't see this particular event as "calling out hatred"; instead, she disrespected and insulted the religion of millions, to invite, and thus demonstrate the unreasonable hatred of a few. I don't think that was a good trade. It worked in both calling out that hatred (by a few), and even (probably unexpectedly, but thankfully) demonstrating that in some areas, like Texas, it's not a good idea to act on that hate.

Not only do I disagree with your hypothesis that this was directed AT Muslims...... Even if that WAS her purpose, she has the right to do it.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Would I choose this method of expression..... Why does that matter one iota?
Pam Geller followed every applicable law and she has the right to say what she wants to say, regardless of whether it is offensive.

Millions have died so that we all can have that right.

ScooterSissy wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:As far as the cartoon contest being targeted at those who would promote violence, or even simply Sharia law - the problem is that may have been who it was aimed at, but there were millions of Muslim believers who also had their religion besmirched who have not done anything wrong.

Sticks and stones.

Like we learned in 2nd grade.

My convictions get besmirched all the time. I manage not to kill anybody over it. Haven't even considered it.

Seriously? How many times do I have to say, my comments have nothing to do with the attempted killing over the event - merely about the event itself.

I would no more say this event was a good thing than I would the actions of the Westboro idiots. That was my point. Maybe some folks didn't catch the "100%" portions...

Personally, I though this event was a bad idea before there was an attack. Not because of the possibility of an attack, but simply because it was meant to inflame. And in that deliberate, intentional inflammation against people that deserve it, they also insulted and inflamed people that didn deserve it. Much like the Westboro folks do.

I don't see it that way... I don't see the event as focusing on offending Islam... I see it as a wake up call to Americans. I see it as someone standing on a soap box shouting out for us to hold dear to our first amendment.

My right to free speech is not limited by anyone else's feelings about what I say.
There is no such thing in this country as "The Right To Never Be Offended™".
If you want that right, try to get an Amendment passed. Or, go somewhere where that right exists.

Just like anything anyone writes on the internet...
if I don't want to be offended by something.... DON'T READ IT! DON'T WATCH IT! DON'T LISTEN TO IT!

You've realized that Westboro is different, becaue they seek you out... they confront you... they take away your ability to ignore them.. right?

ScooterSissy wrote:As far as the cartoon contest being targeted at those who would promote violence, or even simply Sharia law - the problem is that may have been who it was aimed at, but there were millions of Muslim believers who also had their religion besmirched who have not done anything wrong.

Sticks and stones.

Like we learned in 2nd grade.

My convictions get besmirched all the time. I manage not to kill anybody over it. Haven't even considered it.

Pam Geller is very easy to avoid. Don't attend her event.
The Westboro miscreants come find you and exploit your suffering when you're most vulnerable.

Huge, huge difference.
Sad that it had to be explained here.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php ... post318798" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some inside baseball.

Abraham wrote:Given the terrorists were armored, were they taken down with head shots?

Anyone know?

Thanks!

I'm hearing first one taken down with a head shot, second with a "spine" shot, but no details on where on the spine.
Follow up fire from SWAT over-watch, but uncertain still what role that played.

Taypo wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:

Taypo wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:

philip964 wrote:Michael Berry was saying on the radio that the two terrorists were armed with AK47s and had body armor. The brave police officer took them down with his service revolver per Michael. He was promoting the officer as a hero.

I hope the officer gets the recognition he deserves. We here in Texas are all very proud of what he did. He is a true hero.

I'm sure for a second, we all wish we could have helped him.

No surprise that a revolver shooter could pull that off since revolver shooters tend to be a bit more sparing with their ammo than autoloader folks...

Its my understanding that he wasn't a revolver guy, he was a .45 guy. Granted, it was a Glock but nobody's perfect

My point is that Michael Berry was saying the weapon used was a "service revolver"

My point is that several other sources are indicating otherwise

Glock 21.
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php ... post318492" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You'd have to take my word vouching for the guy making the claim in that link.

HB308.

Thankfully these terrorists didn't get past COPs last night, but if they had, this school premises is statutorily off limits for CHL. WHY?

TVGuy wrote:I would also argue that stopping an event from being held just because it might anger some people is a direct assault of our very Constitution and a very slippery slope of state censorship. Once that starts, you're not far from NK, China, Etc.

I heard Trump on Fox this morning (I was too far from the controller to change the station) talk about how dumb it was to provoke (paraphrasing) Muslims by holding that event. I didn't like Trump before, but now I like him even less than I like Christie.

Bottom line..... Nobody in this country should live in fear of their speech being sufficient justification for murder. Ever.
Did anyone listen to the event organizer, Pam Geller, on the news last night and this morning? Her NY accent was like nails on a blackboard, but her words were spot on.

Do I have any interest in attending here event? No. None.
Would I stand with her to protect her right to have that event? You bet.

ETA: " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Free speech

Garland PD