TexasCHLforum.com

Greybeard wrote:I like this pastor's attitude: "But now because some big pharma sick wacko punk who draped himself in the Confederate Flag was smart enough to go into a gun-free zone to carry out his hate-filled attack – pusillanimous little sissies craving brownie points have determined the Confederate Flag must be punished. The real debt of thanks for the successful attack in Charleston goes to those like Obama, Karl Rove, Eric Holder, and all of the other fools who clamor an anti-gun message. Because as every reasonable-minded person knows, had that church not been a gun free zone, the shooter would have in fact come to the right place to meet his maker." Warning: some non-PC verbiage: http://mychal-massie.com/premium/the-co ... rals-have/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

dale blanker wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:EDITED TO CLARIFY WHO WAS BEING ADDRESSED

dale blanker wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

EHooper02 wrote:I really only have one question:

If what he said wasn't wrong, why has it been deleted and you have been left to defend his statement?

Understand your board is probably under a lot of fire right now, and I'm certainly not trying to add to that. Just something to think about, I feel.

Only Charles can answer your question, but I can tell you this. In the current climate in America, you don't have to say anything wrong to be assaulted on the internet. All you have to do is say something that people disagree with. What Charles said was that the Pastor opposed carry in churches, which is a fact, and some of the dead could be alive if carry had been allowed in the church, which is also a fact.

What is not a fact is that Charles blamed the victims for their deaths. That is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. It's not surprising. It happens on both sides of the political aisle by people who don't care about truth but only care about promoting their own agendas.

What is really unfortunate about the quote is the timing of it - not what the grieving pastor's family and other victims' families needed to hear now. I don't think the comment was malicious but maybe thoughtless and tacky. Charles must have thought this and hence the removal.

dale blanker, you folks think you're rather amusing, don't you? Think you've won some major victory? Well, there is a thing called counting your chickens before they've hatched. You really shouldn't do such things, you might find yourself not so happy later.

I may have given the wrong impression but I was definitely not trying to be funny. And I was not disagreeing with what Charles said - certainly another gun or two might have saved the day - only the timing of his comment. I would say it myself maybe in a couple of weeks but still without naming the pastor as a possible contributing factor.

How do you feel about the President using this tragedy as a springboard for promoting more "gun control"?

CoffeeNut wrote:Well the forum has made it to the New York Times

Hello new members and howdy to Shannon who must refresh this website about a thousand times a day.

In NY venacular. .....

"Oy Vey!"

baldeagle wrote:I am stunned by the graciousness of the families of the victims in Charleston. They are better Christians than I am. No way could I forgive this cretin just two days after he murdered a family member. Maybe some day, but not now. It would be a long time before I could forgive him.

Inspirational.

I would not be capable of such forgiveness.
Certainly has caused me much reflection today.

http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Time after time, we see that these killers tell us they pick soft targets. With just two exceptions, from at least 1950, all the mass public shootings have occurred in these gun-free zones. From last summer’s mass public killers in Santa Barbara and Canada, to the Aurora movie theater shooter, these killers made it abundantly clear in their diaries or on Facebook how they avoided targets where people with guns could stop them.

ETA:

And this too...

No, Dylann Roof Didn't Arm Himself Through a 'Legal Loophole'

Horrendous crimes understandably spur people to find a solution. But if preventing them were as simple as passing one more law, we would probably have perfected the world a long time ago.

EHooper02 wrote:I really only have one question:

If what he said wasn't wrong, why has it been deleted and you have been left to defend his statement?

Understand your board is probably under a lot of fire right now, and I'm certainly not trying to add to that. Just something to think about, I feel.

I can't tell you why the post has been removed, but I can tell you that this shooting is the perfect example of the fallacy that is "gun control".

South Carolina law requires that permission be granted for a license holder to carry a gun into church. Law abiding people are disarmed by that law. Murderers are not. Passing more laws restricting where people can carry guns only affect those people who abide by the law. Murderers, in some cases, have found such off-limits places to be nothing more than a place where they can carry out murderous acts without fear of anyone being able to effectively defend themselves.

Nobody is to blame here, except the killer himself.

I choose not to be in places where I am required to disarm. I would not attend this church.
I don't have a crystal ball that tells me where I might run in to a crazed killer, so, I choose to remain prepared to defend myself at all times.

Welcome to the forum EHooper02. I think you'll find your considered opinions welcome here, even though we might disagree.