TexasCHLforum.com

The Mad Moderate wrote:

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.

A few hijackers with box cutters vs 6-7 people does not equal a heavily armed man wearing armor vs 1 guy with a handgun no matter how you add it up.

Disagree.
I'd rather shoot it out with a guy who apparently can't even clear a jam in an ar-15 *note, however, I am thankful that more weren't killed*. Than being unarmed at try to take on 6 people with knifes who are set on dying.

The Mad Moderate wrote:

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.

A few hijackers with box cutters vs 6-7 people does not equal a heavily armed man wearing armor vs 1 guy with a handgun no matter how you add it up.

The stakes were the same, but the odds were better for the innocents. Only one BG and he's ignoring those closest to him. I don't plan on being killed while cowering in fear.

C-dub wrote: I don't plan on being killed while cowering in fear.

74novaman wrote:

C-dub wrote: I don't plan on being killed while cowering in fear.

Or letting someone kill my wife or daughter. I will give my life protecting them if that's what it takes just the same as when I was in the Navy to protect my country and for anyone currently serving. I can't foresee when or if that will ever happen, but I'll know it when I see it and hope I don't miss the opportunity. It's just like many of the questions we see on here about when can I shoot. You'll know it when it's happening.

The Mad Moderate wrote:

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.

A few hijackers with box cutters vs 6-7 people does not equal a heavily armed man wearing armor vs 1 guy with a handgun no matter how you add it up.

Huh??? You lost me. You realize that
1) The BGs actually had more than boxcutters, they had the PLANE.
2) Those 6-7 DIED as a result of their actions.

How could someone rushing the Aurora shooter have ended up any worse?!?!

It didn't take long. A lawsuit was filed on the Batman massacre.

He might have a claim against the movie theater for having an emergency door in the front that was not alarmed or guarded. Don't believe he has one against WB or the doctor.

Citing “extreme trauma,“ ”Batman” massacre survivor Torrence Brown, Jr. has filed a lawsuit against three defendants: Warner Bros., the theater where the shooting spree took place, and the alleged gunman’s doctor.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/extreme ... cre-filed/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ScooterSissy wrote:

The Mad Moderate wrote:

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.

A few hijackers with box cutters vs 6-7 people does not equal a heavily armed man wearing armor vs 1 guy with a handgun no matter how you add it up.

Huh??? You lost me. You realize that
1) The BGs actually had more than boxcutters, they had the PLANE.
2) Those 6-7 DIED as a result of their actions.

How could someone rushing the Aurora shooter have ended up any worse?!?!

They didn't have a plane... they had boxcutters. They then used the boxcutters to take the plane. I think you misunderstood him.

snatchel wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

The Mad Moderate wrote:

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.

A few hijackers with box cutters vs 6-7 people does not equal a heavily armed man wearing armor vs 1 guy with a handgun no matter how you add it up.

Huh??? You lost me. You realize that
1) The BGs actually had more than boxcutters, they had the PLANE.
2) Those 6-7 DIED as a result of their actions.

How could someone rushing the Aurora shooter have ended up any worse?!?!

They didn't have a plane... they had boxcutters. They then used the boxcutters to take the plane. I think you misunderstood him.

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.

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.

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.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

snatchel wrote:TAM. Eloquent and on point as always.

Dave2 wrote:Yeah, he really should have a blog or something.

Well thanks guys but if I had a blog I wouldn't be able to waste so much time here.

Fair enough... Or is it? See my latest blog post to find out...

sjfcontrol wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

teri wrote:

philip964 wrote:The shooter was getting a federal grant to study, so the government provided the money for him to buy the guns.

Bingo!

You folks don't understand how Liberals look at government entitlements. Like food cards and medicaid cards, they don't look at it as spending government money on non essential items. Of coarse the entitlement allowed them to spend money they normally would not have had available, on guns. The pile of money they received from the government was not the pile they actually took the money for guns out of. Kind of like when you see people use food cards for groceries and then spend twenty five dollars on cigarettes and 30 dollars on a bottle of cheap liquor. The food card money was not the pile they used to buy cigarettes and booze so it is OK. Get it now?

Wow! You must drink the REALLY good stuff!!

LOL... I didn't really think about it. Maybe I am drinking better stuff than I realized. My taste buds are possibly more refined than the average welfare liberal. I believe in quality over quantity.

C-dub wrote:

74novaman wrote:

C-dub wrote: I don't plan on being killed while cowering in fear.

Or letting someone kill my wife or daughter. I will give my life protecting them if that's what it takes just the same as when I was in the Navy to protect my country and for anyone currently serving. I can't foresee when or if that will ever happen, but I'll know it when I see it and hope I don't miss the opportunity. It's just like many of the questions we see on here about when can I shoot. You'll know it when it's happening.

You guys act as if your surprised a liberal would be looking out for number one. It is obvious to me that the mad moderate has a highly developed sense of self preservation.

Just for the record, I am neither a liar or crazy! I have been in situations of being forced to put myself between danger and my loved ones. I moved swift and sure with no concern for my own safety. I prevailed. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense. In all the commotion, it would be very easy to jump that guy. The only thing that would have kept my hands and full weight off of that guy would have been if he shot me before I got to him. NO... I WOULD NOT HAVE TRIED TO THREAD A NEEDLE AND SHOOT IT OUT WITH HIM! Once I got on top of him, I would have tried to shoot him in the face...Point blank range.

jimlongley wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

teri wrote:

philip964 wrote:The shooter was getting a federal grant to study, so the government provided the money for him to buy the guns.

Bingo!

You folks don't understand how Liberals look at government entitlements. Like food cards and medicaid cards, they don't look at it as spending government money on non essential items. Of coarse the entitlement allowed them to spend money they normally would not have had available, on guns. The pile of money they received from the government was not the pile they actually took the money for guns out of. Kind of like when you see people use food cards for groceries and then spend twenty five dollars on cigarettes and 30 dollars on a bottle of cheap liquor. The food card money was not the pile they used to buy cigarettes and booze so it is OK. Get it now?

Wow! You must drink the REALLY good stuff!!

Sounds like good taste to me, my "cheap" liquor of choice is Polish potato vodka, which runs in that price range.

YUCK!!!

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.