TexasCHLforum.com

Bolton, thanks for the links and the work to look them up!

ACLU Lawyers Blames Christians For Orlando Terror Attack

Pawpaw wrote:ACLU Lawyers Blames Christians For Orlando Terror Attack

Moron.

Pawpaw wrote:ACLU Lawyers Blames Christians For Orlando Terror Attack

ACLU = All Communist Loonies Union


Vote Trump to ensure that our rights to self-protection are not further restricted!

I find it interesting that Obama choose to mention these mass shootings

"shoot people in a school, or in a house of worship, or a movie theater, or in a nightclub. "

This is from whitehouse.gov website. No mention of San Bernadino

Wonder why?

Nevermind. I know why

bblhd672 wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:ACLU Lawyers Blames Christians For Orlando Terror Attack

ACLU = All Communist Loonies Union


Vote Trump to ensure that our rights to self-protection are not further restricted!

"Daily Caller" and "News Foundation" in the same headline. Funny.

flintknapper wrote:
Everyone 'exiting' is part of the problem when there is an 'active shooter' situation that occurs in a small space.

Reportedly there were 320 patrons in the building and ONE terrorist. What would happen if 200 people charged the shooter instead of offering him their backs as they ran!

The answer of course is: They would quickly overpower him and end the threat.

Yes it would come at some 'cost' and certainly it goes against the 'nature' of most folks, but we need to give this some thought.

SURELY there were strong, able bodied men in the room. Did NO ONE fight back?

These are different times folks. 'Running' isn't always going to be the best thing to do.

You are spot on correct, Flint. Dead is dead whether you're shot comin' or goin'. Would I lead the charge, I dunno'. What I do know is that Mrs Oldgringo and I do not attend/frequent large gatherings in gun free zones and that includes funerals, weddings, church and such.

flintknapper wrote: Everyone 'exiting' is part of the problem when there is an 'active shooter' situation that occurs in a small space.

Reportedly there were 320 patrons in the building and ONE terrorist. What would happen if 200 people charged the shooter instead of offering him their backs as they ran!

The answer of course is: They would quickly overpower him and end the threat.

Yes it would come at some 'cost' and certainly it goes against the 'nature' of most folks, but we need to give this some thought.

SURELY there were strong, able bodied men in the room. Did NO ONE fight back?

These are different times folks. 'Running' isn't always going to be the best thing to do.

I have been hesitant to post on this topic, firstly, because of my anger, secondly because my anger increases with each newscast, or published opinion by the media. Also my total and complete disgust with what our country has chosen to elect as a representative of the people, now knows no bounds.

I want to start out by thanking Beiruty, for his comments regarding the fact that the terrorist did not, and does not represent everyone of the Islamic faith. He stated so eloquently that this is not a religious issue, but rather a humanistic issue. I have seen so many Islamic clerics refuse to condemn these acts either out of fear of retaliation, or their complicity. These terrorists, do not care about a persons religious beliefs, nor do they adhere to a true religious following. This is an attack against the very fabric of American freedom, and everyone, no matter their ethnicity, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or their views on violence, must fight back, not with words and hand wringing, not with outreaches to join in a circle to sing Kum Bah Yah (forgive me if the spelling is incorrect) but with all of the force we can muster to meet these threats head on. These terrorists are, for lack of a better term, brainwashed into thinking that these acts will somehow change our way of life, make us give away our freedoms out of fear, and if these people want to try to hide behind Islam as their guiding force, then true believers, should, as Beiruty stated, stand up, fight back, make their condemnations heard around the world, so that those who hide in darkness, are outed, identified, and rooted out by whatever means necessary.

I'll get off my soap box now, I know that I am preaching to the choir with most of my statements, so forgive me my time to rant.

More and more it's apparent that you don't want to be caught anywhere, at any time, under any circumstance in a gun-free zone. That doesn't just mean nightclubs, but at these holier-than-thou "progressive" establishments like Half-Brained Books, Sprouts, Toby "Not Really a Cowboy" Keith, etc...

Redneck_Buddha wrote:More and more it's apparent that you don't want to be caught anywhere, at any time, under any circumstance in a gun-free zone. That doesn't just mean nightclubs, but at these holier-than-thou "progressive" establishments like Half-Brained Books, Sprouts, Toby "Not Really a Cowboy" Keith, etc...

Oldgringo wrote:

flintknapper wrote:
Everyone 'exiting' is part of the problem when there is an 'active shooter' situation that occurs in a small space.

Reportedly there were 320 patrons in the building and ONE terrorist. What would happen if 200 people charged the shooter instead of offering him their backs as they ran!

The answer of course is: They would quickly overpower him and end the threat.

Yes it would come at some 'cost' and certainly it goes against the 'nature' of most folks, but we need to give this some thought.

SURELY there were strong, able bodied men in the room. Did NO ONE fight back?

These are different times folks. 'Running' isn't always going to be the best thing to do.

You are spot on correct, Flint. Dead is dead whether you're shot comin' or goin'. Would I lead the charge, I dunno'. What I do know is that Mrs Oldgringo and I do not attend/frequent large gatherings in gun free zones and that includes funerals, weddings, church and such.

You can carry in church in Texas if you are not given notice (verbal or posted).

flowrie wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

flintknapper wrote:
Everyone 'exiting' is part of the problem when there is an 'active shooter' situation that occurs in a small space.

Reportedly there were 320 patrons in the building and ONE terrorist. What would happen if 200 people charged the shooter instead of offering him their backs as they ran!

The answer of course is: They would quickly overpower him and end the threat.

Yes it would come at some 'cost' and certainly it goes against the 'nature' of most folks, but we need to give this some thought.

SURELY there were strong, able bodied men in the room. Did NO ONE fight back?

These are different times folks. 'Running' isn't always going to be the best thing to do.

You are spot on correct, Flint. Dead is dead whether you're shot comin' or goin'. Would I lead the charge, I dunno'. What I do know is that Mrs Oldgringo and I do not attend/frequent large gatherings in gun free zones and that includes funerals, weddings, church and such.

You can carry in church in Texas if you are not given notice (verbal or posted).

I do and have for several years, thank you.

Just saw the article below on Market Watch website. Many comments that we should be aware of.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-ti ... 2016-06-13

Adt123 wrote:Just saw the article below on Market Watch website. Many comments that we should be aware of.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/its-ti ... 2016-06-13

Welcome to the forum, I didn't see anything that is not a complete rehash of everything the left wing says any time there is a murder committed and the tool used was a gun. He didn't have a single original idea, and all he did was try to denigrate the NRA. What is his idea for keeping guns away from terrorists? He simply took a page from BHO speeches and changed the words around. He knows that no gun control legislation, would have stopped any of the terrorist attacks he mentioned, but it's just more left wing ramblings hoping to get his opinion in print.