TexasCHLforum.com

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valley ... er_boy.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My facebook anti's latest rant.

All I can say is hmmm.

That's so sad!

The boyfriend was eighteen and carrying concealed which is illegal as you can't carry concealed until you are 21. Betting boyfriend was a thug.

My wife has never complained about my weapon (properly holstered) made hugging uncomfortable.
My guess, is as well, it was a thug, with the weapon unholstered, in the front of his paints, just like a wannabe gansta.

Very strange. Wonder why he killed her...

rbwhatever1 wrote:Very strange. Wonder why he killed her...

I guess that's why there is further investigation. To me all supposed accidental shootings, should start with murder one and make the shooter prove otherwise.

rbwhatever1 wrote:Very strange. Wonder why he killed her...

No reason or evidence to lead me to this but I have gut feeling that makes me ask the same question.

mojo84 wrote:

rbwhatever1 wrote:Very strange. Wonder why he killed her...

No reason or evidence to lead me to this but I have gut feeling that makes me ask the same question.

If I was pulling an unholstered gun from the front of my pants, with the safety off and one in the pipe. I would be really extra careful.

Hilarious. Yes I would be very careful too!

Keith B wrote:The boyfriend was eighteen and carrying concealed which is illegal as you can't carry concealed until you are 21.

Maybe. It depends whose house it was.

philip964 wrote:To me all supposed accidental shootings, should start with murder one and make the shooter prove otherwise.

Going with that "guilty until proven innocent" approach?

jmra wrote:

philip964 wrote:To me all supposed accidental shootings, should start with murder one and make the shooter prove otherwise.

Going with that "guilty until proven innocent" approach?

Yeah, maybe then accidental shootings would stop. Notice how rarely there are three people in the room when it happens. For some reason when there are more than two people in the room it is always murder.

philip964 wrote:

jmra wrote:

philip964 wrote:To me all supposed accidental shootings, should start with murder one and make the shooter prove otherwise.

Going with that "guilty until proven innocent" approach?

Yeah, maybe then accidental shootings would stop. Notice how rarely there are three people in the room when it happens. For some reason when there are more than two people in the room it is always murder.

Don't see any constitutional issues with that approach?

jmra wrote:

philip964 wrote:

jmra wrote:

philip964 wrote:To me all supposed accidental shootings, should start with murder one and make the shooter prove otherwise.

Going with that "guilty until proven innocent" approach?

Yeah, maybe then accidental shootings would stop. Notice how rarely there are three people in the room when it happens. For some reason when there are more than two people in the room it is always murder.

Don't see any constitutional issues with that approach?

Yes of course. I've got a little sarcasm going here.

Two European tourists were recently murdered by a large mob in Madagascar. Their crime? Organ harvesting. They admitted that they were in Madagascar to harvest organs from little children.

They confessed after being tortured. Yeah the old ways are not as good as the system we have today in the US.

philip964 wrote:

jmra wrote:

philip964 wrote:

jmra wrote:

philip964 wrote:To me all supposed accidental shootings, should start with murder one and make the shooter prove otherwise.

Going with that "guilty until proven innocent" approach?

Yeah, maybe then accidental shootings would stop. Notice how rarely there are three people in the room when it happens. For some reason when there are more than two people in the room it is always murder.

Don't see any constitutional issues with that approach?

Yes of course. I've got a little sarcasm going here.

Thought that might be the case. I appreciate the value of sarcasm.