TexasCHLforum.com

The Mad Moderate wrote:I hope people are not misunderstanding me or mistaking me for a coward, I was simply saying that BASED ON WHAT I KNOW I would not have tried to take down the shooter. It's not that I would be scared its that accessing the situation I think retreat is the smart move in that situation, I'm no good to my family dead, trying to play hero. If you would rush a man with a 12 gauge and an AR-15 go ahead, but I'll be the one keeping low and trying to remove myself from the threat area, if that makes me a coward in your eyes then so be it.

The Annoyed Man wrote: 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.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

sjfcontrol wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:I'm almost hesitant to bring this up (because it DOES sound a little creepy). Yesterday a guy called into a local radio show (Mar Davis) and said (among other things) "my wife won't give me crap about carrying at the movie theater anymore." I remembered my wife and I settled that one a couple of weeks after I got my CHL. I had forgotten our conversation until I herd him say that on the radio.

I told her about the comment, and reminded her of our conversation when we got home. It went something lie this:
Did you bring your gun HERE? (in the movie theatre)
Yeah
Do they allow them here?
They didn't have a sign up, so I'm OK.
She didn't ask WHY, but it did get me thinking, and I said
You know, if I was an idiot looking to cause a problem, this would be an easy target. Dark, lots of people close together, and so totally engrossed with what's on the screen that they wouldn't figure out what was going on until a lot of damage was done.
She remembered the conversation, and then said "that's kinda creepy"

I'm going to assume she meant the apparent prescience, and not my thought pattern...

Hmmm, I think we need to keep a close eye on you!

longhorn_92 wrote:Prayers going out to the victims and families.

BTW, The "ban guns" people are all over the blogs wanting gun laws... I knew that rhetoric would be brought up.