TexasCHLforum.com

Keith B wrote:

sodchemist wrote:i do have a chl. and nice sig 220. and a new iwb holster that i picked up at the waco gun show this weekend. but the accessories that cause THIS opinion are my two sons--whom are typical boys--and my fear of the Lord.

If one of your sons attack me and is pounding my head into the pavement, I will defend myself in an appropriate manner, up to and including shooting one of them. Typical boys should not attack a person and try beating the snot out of them. Period.

And I have no fear of the Lord, he is my savior. But we will not get into religious discussions in this thread and on the forum as it is a rule violation.

right on man! report me for typing "the Lord". do the kingdom a favor! and be sure to love your neighbor with ALL of your pistol.

my son's wouldn't attack people either, unless perhaps they felt threatened, for example by someone stalking them at night who the do not know, for reasons (i.e., recent crime) that they know nothing about because they are just teenagers who can only think about girls and video games. but they might pull over to the side of the road in an accident and approach someone's vehicle. good luck with our perfect children.

Keith B wrote:

sodchemist wrote:i am glad that she was indicted. i am getting sick of the excuse "i feared for my life". it is getting out of hand. there are victims who are truly fouled in this game of life, and the perps deserve a penalty--two shots in the chest here--but there are also certain types of "victims" that chose to engage in "flopping", i.e., crying foul at minimal contact. we must have the wisdom to distinguish the two. for example, you are in your car and you have to shoot someone (twice) because they are breaking your window? drive away or, just brandish and call them off. respect human life. this weekend's verdict is another good example. someone wants to be a neighborhood watchman; someone wants to pursue "strangers" walking around. great. but the watchman can't even handle a fight with a stoned teenager who is walking back to his dad's house with some munchies? so watcher-man ends up shooting the stoner as soon as he gets a bloody nose? maybe he shouldn't be a watchman. i wouldn't want him walking around my neighborhood near my teenage sons.

Let's hear you say it isn't justified when you are the one getting your head smacked against the sidewalk and beat up. The jury has spoken and did the right thing.

As for the woman in Houston, there must be enough evidence to say I may not have been justified. I say we let the court determine this one too.

I will also guess you must not have a CHL.

oops. i forgot to quote; my response is above.

i do have a chl. and nice sig 220. and a new iwb holster that i picked up at the waco gun show this weekend. but the accessories that cause THIS opinion are my two sons--whom are typical boys--and my fear of the Lord.

i am glad that she was indicted. i am getting sick of the excuse "i feared for my life". it is getting out of hand. there are victims who are truly fouled in this game of life, and the perps deserve a penalty--two shots in the chest here--but there are also certain types of "victims" that chose to engage in "flopping", i.e., crying foul at minimal contact. we must have the wisdom to distinguish the two. for example, you are in your car and you have to shoot someone (twice) because they are breaking your window? drive away or, just brandish and call them off. respect human life. this weekend's verdict is another good example. someone wants to be a neighborhood watchman; someone wants to pursue "strangers" walking around. great. but the watchman can't even handle a fight with a stoned teenager who is walking back to his dad's house with some munchies? so watcher-man ends up shooting the stoner as soon as he gets a bloody nose? maybe he shouldn't be a watchman. i wouldn't want him walking around my neighborhood near my teenage sons.