TexasCHLforum.com

Y'all know that Auburn is leading Oregon 16-11 at the half? WAR EAGLE!

We might as well get braced. Legislation banning hi-cap mags is coming as well as a waiting period on handgun purchases - mark my words.

No PB, hi-cap mags did not kill the many innocents at Ft. Hood and Tucson. Lunatics driven by their religion and personal demons, with hi-cap mags, killed the people.

The politicizing of this horrendous incident was a given and it ain't over yet - by a long shot.

Half time is over. Let's see what we see.

pbwalker wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Hey guys,

The question on the table is not need. The question is, what purpose do hi-cap handgun mags serve? And please remember, I'm just askin'... BTW, My SA XD SC 9mm has a 13 round mag.

Does it need a purpose?

Did you really want to ask that question out loud, especially after the Tucson and Ft. Hood massacres?

Hey guys,

The question on the table is not need. The question is, what purpose do hi-cap handgun mags serve? And please remember, I'm just askin'... BTW, My SA XD SC 9mm has a 13 round mag.

I guess someone has to be the Devil's Advocate.

I don't need an extended magazine for my SA Compact CW or my Kimber Target II or my Browning HiPower...or my Sig P230 SL. Lord knows, my S&W wheel gun CC's only hold 5 and 6 rounds respectively.

What purpose do high capacity magazines really serve? Who has survived a shoot-out or home invasion due to their extended magazine in real life? Just askin'...

flintknapper wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:In 2004, the democrats used bullseyes on their political maps to indicate republicans they wanted to take down.... But that was OK.

But when a republican uses crosshairs instead of bullseyes, that's dangerous and irresponsible. Please.

Do you have a reference to the Dems' 2004 map? I'd love to use it in some Facebook tit-for-tats I'm engaged in.

In my opinion...this would only serve to further erode our 1st amendment rights by lending credence to the idea that either party did anything wrong.

The kind of hyper-sensitivity displayed over what was clearly meant (by BOTH parties) to be a FIGURATIVE symbol is just crazy. There was nothing onerous about either the bulls-eyes or cross-hairs, they are simply widely recognized symbols used to call attention to "targeted" concerns.

How anyone could spin this into meaning it was a HIT LIST is beyond me..... and tells me we have in Washington...a certain number of people, despicable in their nature.

When will the voting public learn? Elections have consequences!

Political Correctness (PC) is largely dependant upon whose bull is being gored.

Griffen wrote:Since this lady lost her husband in a shooting incident, I'm surprised she's not more of an advocate for carrying defensively. I don't understand why she wants to create more gun-free zones to allow an incident like that to happen to other innocent victims. I just don't understand the logic behind her motivation. I have to believe theres another alternate agenda item behind her thinking.

New York City arguably caused her husband's death by denying him and the others the right to carry a gun and the ability to defend themselves from attack.

She, Chuckie, Mikey et al won't accept that NYC's existing laws did not prevent the madman from shooting up the subway.

It's their city, they can run it however their electorate allows. Me, I won't be going there.