TexasCHLforum.com

You won't see this in the New York Times. After his Obama murals were defaced again (I highly disapprove), Breakfast Klub owner Marcus Davis is shown with a slung AR. Reporter was apparently not puzzled why Davis said he had a "permit" for it, when none is required.

http://www.chron.com/default/article/Ob ... to-4098447" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So he's using an "assault rifle" that the person he voted for said he has no need for, to protect the mural of the person that said he had no need for it?

My head hurts

Not to mention that graffiti (vandalism) is hardly justification for deadly force, of threat of same.

Wanna bet it's not loaded?
He is scared of it and is only carrying it cause he knows others are scared of it. He would not use it in a million years! Probably does not even know how to use it.

That is the thought process of these dumb Libs.

I just watched an interview with him online and he said that he supports the President but does not agree with him wanting to ban Assault Weapons.

ghentry wrote:I just watched an interview with him online and he said that he supports the President but does not agree with him wanting to ban Assault Weapons.

Glad to hear it. Link?

We should introduce him to Mr. Colion Noir

RHenriksen wrote:Not to mention that graffiti (vandalism) is hardly justification for deadly force, of threat of same.

I am not advocating this: This might be better in a different thread. Feel free to move it.

PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible,
movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under
Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly
force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary,
robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal
mischief during the nighttime; or


§ 28.03. CRIMINAL MISCHIEF. (a) A person commits an
offense if, without the effective consent of the owner:
(1) he intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys
the tangible property of the owner;
(2) he intentionally or knowingly tampers with the
tangible property of the owner and causes pecuniary loss or
substantial inconvenience to the owner or a third person; or
(3) he intentionally or knowingly makes markings,
including inscriptions, slogans, drawings, or paintings, on the
tangible property of the owner.

Wow! Thanks for illuminating me. I had no idea you could shoot someone over graffiti :-/ (at night)

howdy wrote:

RHenriksen wrote:Not to mention that graffiti (vandalism) is hardly justification for deadly force, of threat of same.

I am not advocating this: This might be better in a different thread. Feel free to move it.

PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible,
movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under
Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly
force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary,
robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal
mischief during the nighttime; or


§ 28.03. CRIMINAL MISCHIEF. (a) A person commits an
offense if, without the effective consent of the owner:
(1) he intentionally or knowingly damages or destroys
the tangible property of the owner;
(2) he intentionally or knowingly tampers with the
tangible property of the owner and causes pecuniary loss or
substantial inconvenience to the owner or a third person; or
(3) he intentionally or knowingly makes markings,
including inscriptions, slogans, drawings, or paintings, on the
tangible property of the owner.

I wanted to have my picture taken in front of the original mural a while back, then it was vandalized.

But the vandal was sensitive to the mural, I kinda figured it was a graffiti artist as the original mural was the Change poster that is done in four colors. The vandal used the same four colors and sort of splattered paint in an artistic manner which made it look even cooler than before. Then I really wanted to have my picture taken with it. Of course I kept putting it off and never had it taken.

As the campaign started they painted over the old mural with the new campaign poster, which was no where near as nice as the original.

Don't put off doing things as time passes and the opportunity passes.

Now it has been vandalized, but this time by a real vandal who really made a mess of it. Sad.

I hope they put both posters back not just the recent one that was ruined.

BTW, if you have never been the Breakfast Klub, has some of the best fried chicken I have ever tasted. The lines can be unbelieveable.

The Breakfast Klub is across the street from the mural.

I'm not sure of the legality of defending property across the street from your business. But I sure like someone open carrying an AR and not being arrested.

Could you describe the ruckus, sir?

With the exception of propaganda campaigns in Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua, he said, murals generally don't express ideas about a person.

Interesting that the reporter allowed this point to be made in the article. I can't recall very many ex-Presidents who were done in mural either while in office or afterward. Perhaps mr O is trying to solidify his ties with his bretheren in the nations mentioned...

I attended an event the breakfast club catered. Their scrambled eggs were too wet.


And that is my only contribution to this thread

ghentry wrote:So he's using an "assault rifle" that the person he voted for said he has no need for, to protect the mural of the person that said he had no need for it?

My head hurts

Its okay if he is protecting an image of the current POTUS...you know, "lord and savior", "daddy", that sort of thing...

(BTW, I don't like people's private property being messed with, even if it is something that I can't stand. I hate seeing those O/B, 2012 bumperstickers, but I won't mess with folks' cars, for instance.)

psijac wrote:I attended an event the breakfast club catered. Their scrambled eggs were too wet.


And that is my only contribution to this thread

I think that must be the style. Not to my taste, either.

psijac wrote:I attended an event the breakfast club catered. Their scrambled eggs were too wet.


And that is my only contribution to this thread

Ah now you see I like wet eggs.....just cook them enought that they stick together and aren't very runny.......now back to the AR discussion