TexasCHLforum.com

Since the Supreme court ruled:
1) Police has no duty to protect me'
2) Bearing firearms is an individual right.
AND,
3) Since no congressman, or any federal and state official can guarantee my safety or the safety of my family
4) Since my duty is to protect my self and family.
5) Since 1 or more assailant criminals can attack me or my family at the same time with deadly force.

I have the right to use whatever reasonable means to defend myself and my family.

If the means of self-defense were to be made illegal to own and use and where the criminals will continue to have said banned deadly means,
Then, one can conclude that even the illegal use of said banned means to terminate the threat of criminal or criminals using said deadly means to protect life and life of family is better outcome then being dead, or one of the family being dead at the hands of said criminals. One can bear the outcome of being charged with UWP.

BillT wrote:

karder wrote: The Tucson shooter was no more enabled to cause havoc due to his 30 round magazines than he would have with 10 rounders.

He was stopped by the crowd after emptying the 30 round magazine and trying to reload another. So for some reason I come up with less than half as many people would have been shot if he only had 10 round magazines. In my mind that is substantially less havoc.
Am I missing something? There is something in your logic I'm not getting, nor are the majority of the people that have responded to the CNN poll. Much better arguments are needed if the gun control momentum this tragic event started has a hope to be stopped.

The shooter was a dork, a naive shooter and maybe never practiced reloads (good thing he was not trained). Trained shooter can reload, and keep shooting in split second. I also believe the victims were lucky the shooter did not shoot those who are closer to him first. Something is called tactical priority.

43 vs 57go cast your vote from cell from pc from ipad...