TexasCHLforum.com

Heartland Patriot wrote:I posted this somewhere before...I also don't believe the current administration "orchestrated" the Colorado shooting. After F&F, I do believe the CAPABLE of such a scheme. However, the secondary villains of this evil act are the leftist politicians, pundits and press who RUSHED to take advantage of the situation.

Matto79 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:My sixteen year old just mentioned he wouldn't be surprised to find out this was staged/orchestrated by the anti libs to help promote their gun control agenda. Interesting thought considering what we've learned about "fast and furious" and what the UN is up to. Interesting timing to say the least. Especially considering the supposed links to the Tea Party.

Not trying to jump to conclusions or promote a vast conspiracy theory based speculation. Just some food for thought. It will be interesting to hear what Obama has to say at 10 this morning.

That's an unfortunate and rather sick statement to make in regards to this tragedy. I hope you corrected you child regarding this.

I'm going to give you credit and say you probably think the 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists, who say 9/11 was orchestrated by the Bush Administration to allow them to get the Patriot Act passed and be able to do everything they want by bypassing due process and our 4th amendment rights, along with starting a war with Irag and taking revenge against Saddam Hussain, are stupid and ludicrous claims. So, if you believe these people are wrong for exploiting this tragedy to advance their anti-Bush rhetoric (I'm assuming), then you have to shoot this claim down about the Colorado shooting as well. Free speech is great, but that's a terrible statement to not have corrected regarding the Colorado shooting.

sjfcontrol wrote:

knotquiteawake wrote:From that article above:

But Hubert Williams, former head of the Newark police department and president of the Police Foundation, said that the idea that average citizens with guns could keep a theater safe only makes sense "on a piece of paper."

"Reality is much more complicated. What if you pull a gun out, take aim and someone else thinks you're the shooter?" he asked. "Would you stand up against an AR-15, AK-47 military-style assault weapon? Give me a break."

"give me a break?" Wow, what a jerk! So surprised to hear that from a LEO. He must have been one of "those types" who lecture any CHL holder they come across about why its a bad idea they have a CHL and how they don't have enough training and they're going to get someone killed (yeah, the bad guy!).

In the first place, protecting the people in a theater from an active shooter (whatever that is) is NOT the reason people get licenses, or carry firearms.
Secondly, couldn't the same argument be made against an armed plain-clothes or off-duty cop in the audience?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

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.

I agree - however, the Mad Moderate was trying to make the point that somehow what was done on the plane was "easier" than a lone person rushing a heavily armed and armored assailant. That was simply not the case. Either action would involve grave risk to, and courage by, the person(s) doing the rushing.

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.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

psijac wrote:

philip964 wrote:Rodger Ebert comments on the owning of guns in light of the shooting in the movie theater.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/07 ... count.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The sun times must have a whip crack good team of moderaters.  There is not a single dissenting option in the comments section.  Anti gunners wish they could stuff the genie back in a bottle.

I see lots of dissenting opinion now, though the majority are antis --which, really, isn't a big surprise.  Ebert is a liberal movie critic...his bread and butter is Holloywood movie liberalism...and most of the movies he reviews probably appeal more to liberals than conservatives, so I suspect his audience is primarily liberals. He also resides and writes for a paper in one of the most liberal and corrupt cities in the nation....who would voluntarily live there but a liberal?

Well, I doubt it will be approved for publication, but here is the respons I posted (under the name "whamprod"):

Small problem with your suggestion regarding form 4473....

Without a necessary adjudication of insanity, anybody could make an accusation of insanity against someone who is not insane, merely for the purpose of stripping that person of a constitutional right with which the accuser disagrees, or for the just as venal purpose of "punishing" someone whom accuser does not like. Requiring adjudication of insanity is what keeps rights alive. How many people, for instance, have been added to the "no-fly" list who have never been part of a terrorist organization or made terroristic threats against anyone? It happens all the time, and the government has conveniently removed itself from accountability regarding maintenance of that list. Once on it, even wrongly so, it is nearly impossible and extremely expensive to get one's self removed from it. How many people have been falsely accused of rape and/or child molestation? It happens, and people have actually been imprisoned on such false charges which were later dropped when the accuser recanted their testimony.

Form 4473 also asks a lot of other questions about criminal convictions, legal residency, spousal abuse, etc. ALL of the answers to these questions can be lied about on the form, but theoretically, all false forms will be rejected by NICS—unless you are Eric Holder's Justice Department instructing conscientious gun sellers to ignore their misgivings and knowingly sell a gun to a suspected cartel member, so that it can be smuggled into Mexico and used to execute hundreds of Mexican nationals in their own country.

Crazy people who have not been adjudicated as insane and who have never had intervention from a psychiatric professional are simply a risk we take as a free society. Time after time after time, the liberal response to tragedy is to advocate for the repression of God-given (or "natural" if you prefer that term) human rights. The Supreme Court of the United States of America has ruled definitively that police have no duty to protect. They don't. So, how do we resolve that? After all, they may not have a duty to protect, but we do have an absolute right to be safe in our persons and property, and any violation of that is a violation of one of the fundamental tenets upon which any orderly society is based.

It is an undeniable fact that when you disarm law-abiding people, only the law-breakers remain armed. Don't believe me? Who owns handguns in Great Britain these days—the law abiding, or the law breakers? That's a valid question because there are still a lot of handguns in the hands of private persons in Great Britain, just not law-abiding persons, and those guns do get used in crimes. Despite all of her draconian gun laws, Great Britain still has gun crime. It has not been eliminated.

When you remove the ability of someone to defend him/herself with a gun from someone who has no such regard for the law, you have committed a great immorality. And that is what is so terribly wrong with the liberal gun control agenda: it is immoral. It states that the life of a law-abiding citizen is worth less than the life of a criminal, and this in a society in which police are under no constitutional obligation to protect the public.

Liberals are actively involved in creating a nation of sheep.....which is perfect for them (the liberals) because it justifies their top-down nanny state utopian ideals.

In a recent interview by an obviously anti-gun biased "journalist," rapper Iced-T was asked if he thought that banning semiautomatic rifles and larger capacity magazines wouldn't prevent another Aurora, Colorado style massacre. He answered, correctly, that no it would not...not even if you successfully removed every one of them from circulation...because crazy Islamists (as opposed to mainstream peaceful muslims) have proven time and again that one person can strap on a suicide vest and take out a hundred innocent victims instead of the dozen or so that this maniac in Aurora killed. It isn't about the gun. It is about the heart of the person wielding it. If that person is driven to kill, and he can't get a gun, he'll use something else. And thanks to the generations of sheep that liberals have been creating, 19 clearly insane people killed 3,000 innocent people on 9/11 with BOXCUTTERS(!!!), because with the exception of Todd Beamer and those few hardy souls on Flight 93, nobody on any of those four airliners had the courage to challenge a maniac with a boxcutter. So now, thanks to those bent, twisted "martyrs of the one truth faith," you and I cannot carry a pair of fingernail clippers or a penknife onboard an airliner. Thanks to someone else with a failed bomb in his panties, we can't carry 3.5 oz of shampoo onto an airplane. That is the typical nanny-state response. It may well be crazy to shoot up a movie theater, but it's even crazier when seemingly free and sovereign citizens make the inexplicably cowardly choice to live in fear and stamp out the natural rights of their fellow citizens in an ultimatey futile attempt to make the world into a kind and gentle place......a world which has never been kind and gentle throughout the entire span of humanity's existence!

No, free societies are not without risks. Dress accordingly. I carry .45 caliber pistol everywhere I go. Everywhere. And no, that does not make me paranoid. It makes me no more and no less paranoid than someone who keeps a fire-extinguisher in their kitchen. And just as that fire-extinguisher doesn't get in the way of the cook's enjoyment of cooking and puttering about their kitchen, that gun on my hip in no way gets in the way of having a normal happy day just like anybody else's normal happy day. It simple means that I have proactively chosen to prepare myself for the however remote possiblity of having to protect myself. That is called "taking responsibility" over that part of my life for which the government is not responsible. If the law prevents me from entering a business with my concealed pistol because of the signs posted on the doors, then being a law abiding citizen, I take my business elsewhere where I will be more welcome. In the meantime, not one single one of those signs will keep the armed felon or the armed maniac from carrying a concealed weapon into that same place. In other words, the signs make it more dangerous rather than less dangerous to enter those places.

The poor people who were shot in that Aurora theater realistically had no logical expectation that this theater was any safer than any other theater, because those signs barring a legally concealed weapon from being carried into the theater were nothing more than......well....theater.

How far have we strayed from the nation's founding principles when the right to free speech includes the right to view and sell pornography made by women who are treated as simple sex objects without a brain; when the "right" to contraception includes the "right" to terminate a human life for the mere convenience of the mother; and when the most basic and fundamental right to keep and bear arms is continually under assault from people who do not basically and fundamentally value human rights? This nation was founded on the principle that our rights are natural. They exist before government exists. They exist because we live and breath. They can only be taken from us by taking our lives away.

There are people today, Roger Ebert among them, who have a bully pulpit not shared by the vast majority of Americans, and who advocate for the crushing of personal freedom because they themselves lack the courage or stamina to face the fact that the world is not the warm, safe womb they wish it were. It is a broken place, full of broken people, some of whom have murderous impulses, and SCOTUS has ruled that we must depend upon ourselves for protection. Roger Ebert, and his kind, wish to remove from us the means of that protection, and that is an immoral position, based upon willful blindness.

And when it comes to the age old real reason behind the 2nd Amendment—not hunting, but protection from a tyrannical government—that tyranny is exactly what the Eberts of the world argue for when they argue for the removal of that most basic right and the right to implement and exercise that right by whatever means the holder of it deems necessary. In a world where you cannot remove obscenity from free speech, asking or requiring citizens to accept limitations on their choice of firearm ownership and use is itself obscene.

The Mad Moderate wrote:It stuns me a little bit to hear Obama saying he is not going to use this tragedy to advance gun control.

The Mad Moderate wrote:

gras wrote:

The Mad Moderate wrote:

Bart wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:Someone needs to follow the money. Where did this unemployed kid get the funds to purchase multiple weapons, ammo, body armor, riot helmit, gas mask, neck and groin protector, and sophisticated bomb making materials?

Based on what we know, it's possible he got everything from Holder and Obama. Not directly from their hands, but at their direction. If it was part of Fast and Furious, it explains why Obama didn't want those documents to see the light of day. Continuing the coverup only makes sense if there's more to the plot than providing guns to Mexican drug gangs. For example if they have other plans like this in motion.

Yeah sure, in other new Bush was behind the 9/11 and anthrax attacks.

That sounds like something an Obama supporter would say to distract attention from the truth.

From where I sit, there's strong evidence Obama and Holder were willing to provide guns for gangs to murder innocent Mexicans, because they could use the crisis they manufactured to push their attack on the Bill of Rights. Orchestrating something like this for the same agenda would be totally in character for men like that.

Yeaahh sure. I have stated many times I will not be voting for Obama in November. I think you are off your rocker if you really think that Obama was behind this, it helps nothing and makes you and people on the extreme right seem even more crazy. That type of politicization helps no one and is not productive. I think it is treasonous to suggest that a sitting President was behind the massacre,if you truly believe that, there is nothing I can do to help you and I would personally suggest professional help as you seem to have a disconnect from reality.

psijac wrote:

philip964 wrote:Rodger Ebert comments on the owning of guns in light of the shooting in the movie theater.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/07 ... count.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The sun times must have a whip crack good team of moderaters. There is not a single dissenting option in the comments section. Anti gunners wish they could stuff the genie back in a bottle.

mojo84 wrote:

74novaman wrote:Get ready for the shock of the day, y'all!!

Editor's Note: An earlier ABC News broadcast report suggested that a Jim Holmes of a Colorado Tea Party organization might be the suspect, but that report was incorrect. ABC News and Brian Ross apologize for the mistake, and for disseminating that information before it was properly vetted.

link: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/aurora-da ... Al-aqODr9k

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

74novaman wrote:If someone is honestly interested in reducing violent crime, evidence and history shows that gun control has the exact opposite effect.