TexasCHLforum.com

ShootDontTalk wrote:What is ZZ Top?

Sounds like a sleeping drill instructor.

Oldgringo wrote:

jmra wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:In light of everything that has happened and the aftermath, I wonder how many churches/church leadership will reevaluate their position on allowing their congregants to carry?

Are we talking about Texas or other states? In Texas the only churches off limits are those that have taken action to strip you of your right to self defense. In other states like SC inaction on the part of the church prevents you from protecting yourself and others. I view the two very differently. I don't believe the churches in Texas that have posted 30.06 will change their mind unless it hits them in the pocket book (people stop going). I think you have a better chance in other states of conservative led churches taking action to allow members to carry.
That being said, when Arkansas passed a law allowing churches to decide to allow CC, the lawyers at my brothers church got involved and their policy actually became more restrictive than before the law passed. Previously the church allowed both full time and reserve officers to carry on church property. When the lawyers were done only full time officers were allowed to carry. So, a law intended to expand CC in churches in Arkansas may actually be doing the opposite.

Hmmm? If you'll look into the by-laws (or whatever it may be called) of the United Methodist Church, guns are officially frowned upon and otherwise unwelcome in the services. I dunno' 'bout other denominations?

ShootDontTalk wrote:jmra
I think a lot of people simply fail to understand that deterrence is not having a military firefight in the Sanctuary.

It is the unknown that someone inside might be armed as the Sanctuary is not a gun free zone, otherwise known as a hunting zone for psychopaths. And the presence of that unknown armed person would prevent the lunatic from doing anything significant save shooting himself. We all know that though.

Those who advocate a Christian should always be a doormat, are living in an imaginary world where there is no clear picture of what that doormat philosophy might entail in terms of human suffering - for others. There are things worse than death.

BTW...I give the good Rev. Dr. one thing. He acknowledged that if someone in the church were armed, the word would get around. What word? This isn't a good place to hunt.

TexasCajun wrote:In light of everything that has happened and the aftermath, I wonder how many churches/church leadership will reevaluate their position on allowing their congregants to carry?

Pawpaw wrote:

dale blanker wrote:Well, the pastor was effectively accused of neglect and therefore partially responsible for avoidable deaths. I suspect the families did not need to hear that from Charles so quickly. It could have waited, don't you think?

I won't try to justify the timing of Obama's gun control comments but I suspect the family was not has bothered by that nearly as much as hearing their pastor's neglect was a major factor in the disaster.

What I highlighted in red is where your logic falls apart. Charles posted his comments on a board that is dedicated to Texas CHL holders. Those families would never have heard about his comment if it were not brought to light by anti gun people for purely political purposes.

Now I ask you, who is the real villain here... The person who voices a personal opinion, or the person who exploits that opinion for personal or political gain?

2farnorth wrote:

Lubbock1911 wrote:The shooting is so sad. We need to pray for the family's loses. I am in favor of a law allowing LE to kill the shooter with the smoking gun on the spot. An eye for an eye. No different from killing a rabid animal.

Sorry, but I must say that this, as written, is so very wrong. I do not ever want any one person or small group to be judge , jury, prosecutor, defense, and executioner. I would hope that no such "law" would ever be considered.

TexasCajun wrote:In light of everything that has happened and the aftermath, I wonder how many churches/church leadership will reevaluate their position on allowing their congregants to carry?

baldeagle wrote:

Beiruty wrote:I am start hating O'rielly on Fox. He is an idiot, he is publically calling for Federal Registration AND limiting what and how many firearms one can own. Each day he reveals his true anti-gun self a bit and bit.

Welcome to the club. I can't stand O'Rierlly, and I find most TV "talk" shows a complete waste of time. How you can ever hope to accomplish anything with two people talking at the same time is beyond me.

AndyC wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

rp_photo wrote:I just read that he had a pending Felony. Wouldn't that make it illegal for him to posess a gun?

Until his conviction he is an accused not a felon

Surely the form 4473 for his background-check would have disqualified him?

[ Image ]

suthdj wrote:Washington post has an story saying NRA board member blames Pastor they are talking about a comment Charles made here and have a copy of the post on the page I cant copy and paste for some reason sorry. So watch what we say as they are watching and waiting to twist anything they can.

TVGuy wrote:

jmra wrote:It's pretty funny that a new member shows up defending Mike right after Mike gets booted. Lots of trolls today or maybe just one.

Considering that Google is listing over 10,000 articles related to this, I doubt it's just one.

RonW956 wrote:I dont think anything is going to get solved by having this debate & discussion on a public forum, if anything all it does is feed the trolls...

All I know is Gun free zones dont work. They never did. The Luby's massacre in Kileen TX back in '91 is more proof than what anyone needs that gun free zones dont work... Begging for your life, doesnt work if someone is intent on killing. It's a shame that no one was carrying. I'm not even sure if they were permitted to carry but from what I've seen on the news, no. CC is not permited at the church. At least give the people a chance to fight for their god given right to life, people begging the shooter to stop obviously did'nt work. Screw that. If I walk into a business that has a 30.06 sign posted, I respectfully turn around & go elsewhere...

ScooterSissy wrote:

Rachel Martin wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

ShootDontTalk wrote:Something else to consider: The pastor of this church, who was killed, is a State Legislator in S.C.

And he voted against concealed-carry. Eight of his church members who might be alive if he had expressly allowed members to carry handguns in church are dead.

Chas.

That's some serious victim-blaming, sir. Isn't the murderer in fact the one to blame for the nine dead folks being dead? (I realize that may not fit your agenda, to put the blame squarely where it belongs - at the feet of a guy who used a gun to kill nine innocents in a house of worship - but try for some accuracy. You demean your cause otherwise, I feel.)

I suggest you reread the portion you quoted. He didn't blame the victims. He stated (accurately) that eight of the church members might be alive if the pastor had allowed members to carry handguns.

Our church not only allows handguns, but after the Wedgewood shooting (a few miles from our church), they encouraged members with a CHL to carry in church. A few years back, they even offered a CHL class at the church.

There is no way to stop all evil. If someone wants to kill, they will get a gun and kill. However, I suspect that someone with evil intent will find themselves stopped very quickly at our church, and others like it that allow members to defend themselves.