LUBY'S REVISTED.....

. Your definition of "discussion" seems to be "Agree with me or shut up!" Originally Posted by Old-T

Whirly thinks it is ok to restrict a women right to choose but he shits his pants if you ask for a reasonable discussion on gun laws!

Oh the hypocrisy!

Maybe we should arm women who want abortions without having an ultrasound and gay couples so when Whirly and crew deny them the right to marry or abort some possible conception with a morning after pill they can have them "Stand Down!" LOL

A case for self defense. Here what Dr. Susan Gratia had to say, she was at Luby's in 1991...she lobbied in Texas for the CHL, which Bush signed into law in 1995.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=ygZWSUXr8rA#!

And more recent on CNN...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=nm7qgEydGDw Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Another case for self-defense, and another case illustrating how a .38 wouldn't have sufficed had there been two intruders.

According to WSB-TV, the woman was at home with her nine-year-old twins when the doorbell rang. When they didn’t answer, the man reportedly went back to his car and returned with a crowbar.

The mother said she could see the suspect– now identified as Paul Slater– trying to enter the house with the crowbar from her office window. Without hesitation, she grabbed her children, her phone, her gun, and ran upstairs.

One can only imagine the breathless moments after the man broke down the door and began searching the house.

“The perpetrator opens that door. Of course, at that time he’s staring at her, her two children and a .38 revolver,” [Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman] told Channel 2’s Kerry Kavanaugh.

The woman then shot him five times, but he survived, Chapman said. He said the woman ran out of bullets but threatened to shoot the intruder if he moved.

“She’s standing over him, and she realizes she’s fired all six rounds. And the guy’s telling her to quit shooting,” Chapman said.

The woman ran to a neighbor’s home with her children. The intruder did flee in his car but crashed into a wooded area and collapsed in a nearby driveway, Chapman said.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/my-w...eing-cornered/

old news. Maybe you should go to a "program" with wifi.

old news. Maybe you should go to a "program" with wifi. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You’re still scoring real high in ignorance, Assup the jackass! Keep it up, you ignorant fuck! The article is dated 4:27pm, January 5, 2013.

That was last week fucknuts...

no, its a FACT Originally Posted by CJ7

And how does the fact that it was 20+ years ago make what she said any less true?

And how does the fact that it was 20+ years ago make what she said any less true? Originally Posted by ExNYer

pay attention ... I never said anything about her stumping for concealed carry being true or not ... I SAID, 20 years ago has no revelence in todays world, ie. gun control laws.

Here is what CJ said; and he was quickly proven wrong , again.

Lubys had nothing to do with concealed carry passing .. . Originally Posted by CJ7

Lubys was last century, 2 decades ago

maybe when whirlie becomes of some relevence the responses will change ... he laid down the guantlet, so he has to run it.

btw, Im not recruiting either Originally Posted by CJ7

thats what I said first ... and just said again

Lubys is irrelevent in todays gun legislation ..


ponder this ...

Bush passed concealed carry in 95 (by your belief, because of a lady stumping for CC all over the country) ... aka Lubys

in 96 Congress passed a 10 year ban on assault rifles ..


LUBYS, irrelevent then, and irrelevent now.

I SAID, 20 years ago has no relevance in today's world, ie. gun control laws. Originally Posted by CJ7

Why? Did the warranty expire?

What about 10 years ago? 5 years? 1 year?

What is the cut-off point beyond which you will not consider facts or arguments? Please inform the rest of the world.

Also, what about Aurora and Virginia Tech? No one was carrying guns there either. Can they substitute for Lubys or have they expired, too?

Why? Did the warranty expire?

What about 10 years ago? 5 years? 1 year?

What is the cut-off point beyond which you will not consider facts or arguments? Please inform the rest of the world.

Also, what about Aurora and Virginia Tech? No one was carrying guns there either. Can they substitute for Lubys or have they expired, too? Originally Posted by ExNYer

what a bunch of strawman bullshit ..


nonetheless, by all means, you tell the world how congress passed an assault weapon ban a year after Texas passed concealed carry if Texas legislation was relevent to gun control

what a bunch of strawman bullshit ..

nonetheless, by all means, you tell the world how congress passed an assault weapon ban a year after Texas passed concealed carry if Texas legislation was relevent to gun control Originally Posted by CJ7

Do I really need to explain the difference between banning an assault weapon outright and permitting people to carry a concealed handgun?

You do realize those are NOT contradictory propositions, don't you?

You have conflated two separate issues under the general heading of "gun control" and think that the Texas law is somehow contradicted by the federal law. It isn't.

That was last week fucknuts... Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Three days plus five or so hours doesn't constitute a "week" any more than your earlier dumb-ass assertion that a multi-sentence paragraph constitutes a “sentence”, Assup the jackass!!! Gawd you are a retard, Assup the jackass. Squeak, squeak, squeak, you dumb SOB.

One of the victims; the woman in the clip I posted (Dr. Suzanna Gratia) was instrumental in lobbying Austin to get the CHL legislation approved.......She was the leading activist in the CHL movement in Texas...she went on to the Austin legislature, serving for 5 terms !

Luby's had EVERYTHING to do with Bush signing the CHL legislation.

You don't know what you are talking about......you embarass yourself with most of your own posts. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

+1 , CJ probably wasn't born yet so he's clueless LOL

And the legislation grew in popularity and couldn't be ignored because of the Luby's tragedy......the tragedy accelerated the public demand for the legislation... Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I personally listend to the debate on the Senate floor, and "Luby's" was ignored as an issue ... in fact the debate rivaled the debate over daylight savings time in hilarity.

Most of the time was spent on how to "notify" other citizens (e.g. lapel pins) that a "license holder" was carrying a "CONCEALED" weapon.

The people who are severely absent from the discussion about "private, amateur policing" by CHL holders are the professional policers who the taxpayers pay to police.

IMO: If you wanta be a cop, go get the training and be one. (Some of you might want to be selective in your application selection and be aware of physicial agility requirements and mandatory polygraphs.)