LUBY'S REVISTED.....

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. Originally Posted by ExNYer

you cant read

I stated the Lubys incident has no relevence with anything even closely related to the gun situation we are facing today ... like whirlie, revisit should you so desire. I'm through tallking to a wall ... G'day.

I provided multiple links that proved your statement wrong; but you still are living in denial...

Now it's time for you to prove your statement that "Luby's had NOTHING to do with concealed carry passing"

Put some facts on the table, or shut the fuck up !

You act as if the whole handgun situation is so cut and dried. It is not. Reasonable people can have very different ideas of what should be done, but the majority of people on here do not wish to be reasonable. They want to make political points. They want to say "My side wins, your side loses."

What do you propose to keep guns out of the hands of future George Hennards? I am expecting you to say "nothing", and make some argument that if Dr Hupp had a gun, everything would have ended happily. I hope that is not your answer for that is far too simplistic. Suppose she did, and she was shot while trying to shoot him. All her gun would do is provide extra ammunition for Hennards. Originally Posted by TGBeldin

And suppose she wasn't shot and ended the incident before her parents were killed? That scenario is easily as valid as yours. She lived through the terror of helplessly cowering on the floor while those around her, including her parents were murdered. She had a gun in her vehicle, a chance to fight back, if only she'd been permitted to have it with her.

I had the pleasure of spending the afternoon with her many years ago doing a photo shoot for a magazine, you will not meet a more sincere and focused individual (she was also quiet hot).

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.) Originally Posted by LexusLover

But, of course, you know that the police, by court ruling, are not obligated to protect anybody or anything, right? So, your equating self protection to "private, amateur policing" is pretty ridiculous now, isn't it? The CHL discussion was never about investigating or arresting which are the only aspects of "policing" the court says is required by the "professional policers".

But, of course, you know that the police, by court ruling, are not obligated to protect anybody or anything, right? . Originally Posted by Iaintliein

Try telling that to the spouse or family of a police officer who was killed in the line of duty.

cops cars need to stop advertising "to protect and Serve" on their doors

Try telling that to the spouse or family of a police officer who was killed in the line of duty. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I didn't make the ruling, the court did.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po...otus.html?_r=0

As sad as it is that anyone is killed in the line of duty, I simply don't see the point of your post.

But, of course, you know that the police, by court ruling, are not obligated to protect anybody or anything, right? So, your equating self protection to "private, amateur policing" is pretty ridiculous now, isn't it? The CHL discussion was never about investigating or arresting which are the only aspects of "policing" the court says is required by the "professional policers". Originally Posted by Iaintliein

The holder of a CHL is also "not required" to act. And your point?

I didn't make the ruling, the court did.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po...otus.html?_r=0

As sad as it is that anyone is killed in the line of duty, I simply don't see the point of your post. Originally Posted by Iaintliein

The point is it doesn't matter what the court has decreed. Whether they are obligated to do so or not, policemen and women put their lives on the line every day to protect citizens. In 2011, 165 law enforcement officers died, 70 of whom were shot.

Since you cited the statement, you obviously must believe it. Or were you trying to make some other point by citing it?