TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/172515 ... urg-church" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Someone has already posted about the Spartanburg Church SC shotgun incident. Many thanks for pointing it out.

What was interesting about my search for this particular news story was how many news stories failed to mention that the reason the members of the church were able to apprehend the mentally unstable man who entered their church with a shotgun was; that a member of the church was a licensed concealed carry permit holder and was armed and confronted the man when he entered the church with his drawn handgun.

The difference here between these two South Carolina Church incidents was that in one: no one was hurt, no guns were fired and it barely made the news. In the other nine innocent people were killed and it became a national tragedy. Licensed Concealed Carry makes a difference.

Here is a link to a liberal news site which conveniently omits the CHL doing his job and protecting the flock. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/2 ... 78752.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rachel Martin I hope you will continue to find out more about licensed CHL and learn to understand that when a state adopts licensed concealed carry, everyone in that state is safer as the criminals do not know who has or does not have a gun.

CoffeeNut wrote:Well the forum has made it to the New York Times

Hello new members and howdy to Shannon who must refresh this website about a thousand times a day.

Not surprisingly Shannon Watts lied to the NY Times. (And yes, Shannon, we know you're watching, and we know you lie constantly.)

Ms. Watts said in a telephone interview that Mr. Cotton had “a habit of posting these incendiary comments and then removing them.”

I've been on this forum for a while now, and I can attest that Charles has no such habit. On a very few occasions he has removed a post that he thought was offensive to members (not to the lying Shannons of the world!), but this is the first time I am aware that he has ever removed a post because the internet ninjas went into overdrive and spread lies about what he said. And Shannon is at the dead center of that campaign of lies.

And shame on the New York Times for not fact checking a known liar. But then it's not like fact checking is the New York Times' strong suit.

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.

CoffeeNut wrote:Well the forum has made it to the New York Times

Hello new members and howdy to Shannon who must refresh this website about a thousand times a day.

UK Dailymail Now...

baldeagle wrote:

CoffeeNut wrote:Well the forum has made it to the New York Times

Hello new members and howdy to Shannon who must refresh this website about a thousand times a day.

Not surprisingly Shannon Watts lied to the NY Times. (And yes, Shannon, we know you're watching, and we know you lie constantly.)

Ms. Watts said in a telephone interview that Mr. Cotton had “a habit of posting these incendiary comments and then removing them.”

I've been on this forum for a while now, and I can attest that Charles has no such habit. On a very few occasions he has removed a post that he thought was offensive to members (not to the lying Shannons of the world!), but this is the first time I am aware that he has ever removed a post because the internet ninjas went into overdrive and spread lies about what he said. And Shannon is at the dead center of that campaign of lies.

And shame on the New York Times for not fact checking a known liar.

Seems like she's getting her revenge for the resounding defeat of her attempts to prevent gun bills from passing in the Texas Legislature and I'm sure she, like us, knows that Charles had a hand in getting that important legislation passed. I wouldn't be surprised if she was on the phone to anyone who would listen within about 5 minutes of Charles' post. She's still blasting it around on Twitter for her minions to RT.

The New York Times was under Bloomberg's boot heel for so long they can't go a day without a taste.

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.

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.

Have no use for people who like to hear themselves talk

baldeagle wrote:

EHooper02 wrote:I really only have one question:

If what he said wasn't wrong, why has it been deleted and you have been left to defend his statement?

Understand your board is probably under a lot of fire right now, and I'm certainly not trying to add to that. Just something to think about, I feel.

Only Charles can answer your question, but I can tell you this. In the current climate in America, you don't have to say anything wrong to be assaulted on the internet. All you have to do is say something that people disagree with. What Charles said was that the Pastor opposed carry in churches, which is a fact, and some of the dead could be alive if carry had been allowed in the church, which is also a fact.

What is not a fact is that Charles blamed the victims for their deaths. That is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. It's not surprising. It happens on both sides of the political aisle by people who don't care about truth but only care about promoting their own agendas.

What is really unfortunate about the quote is the timing of it - not what the grieving pastor's family and other victims' families needed to hear now. I don't think the comment was malicious but maybe thoughtless and tacky. Charles must have thought this and hence the removal.

EDITED TO CLARIFY WHO WAS BEING ADDRESSED

dale blanker wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

EHooper02 wrote:I really only have one question:

If what he said wasn't wrong, why has it been deleted and you have been left to defend his statement?

Understand your board is probably under a lot of fire right now, and I'm certainly not trying to add to that. Just something to think about, I feel.

Only Charles can answer your question, but I can tell you this. In the current climate in America, you don't have to say anything wrong to be assaulted on the internet. All you have to do is say something that people disagree with. What Charles said was that the Pastor opposed carry in churches, which is a fact, and some of the dead could be alive if carry had been allowed in the church, which is also a fact.

What is not a fact is that Charles blamed the victims for their deaths. That is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. It's not surprising. It happens on both sides of the political aisle by people who don't care about truth but only care about promoting their own agendas.

What is really unfortunate about the quote is the timing of it - not what the grieving pastor's family and other victims' families needed to hear now. I don't think the comment was malicious but maybe thoughtless and tacky. Charles must have thought this and hence the removal.

dale blanker, you folks think you're rather amusing, don't you? Think you've won some major victory? Well, there is a thing called counting your chickens before they've hatched. You really shouldn't do such things, you might find yourself not so happy later.

K.Mooneyham wrote:EDITED TO CLARIFY WHO WAS BEING ADDRESSED

dale blanker wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

EHooper02 wrote:I really only have one question:

If what he said wasn't wrong, why has it been deleted and you have been left to defend his statement?

Understand your board is probably under a lot of fire right now, and I'm certainly not trying to add to that. Just something to think about, I feel.

Only Charles can answer your question, but I can tell you this. In the current climate in America, you don't have to say anything wrong to be assaulted on the internet. All you have to do is say something that people disagree with. What Charles said was that the Pastor opposed carry in churches, which is a fact, and some of the dead could be alive if carry had been allowed in the church, which is also a fact.

What is not a fact is that Charles blamed the victims for their deaths. That is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. It's not surprising. It happens on both sides of the political aisle by people who don't care about truth but only care about promoting their own agendas.

What is really unfortunate about the quote is the timing of it - not what the grieving pastor's family and other victims' families needed to hear now. I don't think the comment was malicious but maybe thoughtless and tacky. Charles must have thought this and hence the removal.

dale blanker, you folks think you're rather amusing, don't you? Think you've won some major victory? Well, there is a thing called counting your chickens before they've hatched. You really shouldn't do such things, you might find yourself not so happy later.

I may have given the wrong impression but I was definitely not trying to be funny. And I was not disagreeing with what Charles said - certainly another gun or two might have saved the day - only the timing of his comment. I would say it myself maybe in a couple of weeks but still without naming the pastor as a possible contributing factor.

dale blanker wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:EDITED TO CLARIFY WHO WAS BEING ADDRESSED

dale blanker wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

EHooper02 wrote:I really only have one question:

If what he said wasn't wrong, why has it been deleted and you have been left to defend his statement?

Understand your board is probably under a lot of fire right now, and I'm certainly not trying to add to that. Just something to think about, I feel.

Only Charles can answer your question, but I can tell you this. In the current climate in America, you don't have to say anything wrong to be assaulted on the internet. All you have to do is say something that people disagree with. What Charles said was that the Pastor opposed carry in churches, which is a fact, and some of the dead could be alive if carry had been allowed in the church, which is also a fact.

What is not a fact is that Charles blamed the victims for their deaths. That is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. It's not surprising. It happens on both sides of the political aisle by people who don't care about truth but only care about promoting their own agendas.

What is really unfortunate about the quote is the timing of it - not what the grieving pastor's family and other victims' families needed to hear now. I don't think the comment was malicious but maybe thoughtless and tacky. Charles must have thought this and hence the removal.

dale blanker, you folks think you're rather amusing, don't you? Think you've won some major victory? Well, there is a thing called counting your chickens before they've hatched. You really shouldn't do such things, you might find yourself not so happy later.

I may have given the wrong impression but I was definitely not trying to be funny. And I was not disagreeing with what Charles said - certainly another gun or two might have saved the day - only the timing of his comment. I would say it myself maybe in a couple of weeks but still without naming the pastor as a possible contributing factor.

How do you feel about the President using this tragedy as a springboard for promoting more "gun control"?

The leftist agenda driven anti gun crowds love mass murders. If we didn't have a psychopath killing unarmed people with guns they would be out of business. Why do those socialists in power have so many people around them armed with firearms? They deserve protection more than a church congregation? Why do we allow Gun Laws that put restrictions on the huddled masses to be written by other people that are surrounded by massive amounts of firearms? Why doesn't the White House disarm itself? Why doesn't Congress disarm all Federal properties? Why doesn't the Supreme Court abolish it's own security? We can give them all whistles to blow.

This was a tragic incident by a psychotic deranged monster ushered in by anti gun culture (anti Self Defense) Legislation and a media that foments racism at every turn. Pathetic.

Evil has existed in man since the dawn of time and it will never change. Any person that hands over their life and the lives of their loved ones to fate have a lot more faith in humanity than I do. I agree with Charles completely on this one. If every member of Society protected themselves that little leftist agenda / media driven killer would not be standing trial.

More than one tragedy here...

dale blanker wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

EHooper02 wrote:I really only have one question:

If what he said wasn't wrong, why has it been deleted and you have been left to defend his statement?

Understand your board is probably under a lot of fire right now, and I'm certainly not trying to add to that. Just something to think about, I feel.

Only Charles can answer your question, but I can tell you this. In the current climate in America, you don't have to say anything wrong to be assaulted on the internet. All you have to do is say something that people disagree with. What Charles said was that the Pastor opposed carry in churches, which is a fact, and some of the dead could be alive if carry had been allowed in the church, which is also a fact.

What is not a fact is that Charles blamed the victims for their deaths. That is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. It's not surprising. It happens on both sides of the political aisle by people who don't care about truth but only care about promoting their own agendas.

What is really unfortunate about the quote is the timing of it - not what the grieving pastor's family and other victims' families needed to hear now. I don't think the comment was malicious but maybe thoughtless and tacky. Charles must have thought this and hence the removal.

Thoughtless and tacky? When did the truth become thoughtless and tacky? Another church in SC was attacked by a shotgun wielding cretin. The difference is, nobody was killed, because the church members, one of whom had a CHL and was armed, took him down when he entered the church.

There is absolutely no doubt that not all nine of those people would have died if even ONE of them had been armed. The cretin reloaded FIVE times. After the first shot, I'm plugging that guy right between the eyes.

Charleston church 'wasn't primary target'
University of Charleston was the original target

Dylann Roof told friends that he was planning an attack against the US university, but ruled it against because of security on the campus.

SOURCE:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... arget.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

@charlescwcooke
Snark all you like about gun free zones, but shooters often take them into account.