Saw Stop would have prevented this

So what? How is that relevant? It's not.

I'm discussing the rights granted in the US Constitution. The authors believe our rights were granted by God, not by man, therefor they shouldn't be taken away by man.

Which is exactly why I brought up the 2nd Amendment. Time are different now. BTW, I don't believe times are different. Men have been trying to kill other men for millennia.

Reply to
-MIKE-
Loading thread data ...

Ok, so if that's accurate then cars are just as dangerous as guns. Why don't we have a national 35mph speed limit? Why don't we restrict the top speed of cars? Why don't we ban cars?

Reply to
-MIKE-

I've been staying out of this one because it's a waste of time. But that statement was just too much. It's true only if you believe that freedom is out of date in today's society. Of course, considering we didn't rise up in revolt when the so-called Patriot Act was passed, maybe it is.

Reply to
Larry Blanchard

I am sure it is all above board but the media is playing this up as an improved gun control. Yes improved in balancing out costs for the program but not for keeping the guns out of circulation.

Reply to
Leon

news:5171465b$0$44662$c3e8da3

buy-back last

not be cocked, and a

yards. Many of the

nearly all of them

community group

Exactly. Politics working as usual.

Reply to
Leon

-MIKE- wrote in news:kkrs71$ebs$ snipped-for-privacy@speranza.aioe.org:

It's not even true, and only someone who knows nothing about guns would think that it is.

Guns, like knives, "have a considerable amount of use other than killing people." Mostly, I use mine for deer hunting, somewhat less often to hunt small game. I also use them for target shooting. When we lived in the country, I used them for vermin control and to protect livestock from predators.

And once I drew a pistol in self-defense.

My brother has used his defensively twice: once to defend himself, and once when he walked into a public restroom and saw a knife-point robbery in progress.

Neither I nor my brother has ever killed a person. Neither one of us even fired our weapons in those situations; simply making the adversary aware that we were armed was enough.

Reply to
Doug Miller

-MIKE- wrote in news:kkrsgj$ebs$ snipped-for-privacy@speranza.aioe.org:

I did not intend my post to be understood as in any way supporting restrictions on firearm ownership or possession. My only purpose was to state accurate figures about the relative numbers of deaths due to firearms and other causes. Guns kill nearly as many people annually in the US as cars do, and *far more* people are killed by guns than by ball bats and hammers.

Actual death figures from the CDC for 2011: homicide by discharge of firearms -- 11,101 homicide by *all*other*means* -- 4,852 suicide by discharge of firearms -- 19,766 accidental discharge of firearms -- 851 (unusually high that year;normal is about half that) discharge of firearms, undetermined intent -- 222

total of firearms homicide, suicide, accident, undetermined --

31,940 motor vehicle accidents -- 34,677 accidental poisoning -- 33,554 (includes drug overdoses)
Reply to
Doug Miller

Between that and all the Executive Orders coming out of the White House it sure does make you wonder... The mass warrantless searches of homes underway in the Boston area don't sit too well either.

Reply to
John Grossbohlin

Why don't you need a license to operate a gun?

Reply to
Scott Lurndal

I find it interesting that no one has mentioned the use of military helicopters in Boston. Why military and not news and police choppers? Also, the forefathers were smart enough to make free speech the first priorty and the right to defend that right second

Reply to
ChairMan

snipped-for-privacy@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in news:pVfct.48294$ snipped-for-privacy@fe20.iad:

In the United States, owning and operating a gun is a right protected by the Constitution, whereas owning and operating a car is not -- in fact, operating a car on public roads has been found by our courts to be a *privilege* granted by the government, not a fundamental right.

Reply to
Doug Miller

"ChairMan" wrote in news:L2gct.60229$ snipped-for-privacy@fed17.iad:

[...]

Actually, the very first right enumerated is freedom of religion, not speech.

Reply to
Doug Miller

The "official" word coming out of the press is that they are being used only as transport for officials... not sure what all those code words really mean!

Reply to
John Grossbohlin

about half that)

When I posted that the first time, I was thinking "assault" weapons, anyway. Something like .6% of gun homicides are with "assault" weapons.

Reply to
-MIKE-

automobiles

25-30% are

"undetermined

I might be in favor of that, except that driving isn't a right protected by the constitution.

I believe people should treat their cars as the weapons they are and I believe people should become as familiar with operating a firearm as they are a car.

Reply to
-MIKE-

Actually, and/or. And isn't freedom of religion part and parcel to free speech?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Reply to
ChairMan

Stilll sounds hokey to me. They could easily be shuttled with regular choppers. I agree with you on the "code" words. Who knows?

Reply to
ChairMan

-MIKE- wrote in news:kks5f4$afh$ snipped-for-privacy@speranza.aioe.org:

Most are with handguns AFAIK.

Reply to
Doug Miller

The military, particularly the national guard, has often supplied helicopter transport during emergencies. They are often used during mountain and wilderness rescues. I talked to a national guard helicopter pilot about this once. He said that they consider it a good training exercise and are happy to help out. I think it really boils down to where they want to spend the money. When you consider that all of Boston area cops are working 12 hour shifts now and many of them are working beyond that without pay, where do they come up with funds to pay for some very expensive aircraft flying time and pilots? Having some other government agency step in and help defray the considerable expense seems like a win/ win situation for everybody. It isn't like the military copter are flying combat missions and shooting missiles at civilians. They are providing eyes in the sky and taxi service during a civil emergency. It is totally a support function.

I fail to see how that is not a good thing. It is good we have those resource available during a time of civil emergency. And if an act of domestic terrorism is not a civil emergency, I don't know what is.

Reply to
Lee Michaels

If each gun sold is accompanied by a background check, as it surely must be, where is the harm in the program? And where do I sign up?

Reply to
Just Wondering

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.