:coolsmiley: Exactly what I meant. **NOT** But nice try. ;)

I once borrowed my teen's skateboard to try it on our hilly street. Accelerating to warp speeds, when i fell i kicked the board ahead. Skidding across the street it jumped the curb, where my neighbor was planting flowers at the mailbox. Missed her head by only a foot and careened down their driveway. Her husband picked it up, walked back to me where I was still laying in the street. He handed it to me without a word. I never tried a skateboard again.

Totally false!

ANY object thrown with the correct amount of velocity and accuracy has the potential to maim or kill someone 100 yards away. How about if you stand 100 yards in front of me and let me drive a golf ball in your general direction as validation to your hypothesis?

Yea maybe, but if you had to use it to protect yourself it would make it useless because it would have a hole in it and powder burns.

[QUOTE=OrangeBlossomBaby;1825961]Actually no, it bestows those rights on a well-regulated Militia.

Actually wrong. The rights are given to the people.

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

This amendment has been subject to a lot of discussion over the years but at this time is still interpreted as being the right of the people. There are many arguments saying otherwise. If people want change, they need to encourage those who are the change agents. Change does not get impacted by inferring that opinion is fact.

The Constitution ?
 

Dear Gary:
The US Constitution does Not say you can carry a gun. The Second Amendment
does Not say you can own a gun. Here is the quote from the second Amendment :
" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

When the Second Amendment was written on or about 1789. The USA did not have a standing army and had to depend upon a volunteer's. That is why the Second Amendment states that a, " A well regulated Militia, being necessary ..."
Of course every able bodied man was free to have a gun.
I my humble opinion, our U. S. Supreme Court got it wrong in the District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. My point is we no longer need a Militia because we have a National Guard and approximately 18,000 Law Enforcement agencies.
It the U.S. now there are 103 people killed every day by guns and and another 210 people which get gunshot injuries. There are to many guns on the street now.
It is my hope that someday our Supreme Court will overturn DC v. Heller.

[QUOTE=Read2know;1826433]Dear Gary:
The US Constitution does Not say you can carry a gun. The Second Amendment
does Not say you can own a gun. Here is the quote from the second Amendment :

" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

When the Second Amendment was written on or about 1789. The USA did not have a standing army and had to depend upon a volunteer's. That is why the Second Amendment states that a, " A well regulated Militia, being necessary ..."
Of course every able bodied man was free to have a gun.


Again opinion stated as fact. "does Not say". Your argument could be considered a reason for the people to have the right to keep and bear arms.

Also, your conclusion adds requirements not stated -- "able bodied" and "man".

Do you not see the word "people"? Doesn't say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms will not be infringed, it says the people's right will not be infringed.

Wrong on the standing army. The Congress of the Confederation established the United States Army on 3 Jun 1784.

Had a bunch of rifles and shotguns acquired while growing up in Reno, Nevada but stopped using these by 1982. Sold most of these to a Santa Rosa, CA pawn shop in 1994 or thereabouts to get money to get many snail mail letters out about my work to get libraries of all kinds in the US and elsewhere involved in creating a nexus for survivors/victims of crimes. Also sold art books to Santa Rosa, CA used book stores for the same reason.

This project of mine was brought about by experiences I had in Reno, Nevada while dealing with the 2-24-1976 murder of Michelle Mitchell near the University of Nevada, Reno campus. 2-24 is my birthday and Michelle's mother was my Earl Wooster HS English teacher at that time. The Mitchell family had given me a very small Memorial Scholarship in 1976-1977 in Michelle's name. She had been murdered with a knife by a person that was not "caught" until 1979. And it turned out they got the wrong person back in 1979 due to facts that came to light in 2014.They did identify the most likely murderer in 2014 which turned out to be a serial killer who had preyed on women in the SF Bay area in early 1976.

Bad people use all kinds of weapons-- knives, bombs, cars, bats, hammers, etc.

Do have a problem with the rate of fire coming from some firearms though. These should only be in the hands of the military.

I don't know why it is so hard for some people to understand that if someone wants something illegal there is a criminal organization that will provide it to them. Heroin, cocaine, etc., are readily available in the smallest towns in the country. You can also purchase firearms illegally nearly everywhere so how would banning guns work????? Tons of drugs are smuggled into this country every year so why couldn't guns be smuggled in? The person needing a gun to commit a crime will always be able to get one, the only ones that will comply with a ban are the honest citizens. It only takes a little bit of logical thought to understand.

.
.
I'm the OP.

1. Must say quite surprised of the poll results so far. 81% OWN or WOULD OWN a firearm. I expected that % to be about 65% or so. Not a scientic poll of course, but still...

2. Personally I am in the "WouldOwn" camp. Never owned a firearm - no need in the past as to where we lived and concerns about safety travelling and at home etc. But IF this changed - would not be an issue to go to Shooters World, purchase, train, etc etc.

3. This said, I DID purchase a self defense alternative last week. I desire to feel safer in our car, in case 'trouble develops'. Bought a handheld Pepper Spray container to keep in the car door pocket JUST IN CASE. Will have this as a "Better safe than sorry" tool.

SABRE RED Crossfire Pepper Gel Spray with Belt Clip – 360-Degree Deployment, Maximum Police Strength Pepper Gel with Quick Access Flip Top, 18-foot (5.5 m) Range, 18 Bursts – Gel is Safer

Robot Check

b-4
 

[/COLOR][/I][/B]What is YOUR personal position on OWNING A FIREARM?[/SIZE]

.[/QUOTE]

I lived in NH in the largest city up there when I was a young'un. I had to fight hard to get Mom to let me buy a .22 Winchester for target practice. Dad was OK with it. But, as you may know, NH was/is not an open carry or ANY carry state. I wasn't interested in the least to buy and wear a handgun anyway. Still won't do it. My observation is that a) there are many, many nut cases around us; b)most carriers of handguns in any state, except, perhaps Texas, do not take regular courses in sharp shooting, nor do they go out WEEKLY to target practice. ( if they had to face another deadly weapon say, about 30 - 50+ feet away, it would be a miracle if they were able to actually kill the opponent.) And c) I do not feel at all threatened by anybody around me at any time, and can only go by stats that say I have a hugely better chance of living if I DON'T carry.

Then by all means go , the biggest reason we have the United States was the patriots in 1776 had their weapons and fought the tyranny and if you want to leave feel free to go but me I’m an ancestor of those that bravely fought for freedom

They fought against tyranny of an oppressive government (Britain). This country was settled by Europeans long before that though.

Meanwhile, you can all relax and not worry about guns anymore. Just buy a few cans of soup!

I lived in NH in the largest city up there when I was a young'un. I had to fight hard to get Mom to let me buy a .22 Winchester for target practice. Dad was OK with it. But, as you may know, NH was/is not an open carry or ANY carry state. I wasn't interested in the least to buy and wear a handgun anyway. Still won't do it. My observation is that a) there are many, many nut cases around us; b)most carriers of handguns in any state, except, perhaps Texas, do not take regular courses in sharp shooting, nor do they go out WEEKLY to target practice. ( if they had to face another deadly weapon say, about 30 - 50+ feet away, it would be a miracle if they were able to actually kill the opponent.) And c) I do not feel at all threatened by anybody around me at any time, and can only go by stats that say I have a hugely better chance of living if I DON'T carry.[/QUOTE]
NH is an open carry state with I believe no license or permit needed. NH does allow concealed carry with permit.

How U.S. gun deaths compare to other countries - CBS News

I just don't get it. Particularly when it comes to assault rifles. What use do these types of weapons have other than to kill more people quicker. Yet the defenders of the 2nd amendment will not contemplate banning these.

In general if you take guns out of the equation, the murder rate goes right down. Is American society so much more violent than other developed nations that a majority of its citizens require guns for self protection?

Little know historical fact: In uncovered WW2 Japanese documents the Japanese studied attacking the West Coast of the US. One of the reasons listed "not" to do this was the understanding that Texas had 1 million hunters with deer rifles.

Could you please explain what an assault rifle is?

Assault rifle | Definition of Assault rifle at Dictionary.com

assault rifle
noun
a military rifle capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire, utilizing an intermediate-power cartridge.
a nonmilitary weapon modeled on the military assault rifle, usually modified to allow only semiautomatic fire.

Please show where this "little known fact" can be found (other than NRA.COM).

Discussed, not proven:
Professor James Holmes, chair of maritime strategy and at the U.S. Naval War College in Rhode Island, told us it’s plausible that private gun ownership was part of Japan’s calculus, but not the dominant factor.

The first step every dictator takes in to disarm the people. Switzerland has a high rate of gun ownership but very low violence. It’s considered patriotic to own a gun.

What an astoundingly strange reason to not attack the west coast. Texas isn't on the west coast. It doesn't even HAVE a west coast. Most of Texas is surrounded by land. From El Paso (the westernmost area of the state) to San Diego (the closest major coastal town as the crow flies, is over 700 miles away.

The trouble is most people who have guns if confronted, would end up shooting themselves or a bystander before hitting the bad guy. Just look at the cops, they train with their gun all the time and still when confronted, many of their shots miss the target. and if they were good shooters they would be able to wound and arrest instead of kill to apprehend.

BS!!
Total uninformed gun catharsis.

Really, care to provide some statistical facts to backup that obvious "assumption"?

:shocked:

Funny how the definition keeps getting more broad. First it's a selective fire military rifle. Now it can be a non military weapon "modeled" on the military "Assault Rifle". Then goes on to say it's "modified" to allow only semiautomatic fire. It's not modified at all. It's specifically designed for semiautomatic fire ONLY.

Next the definition of "Assault Rifle" will be anything that fires semi-automatically.

Most police officers only qualify with their weapon annually. Many of them only practice before annual qualification so as to be able to pass. Most police departments do require officers to practice due to budget restraints. No money for ammo and wages for the time training.
Do you know how hard it is to "wound" someone especially if they are moving? You know that if you hit a person in the femoral artery in the leg they will bleed out in a matter of minutes so how is a cop supposed to miss the artery? A wounded armed criminal can still kill you, that is why police are trained to shoot until the threat is ended.
It's real simple and even a caveman can understand, comply with the police's orders and you won't get shot.