The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://mail.texaschlforum.com/
They understand those words very well. Their problem is that, if they obey those words, they will not be able to turn free citizens into unarmed, defenseless peasants who can be ruled, exploited, and eliminated safely. Never kid your self. Talk about crime is pure smokescreen. It is really about power and people who believe that we have too much power over ourselves and they have too little power over us.AEA wrote:When these reporters are talking to these idiot Dems and they spew their spiel on "reasonable restrictions" & "common sense laws" and "AWB", why does the reporter NOT ask them what is it they don't understand about the words "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"?
Would that be 25% of all police each year? I had no idea the death rate was anywhere near that high!Jesse Jackson wrote:Twenty-five percent of all police are killed by assault weapons, and they cannot defend themselves from that.
EconDoc wrote:They understand those words very well. Their problem is that, if they obey those words, they will not be able to turn free citizens into unarmed, defenseless peasants who can be ruled, exploited, and eliminated safely. Never kid your self. Talk about crime is pure smokescreen. It is really about power and people who believe that we have too much power over ourselves and they have too little power over us.AEA wrote:When these reporters are talking to these idiot Dems and they spew their spiel on "reasonable restrictions" & "common sense laws" and "AWB", why does the reporter NOT ask them what is it they don't understand about the words "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"?
bingoPerhaps if police didn't carry those assault weapons, they'd be less convenient/available and police wouldn't be killed by the assault weapons as often. Look at the 9 bystanders who got shot by police recently. More range time might help too.sjfcontrol wrote:Would that be 25% of all police each year? I had no idea the death rate was anywhere near that high!Jesse Jackson wrote:Twenty-five percent of all police are killed by assault weapons, and they cannot defend themselves from that.
Perhaps if police didn't carry those assault weapons, they'd be less convenient/available and police wouldn't be killed by the assault weapons as often. Disarm the Police like in New Zealand and you'd have less. Look at the 9 bystanders who got shot by police recently. More range time might help too.sjfcontrol wrote:Would that be 25% of all police each year? I had no idea the death rate was anywhere near that high!Jesse Jackson wrote:Twenty-five percent of all police are killed by assault weapons, and they cannot defend themselves from that.
Video: Good discussion on should police leave the gun in the car or wear it on a belt like in the wild west, which is more risky for police [youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=WKMo537wFhw[/youtube]2004
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/waitara29b.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Carrying guns in a holster on the hip is still not routine for New Zealand police officers - but don't ask to see what's under their armpits or in their car boots. Rachel Grunwell reports on the police officer's arsenal.
Senior frontline police carry as many as six firearms in the boots of their cars.
Deja Vu- the old "blood will run in the Streets" argument used by anti CHL. anti-campus carry, anti-gun brady groups ...panicked cops reaching for the trigger first without justification.
Yes, I get that.SRH78 wrote:EconDoc wrote:They understand those words very well. Their problem is that, if they obey those words, they will not be able to turn free citizens into unarmed, defenseless peasants who can be ruled, exploited, and eliminated safely. Never kid your self. Talk about crime is pure smokescreen. It is really about power and people who believe that we have too much power over ourselves and they have too little power over us.AEA wrote:When these reporters are talking to these idiot Dems and they spew their spiel on "reasonable restrictions" & "common sense laws" and "AWB", why does the reporter NOT ask them what is it they don't understand about the words "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"?
173 LEO deaths in 2011sjfcontrol wrote:Would that be 25% of all police each year? I had no idea the death rate was anywhere near that high!Jesse Jackson wrote:Twenty-five percent of all police are killed by assault weapons, and they cannot defend themselves from that.
I don't think you understand the point. Jesse said it's 25 % of ALL POLICE, not 25% of those killed. So, there are 36,000 police in NYC, therefore 9000 per year must be getting killed by assault weapons.bronco78 wrote:173 LEO deaths in 2011sjfcontrol wrote:Would that be 25% of all police each year? I had no idea the death rate was anywhere near that high!Jesse Jackson wrote:Twenty-five percent of all police are killed by assault weapons, and they cannot defend themselves from that.
67 of those by gun fire.. thats %38 but hold on,,, some of those are listed as acidental..
and
I checked 20 of those reports, NONE listed the weapon type as anything that can be considered as an "assault weapon"
Total Line of Duty Deaths: 173
9/11 related illness: 6
Aircraft accident: 1
Animal related: 1
Assault: 5
Automobile accident: 35
Drowned: 4
Duty related illness: 7
Explosion: 1
Gunfire: 67
Gunfire (Accidental): 5
Heart attack: 11
Heat exhaustion: 1
Motorcycle accident: 5
Stabbed: 2
Struck by vehicle: 4
Training accident: 1
Vehicle pursuit: 4
Vehicular assault: 12
Weather/Natural disaster: 1
Read more: http://www.odmp.org/search/year/2011#ixzz25o2IOig6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
2012 78 deaths tracked on this site so far 31 by gunfire... checked 10, none by "assault weapon"
No i understood he was making fun of a poorly worded sentence.sjfcontrol wrote:I don't think you understand the point. Jesse said it's 25 % of ALL POLICE, not 25% of those killed. So, there are 36,000 police in NYC, therefore 9000 per year must be getting killed by assault weapons.