To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / *11811 (-20)
  Re: Handgun Death Rate
 
(...) Does this not imply that you feel that the founders could not be wrong in any way, and that their intentions are 100% clear? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Handgun Death Rate
 
(...) Perhaps. But the majority in the US does want more gun control. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Handgun Death Rate
 
(...) They don't scare me. Should they? (...) Or maybe I am not. Maybe I work for BATF? (...) Is democracy unconstitutional? (...) I am. That is what happened in all 3 places. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Handgun Death Rate
 
(...) Do you think the could conciev how powerful democarcy would come. How everyone (more or less) would be able to vote? Or do you think they had events like the French revolution in mind? Scott A (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: *Child* Handgun Death Rate
 
(...) I shall try again: I was thinking more about the real kids that were killed with guns - ie those who were under 16. (...) Why? Do you think I am wrong? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Handgun Death Rate
 
(...) Test them in some way. Inspect how the store their guns (this happens in the UK). Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Handgun Death Rate
 
(...) I don't. Because "used illegally" is a misnomer. When I was a teen, I knew kids (several) who carried guns daily. Those were all guns used illegally. And none of them were a problem. The problem only comes from people committing other crimes (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Handgun Death Rate
 
(...) I've certainly read a number of instances where this is true - but in Victorian times in England, people would tackle criminals, too, with neither side armed with guns. It may be more a function of the times. But then again, maybe it means the (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Handgun Death Rate
 
(...) Well, for a start, if he really was a 'patriot', he'd have been on our side! (or Native American) You can't be a patriot if you don't have a country yet. Jason J Railton (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Handgun Death Rate
 
(...) judiciary's stance. I don't have any problem with the reporter's work, if that's what you mean. I think that the court has been cowardly in not embracing the obviously correct meaning of the second amendment. I suspect that they wish not to (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Handgun Death Rate
 
(...) As I mentioned in another message, my wife's cousin was shot and killed under just such circumstances. So I can't agree that it's funny (I know that's not how you meant it). Anyway, you statement doesn't change mine - I'm not talking about any (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Handgun Death Rate
 
(...) I'd welcome a straightforward proposal of amendments and an honest debate. What gets up my nose is the chinese water torture we've seen lately in which the constitution has been suborned one step at a time by "activist" judges. I support (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Handgun Death Rate
 
(...) Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. I however, would urge and support a ban on weapons of mass destruction. Chris (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Handgun Death Rate
 
(...) I think you missed the path of the discussion - my comment was based on an earlier one that said everything would be peaceful and wonderful if *EVERYONE* walked around with a gun. Now, as to your statement, I take it you have never had a gun (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Handgun Death Rate
 
(...) How do you diagnose, let alone enforce that? (...) -Duane (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Handgun Death Rate
 
(...) Yes. And that's a good thing. The way it's supposed to work is that our states are almost individual nations. loosely federated for the purpose of administration and holding to constitutional edicts. The fact that states (and the federal (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Handgun Death Rate
 
(...) It depends on how you define win. There isn't any point in dying for nothing. There are situations in which dying is worthwhile. But not when it's just pointless. If you could defend person X from a wrong, but would be killed, or you could go (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Handgun Death Rate
 
(...) Yes. It does. Several. (...) I should, and I do. And there are many others like me. Chris (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: *Child* Handgun Death Rate
 
(...) What's that supposed to mean? (...) OK, show me. Find the numbers of violent deaths of children for the US and the UK and compare them. I'm not that interested in the number of gun deaths, because dying from a bullet is no worse than being (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Handgun Death Rate
 
(...) Just the largest and scariest. (...) Or maybe you're wrong and argumentative for no purpose. (...) He doesn't. I don't. No one does...not in a visceral ever-present way. But when you look at their ability and willingness to forego reasonable (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR