 | | Re: Handgun Death Rate
|
|
<snip> (...) is (...) and (...) the (...) must (...) to (...) stock (...) Greater concealability, better maneuverability. Nothing says "You broke into the wrong house" like .00 buckshot to the chest. -- Overkill is the only sure kill. SR (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
|
(...) Fair enough. (...) Let it slide. (...) You've said this before, and it's true, there is no doubt about that. But it's not relevant unless the goal in posting is, merely by posting, to effect this change. I don't see posting that way, but (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes: <big snip> (...) No, the only ones who "deserve" a say *ARE* the ones that show up on election day. I think the rule should be changed about who can vote anyways. I think if you don't pay taxes, you (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: National vote on handguns?
|
|
Number one: I am not blowing hot air. Number two: I am not confused about the electoral college. I was, however, hasty and unspecific in that post but I hope I've clarified to your satisfaction. Number three: Regardless of how detailed or unspecific (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A Brave New World
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mladen Pejic writes: <snip description of classic resource based "limits to growth" problem) (...) Indeed. (...) Indeed. Open the bottle (to use your metaphor). Or put some of your eggs in other baskets ( to use RAH's). (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
