 | | Re: US age restrictions
|
|
(...) In what states is that the case? As far as I know, in PA, NY, and TX the buying age in 18. Dave! (23 years ago, 27-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: US age restrictions
|
|
(...) - usually treated as an adult within the court system (...) Actually, this one varies for various things. (...) - Usually the age one can _act_ in a pornographic film - see below... (...) - Usually the age one can _buy_ or be _given_ (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun Control, Unnessesary Evil
|
|
(...) It is evident that the levels of gun use you enjoy in the USA is not stopping criminals either. Do you not think for one second that gun control may have the ability to reduce the numbers of guns which reach the hands of criminals? Do you not (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Shiri - A one time thing?
|
|
(...) Because US Congress, overstepping their bounds as usual, attatched a conditional to highway funds so that if a state had a lower drinking age than 21, they would not get the highway funds. (Of course the money comes from the citizens of the (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | US age restrictions
|
|
(...) I think some things (like driving at least) are defined by state law, while others are nationwide... but I think (at least around here): 15.5 - Can get a learner's permit (can drive with supervising driver present) 16 - Age of consent (what (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Shiri - A one time thing?
|
|
(...) May I ask why the drinking age in the US is 21? Do any other rights/privileges accrue at that age, or is everything else 16/18+? Or is alcohol thought to be such a dangerous drug that it shouldn't be used while someone is still in their teens? (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jul-01, to lugnet.org.us.nelug, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun Control, Unnessesary Evil
|
|
(...) wrong (...) Well if by "wrong" one means, morally, then no. If by "wrong" one means, not a good idea, then yes. (After reading Lindsay's post I relized I needed to clarify my statement) I realize that my position is a minority one in this (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Shiri - A one time thing?
|
|
(...) BayLUG always has been, and always will be, open to people of all ages. (...) Sure, come on down! Russell (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.org.us.baylug)
|
| |
| | Re: Shiri - A one time thing?
|
|
(...) Umm, I think you're over generalizing here. Based on the above statement, Lugnet is a "closed group" since it is NOT open to just anyone. It limits membership to people who are willing to follow a few basic rules. At least one person has been (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Shiri - A one time thing?
|
|
(...) neither (...) In your opinion. Who are you to determine, as fact, the worth of my statements?? (...) I haven't seen any reasonable arguements other than 'that's how we voted to do it'. Sounds like some of the 'they're my marbles, so it's my (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Shiri - A one time thing?
|
|
(...) Well...I find the whole topic offensive. Same for defense of it on all sides, including my own. What I did wrong was to discuss it in the wrong newsgroup. But I've said my piece. Cheers, - jsproat (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) Texas IS the only soverign nation that petitioned to join (and there are those that claim that it therefore has the right to secede again :-) ) ++Lar (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) It's interesting reading. The defense of property part is what I suspected it might be - even though that is couched in "reasonable belief" terms and "can't get the property back" terms, tackling a guy running off with your stereo is fraught (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun Control, Unnessesary Evil
|
|
(...) So it is not "wrong" then? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) Well, since you keep bringing Texas up, I thought I would give you a little reading material.... SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS § 9.31. Self-Defense (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) And very nicely done. It's always nice to find the proper spot for Dave! (1) 2 - other people's footnotes ++Lar (reduce, reuse (2), recycle.. but do NOT "redirect" to local.portugal please) (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun Control, Unnessesary Evil
|
|
(...) It's wrong for the context of the United States. Small-arms control may be just dandy for other countries, but the US isn't another country. The Constitution is part of the reason, but it is in itself not enough justification--the Constitution (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) I think you have WAY too narrow a view of what "reasonable belief" is. Maybe that's where you may think I'm foolish, but I think you're beyond foolish in what you think it will/will not cover (in states outside of your precious California, (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Go ahead, make my day!
|
|
(...) <awkward snip: the following is attributed to Bruce S. by Dave! [1]> (...) I'll say! I mean, think of John Wayne Gacy, and that clown from Stephen King's novel "It". Thank goodness the last Bozo (Chicago area) is finally going to clown (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | (canceled)
|
|
|
