 | | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Court rules that the right to keep and bear arms is specifically guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution." What does that mean? It seems self-evident and not something on which the court would need to rule. So I assume it means something more. (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) I hope for a good solid citation -- one that you would accept if our stances were reversed, not just some Newsweek opinion. The NRA tells us that those are made up by evil liberal-agendad politicians like Moynihan. Kleck and Kates (IIRC) (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Um, I was kind of playing, but what do you mean? I think the 2nd is pretty clear on the matter. The issue of how the Supreme Court has allowed the curtailing of our constitutional rights is interesting, but I'm not sure that I'm ready to (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Well, there is stuff that is covered by the federal government to make trade and travel amongst the many states more or less an easy thing -- one of the true limited purposes of the U.S. federal govt. I have no problems with any of that. But (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate) !
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) The Federal system means that any precedent set in another state may affect our own laws--certainly, they will when we drive through, or relocate to, said state, and most American families are spread through many states. So I'd argue that it's (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Sorry, gotta nitpick: Canada and Australia had no violent rebellions against British rule, yet both became de facto independent by roughly 1900. [1] A failure to revolt against British rule would not have kept us under anyone's thumb, it (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Thanks for the suggestion. But if you're not interested in what happens in other countries, why should you worry about the laws in other US states? Maybe you don't? If you do, why should they worry about your opinion? They have their own laws. (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) I don't happen to care what happens in Australia. Is there some reason I should? Y'all should do as pleases Australians best. -- Hop-Frog (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes: [massive snip] (...) Probably wouldn't exist as they currently are, no. Who's to say what society would be like without firearms (or the fists, rocks, and swords which preceded them). Doesn't (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Well given that these particular reporters lean toward supporting gun control I would tend to assume the did their job (of being objective) by coming to the opposite conclusion. (...) anyway? (...) The SIRS are release yearly. 1 year ago is (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Well I will admit that my statement was a bit "boneheaded" :-) What I was intending to convey was not what I typed. (Narf!) The US armed forces, the treasury, EPA, CIA, and FBI are some of the major organizations that are vital to the country. (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Well, getting back to the main issue of this subthread... ...check out: (URL) looks like the government printing office to me, and should be reasonably authoritative. In "Miller" the court seems to be dancing around questions of what kinds of (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Why not indeed? Beats the heck out of butting in on a technicality while skirting the main issue, which is what I'm doing! (...) Many who live elsewhere do regard ours as an amazingly libertine society (isn't that one of the reasons they hate (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) I agree. You guys are heaps better off than us Aussies, just look at cheap LEGO availability 8?) ROSCO FUT .fun (23 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Y2K beat-up
|
|
(...) You were lucky if that was the only problem you had to contend with. I was involved with the upgrade of a mainframe PIMS application, customised by the client from an OTS package, which needed major changes regarding data entry, reports, and (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: So are they prisoners of war or what?
|
|
"John Grubber" <jgrubber2000@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:GqCuAF.n30@lugnet.com... snip (...) Several of them are British. Hardly as you describe. Though many in the UK would say 'serve them right' lawrence (23 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) While Y2K deserved much of the concern raised, it really was overblown. I don't remember how many times I had to re-explain exactly what the Y2K exposure of our product was, and it was a minor problem in that the next time the machine booted (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) I've read (and I'll try to find out where) that a gun in the home is X number of times more statistically likely to kill or injure a member of the household than it is likely to kill or injure an intruder. I'll try to find a web reference. (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) I've read (and I'll try to find out where) that a gun in the home is X number of times more statistically likely to kill or injure a member of the household than an intruder. I'll try to find a web reference. Dave! (23 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: An armed society...
|
|
(...) Well, not according to the 2nd Amendment, The Constitution in general, or in any litigation thus far brought before the Supreme Court. More specifically, the government's authority to regulate the ownership of arms by private citizens has (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
