 | | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) Just one point here. (Christoper is doing fine otherwise) There is no need for EVERYONE to be armed. An armed populace does not mean 100% heated. 1% or even 1/10% is all it takes. Not everyone in the old west was a gunslinger, but it was a (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
Great post. Sums up the arguments I was advancing pretty cogently. Mr L F Braun wrote: <snip> (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) No, sorry. You're wrong. Not possible to convince you that you are, but you are, nonetheless. The intent was to be the final check. A disarmed populace falls victim to tyranny much more easily, no matter what the source. Read the federalist (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) The founding fathers intent was clearly for the residents of America to be able to defend themselves against the British and any other possible "invaders". To be able to easily and quickly assemble armed forces for any impending attacks. The (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) If I may jump in to interject my 2 slugs worth;-) I don't know if the Constitution guarantees the right to possess *guns* per say, merely to "bear arms". Suppose technology creates a Star Trekkian phaser capable of merely stunning an (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
