 | | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) What's to stop someone from stunning me first, then taking a rock and killing me? Besides, in the great wisdom of our leaders, current stun guns are illegal. (note heavy sarcasm). (...) Taser. Currently banned in most locales. Then the (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
Mr L F Braun wrote: <snipped> WELL SAID! The only thing you didn't reference was Hitler's confiscation of guns as the precursor to WW2. -- Lee Jorgensen, Programmer/Analyst - Bankoe Systems, Inc. mailto:jorgensen@bankoe.moc <-- reverse moc (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) OK, who decides who needs to be armed? By what criteria? And armed to what extent? Not everyone in the (...) FYI, check your facts - New York's "tough anti gun laws" have resulted in a direct reduction of crime, a direct reduction of murder (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) I agree wholeheartedly here ... I don't _NEED_ a gun currently, however if I want to purchase one, why do I need to wait up to 30 days now? Also, the Congress elated me, and is now disappointing me. The gun legislation that is being pushed (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) able (...) To (...) The tradgedy in Littleton would more than likely have happened even if guns were severely restricted. Remember, three out of four of the guns that were used to kill people, were regular hunting rifles. Of those three (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
Hi-- Frank, I hope you'll forgive my answering the previous post through yours. (...) Neither do I, Frank. But the *right* to own one is vital in the United States, and for more reason than weapons--it's a symbolic iteration of the democratic ideal (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) Yeah, that's why I won't be wasting much time on it. The total nuts on both sides are wrong, imo. (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) Well, so much of everything else you said was complete and utter crap that I guess I didn't have the energy to read your mind instead of reading what you wrote. Sorry, but that lead-in (if you support the right to own a gun you must think the (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) Demonstrate the need to own LEGO, then. What a silly question. No one should have to demonstrate needs here. We're talking about acquisition of property. If I have the resources, and the acquisition of property per se does not infringe the (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
Mike and John are doing fine. I wish I had time to participate in this debate as I usually do... it's fun. Not likely to change anyone's mind but fun. (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
On Thu, 13 May 1999 14:53:43 GMT, Christopher L. Weeks uttered the following profundities... (...) It wouldn't generally, but might temper the reaction of "stupid bloody foreigner!" That could instead be "half-stupid, half- foreigner!" (...) (...) (25 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
On Thu, 13 May 1999 15:34:45 GMT, Steve Bliss uttered the following profundities... (...) This is getting close to what I was trying to say. Which Mike has decided to close off to, rather than trying to understand what was meant, and blow everything (...) (25 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
On Thu, 13 May 1999 15:07:00 GMT, Lee Jorgensen uttered the following profundities... (...) I was under the impression that legislation was necessary to amend an amendment, such as a referendum. Is that not the case? (...) But please demonstrate a (...) (25 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
Steve Bliss wrote in message <373b2d40.4308071@lu...et.com>... (...) strange. (...) If our country wasn't over run by this "its not a crime unless convicted" mentality I might find this argument credible. However, so much crime occurs because it is (...) (25 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) There's already several sources of information about who owns various non-lethal pieces of property. Houses, cars, businesses. The government knows about the cars I own from at least two different sources already: the title and the (...) (25 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
