 | | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) Self selected. By the criteria of being able to afford it. To whatever extent it takes. (personally I want star trek stunners too, and I'd put up some VC to get them if I had any) (...) Check yours. The reduction in violent crimes seems mostly (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
|
The LP had a pretty good PR release recently. Paraphrasing... suppose other amendments were as watered down as the 2nd? Each of these is a parallel to a existing law that regulates the acquisition or ownership of guns. Fortunately, each is currently (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) Why does it matter? The first half of it is merely a justification for the second which is direction on what rights are granted to (actually affirmed for) whom. (...) No. (...) That's right, they didn't want to limit it to any particular kind (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) Are you saying the to discharge a projectile is the same as to kill? My ruger has discharged many projectiles, but probably never killed...I bought it new. But, for the sake of the argument, I believe that there are collectible firearms that (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) You know, I don't get that. I've seen lots of newsgroups explode into US v. Canada or US v. UK debates, and its always so silly. Ultimately, you get a tiny little say in what goes on in your government and I get a tiny little say in mine, but (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) I was about to seriously flame you, but then I figured that you were being sarcastic. ...You were being sarcastic, weren't you? Duane (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) Give me one example of a fire arm that was produced, but never intened to discharge a projectile (other than a starting pistol). (...) it. (...) I will concede that they are currently protected under the second amendment, but I _personally_ (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Guns, guns, guns (was: Re: New Web Page)
|
|
(...) A) Many of us consider this a bad thing. B) Those on the gun-control side of things typically espouse a significant (but faulty) difference between guns and cars in that guns are intentionally dangerous. I am constantly frustrated by this, but (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) If he did that, he would have lost the argument by default. Steve (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) The second amendment means that if they get too carried away with negating our rights, we can take them back. (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
