 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) I wrote a report in High school on gun control. When I find it, would you like a copy of it or the bibliography? Jeff (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) Oh, Larry. You're not going to fall back on that tired "personal responsibility for personal actions" argument again, are you? When will you understand that the *government* is responsible for all our actions, or the companies who sold us (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) It says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Now, what is a militia? According to dictionary.com, militia means "In the widest (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) That's what they say on the news...I guess it must be true. Why can't they make the numbers reflect that then? Verrrry interestingk. How would this training prevent crimes of passion? (...) Really? So saving ten and losing one isn't a good (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) To the best of my knowledge, my Ruger never has. (...) What possible reason could you have for that? They are quite obviously protected by the second amendment. Every weapon available to the agents of government are protected by the second. (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
