 | | Re: Genocide and terrorism (Was: SW <-> Russia conspiracy)
|
|
(...) Bravo. If you're going to fight, fight to win. The Clinton administration has demonstrated that it does not understand the Powell doctrine and is misusing the military might of the US here, as it did in so many other places around the world (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) It doesn't bother me much when the fatality is the invader. What DOES bother me in your (contrived (1)) scenario is all the little old ladies clubbed to death with baseball bats because they can't swing a big stick as well as a 6'2" 240 pound (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) Perhaps if HCI wanted to make a better world they'd push for things that would incent people to be as responsible as Mike (and myself, I fancy to think) are. Then we'd be safe from all manner of ills which cannot be wished out of existance. (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) Once. (...) Once. (same case both times) I was the foreman on a jury that got the "wrong" verdict. Wrong in that we let someone go who clearly was guilty. But "clearly" was not clear to us until after the fact, when we talked to the prosecutor (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) Do you think that's gel I see in his portrait? It looks like he's fresh from the stylist. :-) Duane (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) It's also a non-issue because it's a felony to cross state lines with your weapon. At least that's how I understand it. (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) Yeah, but have you checked out the new blow-dried Andrew Jackson on the 20? We're moving that way :-) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) Hi. (...) But, the people of the colonies and the people of Britain had different worries. I don't want to get into a historical debate, because I am simply not equipped to do so...I mean I'm ignorant in comparison to you. (unless you're (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Genocide and terrorism (Was: SW <-> Russia conspiracy)
|
|
(...) Why not? All this crap going on in Kosovo has proven to me that the US government loves to bomb the hell out of foreigners. I'm surprised we're stopping at the Kosovo border. At least our haphazard tagetting of the people we're pretending to (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) Thanks, I was doing it from memory - thinking I got it right and noticed that I was wrong after the fact. I think the commas I left out are more significant than security, but it's better to have it all. (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) So, should we assume that taxation, in any form other than optional user fees, by your definition is evil? (If so, we agree.) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) It means practiced. That is, the militia (the people) will have the opportunity to practice as much as they want because they have the right to own any arm. Because of this, the people will be ready to revolt or defend against foreign (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) <snipped OJ stuff> (...) opinion? Well, the first thing that pops into mind as far as 'clearly wrong' goes is outdated laws. Laws do not cover all eventualities, and occaisonally, a situation occurs where a law has been broken, but blame does (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) This may be some common ground where we can all agree. Duane (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) Why is this? (...) Paintball leaves a lot to be desired with respect to accuracy. I guess part of my bias here is that I own my own marker and know how it shoots. I understand what its limitations are, and work with them. (...) I don't see the (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Animal reproduction (was (of course?) Terms and Conditions Question)
|
|
(...) Actually, all animals have emotions. Mammals have much more sofisticated emotions than, say, lizards though. If the Discovery channel re-runs the show 'Why Dogs Smile and Chimpanzees Cry', check it out. It was extremely informative about the (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) What makes a criminal trial verdict clearly wrong? For instance with OJ: everyone I knew had an opinion, most of them thought he was guilty as hell and should fry, but a few were absolutely sure that he was innocent. So, he got off and (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) Yes, I am very aware of the impact that this would have. That is my point. (...) weapons (...) a (...) useless (...) from (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) Wouldn't matter then. No one would be able to hear you over the THX sound system. ;) (...) Preserving some rights means restricting other rights. Right? Steve (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) That is my hope, belief, and aim. Steve (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) No, it is my belief that, in general, most criminals of the caliber likely to invade my home while I am there are neither stunningly intelligent or ambitious. As such, if guns are difficult to get a hold of, they are much less likely to have (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) So it is your belief that in areas with strict gun control laws criminals simply choose, out of fear of the law or something, to arm themselves with knives and baseball bats? (...) It would seem that your logic is completely faulty. It IS (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) I've been trying to stay away from this thread, but I can't just let this slide by. I do not want to own a gun, but if I lived in an area where guns were commonly available (as in your suggestion above), I would likely need to get one. Why? (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Terms and Conditions Question
|
|
(...) No problem - it's just easier to follow if I don't have to hunt back down the thread to figure out if I'm remembering something correctly. (...) Granted. I was, however, thinking at a level even more esoteric than this: both walking and sex (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
|
Mike Stanley wrote in message ... (...) Of course if one got down to it, one could make a constitional issue of it since the Bill of Rights specifically indicates that it is not the sole enumeration of rights. It is an enumeration of the rights (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
|
Mike Stanley wrote in message ... (...) A comment to add to this: A gun owner has total control over his weapon. A dog owner has incomplete . Either means of protection is subject to serious abuse by irresponsible owners. Of course a responsible (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
<snip> (...) I think this point comes close to getting at why folks are a little leery of semi-automatic and automatic weapons so readily available. Because most of the population is *not* as responsible and conscientious about using their weapons (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Terms and Conditions Question
|
|
(...) Sorry my mistake - however we don't lose posts like on USENET - I must be getting lapse. <Stuff snipped about ill and walking> (...) Walking can be done on your own, coitus cannot. Sex is an intimate thing between 2 people originally for (...) (25 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Terms and Conditions Question
|
|
(...) As I said above A and B could be the same place, displacement = 0. (25 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) The main beef I have with foreigners is that, for the most part, their money is prettier than ours. Who the hell picked green as the color of money? (25 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) I'd like a copy of the bibliography. Dunno about you, but I took all honors and AP English classes when I was in high school (and English is one of the majors I had in college), but I doubt I could get through one of the papers I wrote when I (...) (25 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) I wonder if a TN concealed carry permit would be honored in FL. Probably not, but worth checking into since we're planning another FL vacation. May be a non-issue since we're considering flying, though. May also be a non-issue if we drive, (...) (25 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Popular society (Was: New Web Page)
|
|
(...) I'm going to see the new SW movie for the same reason I went to see Jurassic Park - I dig cool special effects. Sure, I like the good vs evil aspect of it, but I never cared much for the "story" in the other three. I'm sure this one will be (...) (25 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) The free citizens who are guaranteed the right to arm themselves make that decision for themselves. Probably sounds wacko in today's society, but I'd say let the people who want to own firearms do so and let those who don't want them not own (...) (25 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) Depends on which definition of regulate you want to accept, I suppose. 'Course, you also have to try to understand what the founders might have meant by it, something a lot of people don't want to do if it doesn't fit their side of the (...) (25 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) It also sounds like a stupid question. What do you think, that if enough people admit that guns, in essence, are meant to shot projectiles that will kill another person, they'll just vanish? Or gunowners the world over will just jump up and (...) (25 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) So it is your belief that a revolver is ok while a semi-automatic pistol like my Glock is not. What's the difference, really? I can almost guarantee you that I could kill someone with the revolver more efficiently than the Glock, if for no (...) (25 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) Do you think you or I can go to a gun store and buy an automatic weapon? Do you know why or why not? Do you understand what a semi-automatic weapon is? Do you know what kind of handguns and rifles you would leave us with if all "automatic and (...) (25 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) Well, except for maybe that one case that happens every now and then when the criminal trial verdict was clearly wrong. (25 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
Reply-To: cjc@newsguy.com Followup-To: (...) Demonstrate a need to own anything other than plaid pants or frilly pink shirts. Demonstrate a need to own more than one pair of shoes. It's none of your or anyone else's business why I own a gun, (...) (25 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) There's a specific procedure for overruling an amendment. One that no congresscritter, no matter how liberal, has the guts to try to initiate. Unfortunately, nothing can prevent them from working towards the same goal with stupid little (...) (25 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) Don't pin that on the D only. The R is right there behind them in "me too" mode. (25 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
Mr L F Braun wrote in message <373D07C9.3E786497@p...su.edu>... (...) wrong.) (...) Your entirely ignoring the reason for the Declaration of Independance... The reason the United States has its own government totally independant of England is (...) (25 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) Amen to that, brother. And it is the Democratic Party that is fueling *that* fire by trying to have Government "take care" of everyone-- and deny personal freedoms in the process, and thus responsibility. (...) What, are you kidding!! I got (...) (25 years ago, 15-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) I forgot the most important point: Those transactions are completed 99% of the time via wire transfer from bank accounts - that is the reason that brokerages would be required to track the transactions. (25 years ago, 15-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) Just to name two of the initiatives - Koch and Dinkins added 1000s of police to the force. The return of beat cops in "problem" neighborhoods. (...) No need to disagree - the quotes are there simply to reinforce the fact that we do not and (...) (25 years ago, 15-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
Hi, Sorry, Ed, I've got one nitpick: (...) This statement is 100% dead wrong. Europe may have been "more civilized," but only because the idea of civilization was "that which is like Europe." The "world" was not--and in large part it was so because (...) (25 years ago, 15-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
Hi! (...) <culturerant> I'm from Detroit. Half of my family came from Ontario in the early decades of this century; the other half is from Ohio. I've got Canadian, English, Welsh, Norman, Saxon, Oneida, and Lord knows what other identity. What's (...) (25 years ago, 15-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mention Hitler? You lose (was Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) Thanks for the kind words--I read that post anew with the benefit of sleep (I'd been up for about 20 hours when I typed that) and it's not as incoherent as I'd feared. And yeah, that was part of the reason for not talking about Hitler--after (...) (25 years ago, 15-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
John DiRienzo wrote: <snip> (...) Well said and very libertarian, thank you. (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
Lee Jorgensen wrote in message <373C4173.E8AB1A57@u...st.net>... (...) "bear (...) merely (...) *Everyone* would (...) the use (...) The Constitution does not specify which types of arms, but nowhere does it say that *anything* is contraband to an (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
Christopher L. Weeks wrote in message <373C485D.E0DE68AA@c...ri.edu>... (...) Probably so, but less traumatic than being shot or worse, killed. Thats the how I feel about it - I don't want to be killed or even shot. Anyone want to argue with that? (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) I have been following along with all you guys arguing over this subject (sorry, "debating"). Interesting points from all sides, but of course ultimately it is fruitless - neither side will convince the other to significantly change their (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) Debatable. But debating it puts me in an R defending position. No thanks, I'll pass. Politicians would take credit for the sun rising if they could. (...) No argument, R & D are both nasty. I just hope Carville and Matalin never have kids, (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) When the British marched on Concord April 19, 1775, the militia essentially consisted every able bodied citizen. I believe that the 2nd amendment is specifically referring to an informal militia NOT controlled by the wider government (though (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) The changes were brought about by initiatives begun during the Koch and Dinkins administrations - Rudy is just taking credit for it all. FYI - I like D infinitely better than R, but that's another subject (and if you really want to talk nasty (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) What does "well regulated" mean, in the context of the Second Amendment? Seriously. "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." Steve (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) Something I'd like to add is that I recently read some historical accounts of April 19, 1775 (British march on Concord, Paul Revere, shot heard round the world and all that). Almost all of the colonial casualties that day were civilians (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) Why are we in this NG then? I can't debate either statement :-) Duane (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Popular society (Was: New Web Page)
|
|
(...) Plus, he makes really really really cool Castle sets. (...) Sure, they're evil. But... Why is everyone scrambling to go see Star Wars? Why is everyone scrambling to buy the toys? To see the makeup jobs? To explore brave new possibilities for (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) Yes. I think the lack of feeling/being responsible for one's actions is a major problem in our society. A second problem is civil lawsuits following innocent verdicts in criminal trials. Steve (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) *LOL* Larry, you do have a way with words (...) I do agree with you on the TLG reference though. Duane (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) Discharging a projectile is not the same as to kill. If that were true, I could be arrested just for vomiting. My point was that guns were designed to kill by shooting at the intended victim (animal, vegitable, or mineral). I asked if you (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) Nitpick: You got the wording slightly wrong (which can make a world of difference if you start analyzing it) "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 (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Mention Hitler? You lose (was Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) Right, that's why I didn't either. Wish the other side had brought it up first. <grin> (1) It's true, though. I worked it in via the Custer reference. Tyrants disarm populations. That's what they do. If you are living somewhere that is trying (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
