Subject:
|
Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 May 1999 00:10:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1014 times
|
| |
|
|
On Tue, 18 May 1999 21:39:38 GMT, "Christopher L. Weeks"
<c576653@cclabs.missouri.edu> wrote:
> Sorry to be the fly in the ointment, but not for me, thanks. I believe
> that requiring training is an infringement on the RKBA and specifically
> violates the second. If the government can require training, and they
> want to make guns improbably difficult to bear, they could then just
> define training such that no one would be willing to do it.
Redefine the fucking Second, then. Include the amount of training and
how selective it can be.
Just don't make it another driving license, for which virtually nobody
ever fails..
Jasper
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) Sorry to be the fly in the ointment, but not for me, thanks. I believe that requiring training is an infringement on the RKBA and specifically violates the second. If the government can require training, and they want to make guns improbably (...) (26 years ago, 18-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
