To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 1074
1073  |  1075
Subject: 
Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Sun, 30 May 1999 22:42:33 GMT
Viewed: 
2560 times
  
On Fri, 28 May 1999 13:51:58 GMT, "Christopher L. Weeks"
<c576653@cclabs.missouri.edu> wrote:
> Jasper Janssen wrote:
> > 
> > Redefine the [friggin'] Second, then. Include the amount of training and
> > how selective it can be.

Whoops. Musta thought I was still in alt.peeves (where I am currently
also involved in a gun-control thread that is, at last count,
something on the order of 1000 messages and growing...).
> 
> IF you mean that the constitution should be amended so that the right to
> keep and bear arms is dependent on some very specific training, then I
> agree with your method of making that change (as opposed to just passing
> laws that violate the constitution).

Well, yeah. I mean, however much _anyone_ may or may not agree with
the constitution, it is there for a reason, and altering it was made
difficult for a reason (though it is _exceptionally_ difficult over
with you folks - no wonder it stands virtually unchanged for 200
years).

> But, I disagree that such an
> amendment should take place.  I like the second right where it is.

Actually.. I don't really think one should ban guns in the US.
_Slightly_ more heavy restrictions would be a good thing, IMHO,
though.

Just as long as you don't force guns on me or my country, I can deal
just fine with not forcing you to give them up.
> 
> > Just don't make it another driving license, for which virtually nobody
> > ever fails..
> 
> Yes, that would be pointless.  But, IMO, it is the most likely outcome
> of such a move.  On 6 April 99 Missourians barely decided not to enact a
> concealed carry law, but if it had passed, it would have require
> something like twelve hours of training, and really it wouldn't have
> much changed (in my opinion again) peoples' abilities to bear arms
> responsibly.  I think this would have been analogous to a driver's license.

Indeed. By the way, contrast this, if you will, with the .nl driving
licence: On average, it takes about 2.5 tests and 30-40 hours of
practical training to get the practical exam right. The theoretical
exam is a lot more easy, at least if your memory works like mine. I've
also seen people who had to take _that_ one 6 or 7 times, though.

Jasper



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
 
(...) Cool. (...) Now, if we look at the number of automobile-related deaths, I think adopting something similar for the US might be in order. Guns are really pretty safe, but cars are dangerous as hell. (27 years ago, 1-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
 
(...) IF you mean that the constitution should be amended so that the right to keep and bear arms is dependent on some very specific training, then I agree with your method of making that change (as opposed to just passing laws that violate the (...) (27 years ago, 28-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

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR