Debate : 11949


Off-Topic / Debate / 11949

National vote on handguns? —Daniel Jassim

It's too complicated to follow all the posts about handguns and automatic weapons, so I'll throw the following idea into the wind. Since America IS a democracy and every individual has an opinion on handguns and automatic weapons, why not put it to (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —James Trobaugh

America is *NOT* a democracy, it's a republic. Laws are not made by "mob rule". jt (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Daniel Jassim

(...) Yes, we are a representative-democracy (re-public). But we elect our mayors, governors, congressmen, and presidents by casting our individual votes. In a presidential election each state carries a number of electoral votes consistent with the (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) If we don't, then doesn't it seem that something more significant than a popular vote on handguns is in order? If we all agree that our congresscritters are untrustworthy, perhaps we should just throw the old system away and start anew. (...) (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —James Trobaugh

If Guns Are Outlawed, Only the Government Will Have Guns. Last year Georgia made it easier for a citizen to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The liberals in this State were absolutely enraged! Cynthia Tucker, the Editorial Page Editor of (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Daniel Jassim

Either way, I still say put it to a vote and let the American public decide. That sounds fair enough to me and I'll have no reason to complain either way since I'll know what my fellow Americans really want. Right now, I think the minority rules on (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Um, no, it doesn't. In fact the smallest states are guaranteed 3 votes (one rep and 2 senate seats contribute those three votes) meaning they have a proportionally larger voice in the election of the president than the large states do. As the (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Daniel Jassim

(...) Then I should have said 2 senates seats for each state and any number reps based on districts. Now, the greater point is it takes INDIVIDUALS to vote. JT noted that this isn't "mob rule" yet people, you and me, make it all happen. That is the (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —James Trobaugh

Let me give you something to think about when you say "One person, one vote." , say you have a society made up of 5 wolves and 4 sheep, and they're going to take a vote on what's for dinner. I don't think the sheep are going to like the one vote (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Daniel Jassim

In my opinion, your example of wolves and sheep doesn't hold water because we are all Americans (man, woman, young, old). Our country was founded on the very personal beliefs of freedom and democracy of several "founding fathers." It has grown (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Richard Marchetti

Hey Y'all: I am amazed at the variety of subjects y'all are willing to debate here -- everything from polyamory, to Larry and Scott, to gun control. I have taken part once or twice before, but boy! -- some of you are hard-core! This time, I'll step (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes: <snip> WELL SAID, froggy friend. I have one tiny point of confusion... I had always heard Jefferson, et. al., referred to as a "classical liberal" rather than a "radical conservative". I suspect (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Richard Marchetti

(...) I made it up myself. ::rant mode set at 11:: My point would be that the traditional, and especially current, uses of the words "radical," "conservative," "liberal," and etc. are so abused as to no longer make any sense at all. They have lost (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Cool. Some snippage has occured during the posting process. (...) Indeed. We're stuck because we can't make up new words and the old ones are polluted. At least if you put modifiers on people ask what you mean (some of the time) instead of (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Kirby Warden

Wow, an honest-to-gosh personal opinion that I can agree with...to bad some of the masses here are pick it apart for all it's worth... (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Well, I wasn't going to, but as long as you insist... (...) Jefferson was accounted a liberal. He didn't follow tradition - he broke it. (...) Oh dang - it was a fireman responding to a call and now you are up for manslaughter! Sorry, you (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Duane Hess

(...) Not sure where you're coming from, but where I'm at it's legal to shoot first and ask questions later when an unidentified person is in your home. Granted, there have been a couple of unfortunate "mistakes" where a family member has been taken (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Generally, no, you are wrong. You have to establish reasonable belief that your life was in danger. Example, I'm standing there admiring your Lego with you, when you spot a 10 year old ripping off one of your sets (Black Seas Schooner, dang, a (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Duane Hess

(...) OK, you are right with regard to the fireman situation. I should have qualified the unidentified person better. In general, if a stranger is in my home uninvited I'll be going after them with everything that I have until they are either (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) That argument won't stand up in court. Well, maybe it will in Texas... (...) Ahhh, the Death Penalty for power tools! Forgive me if I was not paying attention: is that more defensible than the Death Penalty for a crust of bread? (...) Hey, no (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Richard Marchetti

Bruce: You're right, I should have qualified my hypotheticals better, but I DO think that Duane is right when it comes to shooting the "other" person dead -- one story, my story, means I go free. Nobody will ever hear the dead person's narrative of (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Duane Hess

(...) Here’s where I got this: (URL) I say more? 18-1-704 - Use of physical force in defense of a person. (1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) (clipping lengthy legal text - see previous message if you need to) No, you needn't say more: it's reassuring that I got it right. You can't shoot someone for stealing a crust of bread. There has to be the reasonable belief that the person is (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —James Trobaugh

(...) Awww, but it does say that you "believe" they are going to cause you harm. If someone breaks into my house, I'm going to "believe" that they could be there to cause harm to my family or myself. I will not first ask them their intentions, when (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) *Reasonable* belief is what the text refers to. I can't make a better case for there needing to be a required course and test on firearm safety and law than the various responses I'm getting. :-) Bruce (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —James Trobaugh

(...) Well Bruce, I'll let you in on the fact that I worked for the Fulton County Sheriff's department for 4 years, and was well trained on how to use my firearm. Also I was very aware of what intruders can do when they break into a person's home, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Yes, and you get to shoot those kind of people. I wasn't arguing that. Just blasting away is on dangerous legal grounds is what I was talking about. Odds are you can get away with it. Odds are you were right. But there are enough dead innocent (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —James Trobaugh

(...) Well how about this, you go and put a sign in your front yard that say "gun free home", so that way the criminal types will know that they are safe to steal bread from your house, and will stay away from my home and family. jt (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Sigh. You haven't followed the conversation have you? I have a 12 gauge and a rifle. I used to have an assortment of handguns. I've been trained by a police officer and a marine sniper. I have a sword, to boot (and yes, trained in that, too, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Duane Hess

(...) So then what were you arguing? You've just confused me. Where is the distinction? (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Duane Hess

(...) Just re-read the previous post. And the light came on, if a little late. Yes, whacking an intruder may put me in the legal spotlight. Yes, I may have broken other laws in the process (1). I'm willing to take that risk if it means that my (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Tom Stangl

See, I WAS right - Kalifornia blinders. Bruce, I hate to break this to you, but lots of other states think Kalifornia is a looney bin and so are many of its' laws ;-) (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Well, IANAL but the text does treat someone in your domicile as a special case. Still, the class I took in Florida did go into this, and you don't get to just brandish your gun or pop off whenever you feel like, there has to be some (as Bruce (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Tom Stangl

(...) Sorry, Bruce, but if someone breaks into my dwelling, I'm not going to Debate with him as to his intent. BREAKING IN shows the intent, as far as I'm concerned. They'd better be ready to accept the consequences for their action. -- Tom Stangl (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Duane Hess

(...) He would then be cutting that crust off of the loaf of bread on the kitchen counter - he's armed with a knife. *BLAM* (...) I beleived that the intruder was about to sexually assault my wife (or even me, who knows about people these days). (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Go ahead, make my day! —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Oops, he simply took the whole loaf. No knife present. They cart you of to jail. Meet Bubba. (...) Oh dang, that was a woman you shot - your alibi doesn't hold up. They cart you off to jail. Bubba thinks you are cute. (...) That fireman came (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Go ahead, make my day! —James Trobaugh

(...) Here's a nice story for you, I'm glad this guy didn't waist time to ask if the intruder was looking for a slice of bread. Gregory Jenkins of Antioch, Tennessee, was awakened by the sound of breaking glass early Monday morning. He got out of (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Go ahead, make my day! —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Thank heavens it wasn't you chasing Eddrick Jenkins. (...) Right. He was justified as it turned out. But if it had been a fireman he'd be hauled away. The point you are not getting is that this is about "I'm going to fire first and ask (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Go ahead, make my day! —Richard Marchetti

Bruce: No offense, but this is a rather small point you are making. Okay, okay -- reasonableness in the use of firearm is prerequisite. Fine. I don't actually think anyone is arguing with that as a foundation before deadly force is used. I have (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Go ahead, make my day! —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) 1. Considering that we are talking about felonies, it's rather a large point. And yes, the constant statement is "I'm going to come out blazing no matter what the circumstances are, and I'll fake evidence and even execute people to cover my (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Go ahead, make my day! —Richard Marchetti

(...) Actually, that last bit there riles me up some. Mostly because this sort of started (at least on my end of it) because I did not sufficiently qualify the scenarios I made up. I really never stated anything to the effect that I would come out (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Go ahead, make my day! —Larry Pieniazek

(...) <snip> Richard I totally agree with you here but would just like to point out that Bruce MIGHT be responding to Tom S. who I think is shading a bit more towards planting evidence than you. But you're doing great so don't let me stop you! :-) (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Go ahead, make my day! —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Richard's statement that I was responding to refered to "No one here...", i.e. he was refering to the respondents in the collective. I replied in the collective, which Richard seems to have missed. I'm not going to reply to Richard's message (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Go ahead, make my day! —Dave Schuler

(...) With this in mind, and in order to eliminate further confusion,I've compiled the following small (and by no means complete) list. On one or more occasions Bruce has claimed: 1) that he can freeze or boil water in his bare hands 2) that he can (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Go ahead, make my day! —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) But not above 6000 feet! (...) You poke your pinky into the hole - don't try and actually grab it. (...) They are both fruits - now, apples and coproliths... (...) Just spinning my Miata in tight circles, honest officer! (...) I was (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Go ahead, make my day! —Stephen Rusnak

"Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com> wrote in message news:GH1MnF.2nz@lugnet.com... (...) that, or (...) confusion,I've (...) <snip> (...) I have to agree with him on that one. Clowns and mimes are the lowest form of life and deserve closer scrutiny. (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Go ahead, make my day! —Maggie Cambron

(...) <awkward snip: the following is attributed to Bruce S. by Dave! [1]> (...) I'll say! I mean, think of John Wayne Gacy, and that clown from Stephen King's novel "It". Thank goodness the last Bozo (Chicago area) is finally going to clown (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Go ahead, make my day! —Larry Pieniazek

(...) And very nicely done. It's always nice to find the proper spot for Dave! (1) 2 - other people's footnotes ++Lar (reduce, reuse (2), recycle.. but do NOT "redirect" to local.portugal please) (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Go ahead, make my day! —Richard Marchetti

(...) Oops, could well be the case...! And once we get to the "Dots" phase these discussions get a lot ickier! (...) This sounds a lot like you would have nothing substantive to state...but sure, whatever you can dish out I can take. Can you handle (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Go ahead, make my day! —Tom Stangl

(...) You are the showing yourself to be the King Fool then. You try to tell everyone else that DOESN'T live in California how much trouble they'll get into, forgetting that the World Does Not Revolve Around California, and laws in other states (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Go ahead, make my day! —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Actually, the only law that was quoted here on the board was from Colorado. I've heard similiar claims from people in other states - I can't think of one that didn't mention the stuff about reasonable belief that you were in some sort of (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

(canceled) —Tom Stangl

Re: Go ahead, make my day! —Tom Stangl

(...) I think you have WAY too narrow a view of what "reasonable belief" is. Maybe that's where you may think I'm foolish, but I think you're beyond foolish in what you think it will/will not cover (in states outside of your precious California, (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Go ahead, make my day! —Duane Hess

(...) Well, since you keep bringing Texas up, I thought I would give you a little reading material.... SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS § 9.31. Self-Defense (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Go ahead, make my day! —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) It's interesting reading. The defense of property part is what I suspected it might be - even though that is couched in "reasonable belief" terms and "can't get the property back" terms, tackling a guy running off with your stereo is fraught (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Go ahead, make my day! —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Texas IS the only soverign nation that petitioned to join (and there are those that claim that it therefore has the right to secede again :-) ) ++Lar (23 years ago, 26-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Go ahead, make my day! —Tom Stangl

(...) Pull bread knife out of drawer, put in dead criminal's hand, let drop to floor. (...) You sexist PIG. Woman can sexually assault people too. (...) Only in Kalifornia would you meet Bubba. In most sane states, you wouldn't. (...) You've got (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Go ahead, make my day! —Dave Schuler

(...) Like putting a bread knife in the dead man's hand, for instance? ;^) Dave! (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Go ahead, make my day! —Tom Stangl

(...) Nope, I'd accept that - I mean like calling someone and asking them to come over, shooting them, then going out front and kicking in the door to make it look like a burglary. -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Go ahead, make my day! —Dave Schuler

(...) By the way--no lawyer worth his shinola would allow you to remain on that jury, of course. (...) So you are in fact advocating the falsification of a crime scene? I trust, than, that if you get into a fistfight and accidentally kill your (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Go ahead, make my day! —Larry Pieniazek

(...) If you were foolish enough to actually *say* that during jury selection. I think I have the whole "sheep" thing down (or so I think), along with the "maneuver one's self to be the foreman once deliberations start" which is also very useful, (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Go ahead, make my day! —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) That's funny larry. I do the same thing. Most of my coworkers have always wanted schemes to get out of jury duty...but I always thought that was easy and irresponsible. I've always answered everything neutrally so that I would stay. (...) How (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Go ahead, make my day! —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Well I hear it usually is up to the jury to decide who the foreman is using whatever mechanism they decide on, I understand being foreman is perceived as being a bit more work, so I have heard that people will happily go along with it if one (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Go ahead, make my day! —Dave Schuler

(...) Doesn't this demand that each member of the jury be conversant with the (possibly very obscure) laws? How can one's "peers" be expected at any time, for instance, to be trusted to interpret the particulars of laws they might never previously (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Go ahead, make my day! —Richard Marchetti

(...) Nope. The Founder Fathers thought they could trust the average venireman to judge both facts and law, no complicated understanding was supposed to be needed -- and if it were, perhaps it was not a very good law such that people could (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Go ahead, make my day! —Larry Pieniazek

(...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Go ahead, make my day! —Larry Pieniazek

(...) It doesn't require apriori knowledge, just willingness to examine the law, and decide if it's a just law or not. (...) Defacto you are correct, in most cases this is what happens. Dejure you are wrong, common law (and case law if you can find (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Go ahead, make my day! —Tom Stangl

(...) That's not my problem ;-) (...) There'd be no need - if I killed someone in a fistfight, it would be equal force as defense. And if I killed them, they couldn't argue about who started it. Not that I'd get involved in a fistfight, I've pretty (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Tom Stangl

(...) Bruce, you live in Kalifornia, right? You're looking at the world through blinders. MANY states pretty much allow you to shoot first and ask questions later. And if you can prove state of mind, you can walk. You need to head East every once in (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Larry Pieniazek

Hi jt!!! (...) And thank goodness for that! I think the process I suggested of proposing an amendment using the mechanisms in place is a better one (and more likely, BY DEFINITION, to survive a constitutional challenge). Daniel, I'm curious why you (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Daniel Jassim

(...) On the contrary, I think the handgun advocates would not "win." Either way, I say let the American public decide, not the lobbyists (on both sides) and not the politicians on their payroll. Dan (23 years ago, 22-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) OK, sorry if I was unclear, I'll try to spell it out more clearly. Why do you want a referendum, which would be a novel and likely to be challenged procedure, instead of the accepted way of doing it? If you are right about the level of (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Daniel Jassim

(...) T-H-A-N-K-S (...) Let the people speak and see where ALL of the American public stands on the issue. It will serve as evidence of what American's believe is the right thing to do. It can go either way as far as I'm concerned but let everyone (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Still not being clear enough, I guess. The point you're failing to grasp is that the constitution would need to be amended before you could have a referendum that stuck. You can't just have a referendum on any old subject and have the outcome (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Daniel Jassim

The point I would like you to grasp, Larry, is that laws and rights about handguns and automatic weapons are currently controlled, for the most part, by the lobbyists and politicians in Washington D.C., not by the Joes and Janes in Anytown, U.S.A. (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Why would that be great? (...) We wouldn't have battle fields. We would have the ugliest guerilla war in history. And pistols would be awfully important because they're easier to conceal when you're approaching a small group of cops. (...) We (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Daniel Jassim

(...) Why wouldn't it? (...) Are you clairvoyant or is this your self fulfilling prophecy? (...) Lovely thought. (...) As if it it would happen that way. I can be just as clairvoyant on this issue as you. Maybe government officials trying to scoop (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) So your contention is that anything and everything is great(!) if there isn't some reason that it isn't? (...) Neither. It's common sense. If you look at how war works today and consider what a war between a faction of our national government (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Daniel Jassim

(...) No, you asked why I said it "WOULD be great" so I'm posing the reverse. Obviously defense is a "great" reason for having a rifle or shotgun in the home, hence it would be "great" if all Americans had them as the last measure in protecting (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) It's not the system I prefer for our laws about ANYTHING, Dan, and you know it, or you would if you were paying attention. So you can skip the soapbox parts about how bad the government is, because I'm already convinced our current system is (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Daniel Jassim

Number one: I am not blowing hot air. Number two: I am not confused about the electoral college. I was, however, hasty and unspecific in that post but I hope I've clarified to your satisfaction. Number three: Regardless of how detailed or unspecific (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —James Trobaugh

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes: <big snip> (...) No, the only ones who "deserve" a say *ARE* the ones that show up on election day. I think the rule should be changed about who can vote anyways. I think if you don't pay taxes, you (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Fair enough. (...) Let it slide. (...) You've said this before, and it's true, there is no doubt about that. But it's not relevant unless the goal in posting is, merely by posting, to effect this change. I don't see posting that way, but (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I think I disagree, though I'd invite anyone to convince me. I think we should do away with all our laws, start over, and put everything up for straight democratic vote. And each and every law/issue would need 75% in favor in order to pass. (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I like the part about doing away with all our laws and starting over. There is a part of _Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ where the professor is lecturing the constitutional convention and he is urging them to think out of the box on government (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Dave Schuler

(...) I asked about this before: (URL) I wanted to clarify your answer. Specifically, would you support "starting over" with new laws even if those laws ultimately conflicted (perhaps diametrically) with your own views? And, in addressing the 75% (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I support the process, but reserve the right to bolt if I don't like the outcome... (...) This is my problem with this proposal as well. I think you have to have basic rights that are much harder to revoke than just majority rule. I've said it (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) "Bolt" in what sense? "Support(ing) the process" entails living with the outcome (though I can understand moving to a different country). (...) Ancient Greece. Good example of the tyrany of the majority. I'm with you on this one. (...) And (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) In the "leave" sense not the "bolt action rifle" sense. If we get an actual majority to vote themselves bread and circuses in a fair and honest way, they are welcome to their little experiment, I'll vote with my feet. But what we have now, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Richard Marchetti

(...) "The Law" by Frederick Bastiat also covers some of this. For the full text of this AMAZINGLY concise and excellent work, see: (URL) I am sorry to go all "Scott Arthur" on y'all, but some of you really should read some of the primary texts (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) good to know of an electronic source. Bastiat is cited by a lot of other freedom thinkers. One issue that some will have is that his derivation of *why* people have the rights they do is pretty weak. I know it always comes up here if you just (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Richard Marchetti

(...) Well, every argument can be beaten down to some foundational principle that is a mere assertion that some may not agree with. I am not sure I have ever seen a philosophical argument that didn't ultimately break down that way. I'd be well (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Right. One good thing Scott did, long ago, was provide a link to David Friedman's(1) site, which among many other good things, provides a good example of how natural rights don't always work out, and then demonstrates how you can use a cost (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I know this was a throw-away comment, but... One could be against the notion of ownership and still be reasonable in owning stuff under our current system. I know someone who thinks that we should accept that we are at best stewards of (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Richard Marchetti

(...) You know, I am willing to go a fair way down that road with your friend. Thinking of ourselves as stewards of things is not at all a bad idea. Welcome to the lending library of the flesh... -- Hop-Frog (anyone want my froggy skin when I am (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Tom Stangl

OK, Rich, send me all your Lego ;-) (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Tom Stangl

OK, Rich, send me all your Lego. After all, you don't OWN it ;-) (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Scott Arthur

(...) This does not make 100% sense to me - getting rid of a lot of laws only to referendum them back. Why not just Constitutional-ise referenda, and use them to remove/add laws? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) should (...) order (...) The reason that I think it makes sense is that if it took 75% of the people to agree, most of them wouldn't be voted back in place. We would have the obvious victimizations illegal and some meta-organizational issues (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Dave Schuler

(...) Actually, the reason it *doesn't* make sense is that you require a 75% consensus. In a group of just 12 people it's hard to get 75% agreement on what kind of pizza to get; do you honestly expect that *any* issue, when put before a vote by the (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) to (...) Sure. I don't want to invest a lot in defense of this system that I created in four seconds while reading the note before, but I do actually think that part of it has merit. I'm sure that 75% of us would agree that stealing and (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) PS, what on earth makes you think I don't grasp this? Not just for handguns either, but for just about everything. (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Scott Arthur

(...) Win what? If the question is: Should guns be banned? I expect the gun lobby would win. However, if the question is: Should there be more gun control: Than I expect America would "win" (ie the gun lobby would loose). (...) Indeed. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) That is not how (well, actually, I suppose we _could_ make it happen that way) our constitution is changed. (...) I'd rather we just do away with all weaponry. Might as well. (...) Everyone in my neighborhood is armed. There hasn't been a (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Pedro Silva

(...) If a non-US citizen is allowed a word in this matter, I'd point out the fact that the United States seem to be the only "stable democracy" to have such a liberal system for gun-control. It is scary that the 3 nations, currently not at war, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Enrique Durand

(...) You are absolutely right. In fact, why stop there? Since so many crimes involve cars (have you ever heard of a get-away bicycle), we should ban private ownership of cars as well. And since the right to drive is not guaranteed anywhere in the (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) private (...) be (...) You know what? Not all crimes involve guns. Not all crimes involve cars. But ALL crimes involve brains. If we made it illegal to possess a brain, ALL crime would stop. We could remove brains from children as they are (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —James Trobaugh

(...) Chris brings up a good point in sarcastic kind of way; Is man capable of living in a crime free society? Think back to the story of Eden, only two people and they too committed a crime even though they were living the "perfect" life. I think (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Kirby Warden

This somewhat illustrates one of my points in the Brave New World thread... cloning advances seem to be on a parallel with population control, and may eventually serve to eradicate individualism. (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: National vote on handguns? —Dave Schuler

(...) You are, no doubt, referring to *genetic* individualism rather than some boogie-man "cloned mind" scenario, since I'm sure you're aware that identical twins are not the same individual, and also that clones would likewise be two (or two (...) (23 years ago, 24-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)