 | | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) Actually, this is one that I can't understand at all.... I can't figure out how ANYONE could object to mandatory trigger locks... How in the world would something like that impinge on your rights? Now, granted, it most likely would not do a (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) (I can't believe I'm entering this debate, but...) How, exactly, would trigger locks save lives? Parents who leave loaded guns lying around are likely to leave the same loaded guns lying around with the keys in the trigger locks. Children who (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
Karim, (...) Well, one could argue that when you are in a situation where you would need your gun (A.k.a. late night break in) trying to find the key to a trigger lock could result in your death, or your property being stolen, etc. Secondly, why (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) Look, I understand all of this... the point I was trying to make is that the trigger lock thing only says that the gunseller must provide a triggerlock.. NOT that everybody has to walk around with their triggers locked! If you don't want to (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) how (...) would (...) by (...) little (...) (URL)Secondly, why isn't little Johnny not taught about the gun? Go out (...) It's not little Johnny that I worry about, it's little Johnny's friends. (...) I could see my commute getting uglier yet. (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) "A well regulated Militia...", not "A completely unregulated Militia..." :-) Bruce (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
Duane, (...) Well, here is a gut wrencher for all of you non violent types: teach this in school. (The sound of alarms going off, leftists kicking in their screens, mass rioting and hysteria result!) I have told this in the last round of gun debates (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 18:27:57 GMT "Scott E. Sanburn" <ssanburn@cleanweb.net> wrote concerning 'Re: Trying to understand': (...) I agree that there should be better education - but as long as guns are around, accidents will happen. IDF [1] makes (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
Update: Billy boy just said "Kids are dying everyday (Unless Congress passes new gun control laws), they don't know it's an election year." Al Gore was babbling about campaign finance reform, he is the one who can't even follow the laws in the first (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) wrote (...) I don't see how a trigger lock is an attempt to get rid of guns. A trigger lock is SUPPOSED to help prevent an accidental discharge from a gun, over and above what the safety switch is for. Do you think there was this much debate (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) how is this "trying tog et rid of guns"? solve problems like kids shooting themselves when they "just wanted to look at it"... hurt others? like not being able to shoot fast enough? well, if you keep your gun under your pillow, you probably (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
Dan, (...) How can requiring gun manufacturers, providing this gun lock, making the consumer pay more (I don't care how "cheap" it is, this is used for taxes as well, and I don't buy it), and them going in the trash, going to solve anything? Bad (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) gun (...) It's not the solution to the bigger problem, but I don't see how it's a bad idea. Are you railing against the seatbelts in your car because they impede your movement when you're driving and trying to change the radio station? It's a (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) My gun is kept locked in a box with a combination lock I can silently work by feel. It's not loaded, but the bullets are in a speed loader in the box. Trigger locks increase the time it takes (me, anyway) to get my gun ready to use, when I am (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) Today. Seat belts were once required equipment on cars but not required to be worn by passengers. Flawed analogy but the principle holds. It is not a large leap from "all A will be supplied with X under penalty of law" to "all citizens with A (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) how (...) would (...) by (...) little (...) Thank you Larry. I'm glad that I know of at least one individual who has a relatively safe storage method. I understand the need for speed and the need for safety as well. It sounds like you have (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) My issue there is the slippery slope. Just as with seatbelts. Note well that I support seat belt usage and I've even come to terms with mandatory seat belt usage. But once locks are required to be shipped, it's not much of a stretch to (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) to (...) I have this silly picture in my mind of a western showdown at high noon, where the two participants square off. Crowds gather. Sweat drips down their faces. Steely eyes glare unblinkingly. Fingers twitch, waiting for the other guy to (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) faces. (...) the (...) That IS rather an amusing tableaux! Thanks. As to why you wait for the other guy, according to all the western lore I absorbed from all those movies, it's so that you are acting in self defense, he started it... seems (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
Another News Update on this horrendous issue: Bill C. is still going on about how these new laws will somehow save children, but the real kicker is Janet Reno, on how Bill Clinton has made the children safest of any presidents, he is the greatest (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 17:12:37 GMT "Scott E. Sanburn" <ssanburn@cleanweb.net> wrote concerning 'Re: Trying to understand': (...) just a side note - if nuclear weapons were used, I really am not going to worry about the pets and trees killed... :/ Dan (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) I know, I was throwing in some liberal sentiments for diversity's sake, environmentalism and animal-rights. Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> (URL) Page -> (URL) Page -> (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) Ahh! Now I see what you're saying. That is a valid fear. I don't see that particular scenerio coming about though. It's too hard to enforce a law like that as a primary infraction. In order to enforce it, enforcement agencies would have to (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) Oh, I can imagine what police officers would have to go through, I am sorry, sir, I need to get my target lock key out first, before we can have an exchange of gunfire, ok? Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) We'd have four dead cops gunned down by a wallet! :-0 Bruce (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) Of course, the assailant would be likewise delayed in unlocking his own gun, unless he'd stolen the key, too! 8^) Dave! (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) One reason the gov't is so rabid about seatbelts is because a lot of the medical treatment provided to accident victims (often greatly in excess of existing insurance coverage) comes from public funds. Likewise, the argument goes, since a (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) That really is the point. The government has no business subsidizing medical treatment. Everything the government gets involved in goes thru the roof price-wise. That's the same problem with insurance, if the consumer doesn't have to pay the (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) where (...) me, (...) he (...) Hey,...isn't that from the Bible? :0) Sorry...couldn't help it. Bill (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) seen (...) tell (...) So those without the means to pay the bills suffer? Not very humanitarian. (...) -Duane (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) That's still not the business of the federal gov't. They are there to provide a framework which protects our liberties - not to dole out compassion. That argument doesn't hold water anyway, anyone can go to the emergency room regardless of (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) a (...) I agree, but to nitpick, that service isn't done out of the goodness of the hospital's collective heart; it's subsidized. Dave! (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) Right, but I just meant that people will be treated when needed. Besides, federal medical care makes HMO's look divine. Bill (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) I mostly agree with you. A dominant political philosophy of the last 8 years has been that government can & should solve all social problems. There is an inordinate amount of faith in the power of legislation, and a belief that the ends (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) So who picks up the tab? Would I as an uninsured person who walked into an emergency room, get the treatment that I needed if it weren't subsidized? I doubt it. I would get the amount of care where the hospital knew it would be able to recoup (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) But this is not a socialist country. It's not right for the gov't to take my money and force me to make charitable contributions as it sees fit. This is mandatory benevolence and as such ceases to be so. Beides, the gov't is so inefficient (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
Well plowed ground alert. (...) You do. Or you should. It's not my problem if you didn't manage your affairs correctly. Maybe I'll decide to help, but it should be my decision. Medical care is a good, that is, a form of property. There are no rights (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
James, (...) Oh, I know it is the parents whose ultimate responsibility to teach the children, but I would rather have the NRA teach about guns to my children then any government agency. (...) Indeed. Schools should not be allowed to teach that (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) I guess I was out smelling the roses when the ground was plowed. :-) (...) Ouch! With that one sentence you hit a nerve. You have a point that I'll have to ponder some more. If I can come to a conclusion anytime soon, I'll get back to you. (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) It's interesting that the biggest union in the country is the Union of Federal Workers. It gives a good hint of why government never gets smaller. Scott S. ___...___ Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net Systems Administrator-Affiliated (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) I think you need to recheck things a bit. The US has a number of Socialist features. 'Socialist' isn't a black-and-white, yes-or-no thing. Steve (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand Socialism
|
|
Steve, (...) Well, maybe what Bill is saying that this county wasn't started out socialistic, but it seems to be getting there. Socialism is a black and white definition, however. Any Political Science / Government class will tell you. Scott S. (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) A country can have socialist features and still not be Socialist. It's sort of like "Space" vs. "space"...capital-S has a very specific meaning, while small-s is more malleable. Semantics...with a small s. ;) <dredge...dredge...> best LFB (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) Indeed. I was thinking of you when I used the aphorism. :-) Please quote me where I said the bible wasn't an interesting piece of literature, worthy of being read by all who would style themselves well read... :-) Where we differ is that I (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) Michigan has switched from secondary to primary, you can be stopped for just a seat belt infraction instead of the collateral damage (Has to be a second ticket) that CO uses. (...) Right... and that's one reason I support seat belt use, (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) Today it is, because bad money (gov't charity) has driven out good (private charity). It used to be a pure charity decision, the hospital (if for profit) took a deliberate margin hit, or raised the money by charity drives. (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) Funny this conversation is going on right now. I just got a ticket for my son having his shoulder strap looped around the back of the seat. I just looked up the regs and this law is not enforceable unless I was pulled over for some other (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) You should also research your locality's seat belt laws. In some states, the seat BELT is required, but not the shoulder strap. Maybe in yours too? (IMHO, a lot of shoulder straps are dangerous if you are shorter than the average male. Mine (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
Law just changed. A seat belt infraction, if spotted, is enough reason for you to get pulled over in Michigan now. Sorry about that (I think it may have been March 1 that it changed) (25 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) So if I read this correctly, the wearing of seatbelts is not mandatory in all US states? This is mandatory in all states and territories of Australia (putting on my seatbelt is second nature to me when I get in the car). I can't understand (...) (25 years ago, 19-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) And that would mean that 'Socialist' is just a descriptive label, without much specific meaning. Sort of like calling the leader of a country 'President' doesn't mean the country is a Democracy based on inalienable human-rights and personal (...) (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) But would it work if some participants refused to recognize the validity of evolution? Steve (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) to (...) Sure--just like biological evolution. Dave! (25 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
(...) It is mandatory, on pain of losing federal highway funds (a case of using the purse power to get a state to pass a law instead of passing a federal law. I personally feel it's wrong to do that, but I digress). What is not mandatory is the (...) (25 years ago, 21-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <schnip!> (...) If I may expand on what Larry has said here; In some US states, drivers are supposed to ensure that they themselves, and their passengers are belted at all times while the vehicle (...) (25 years ago, 21-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Trying to understand
|
|
<snip> (...) Definitely agree here. And if you think I've got an opinion on this, you should hear my wife's comments when she sees someone else's unbelted kids in a moving car. In some ways I'm glad the other car is moving, so she can't completely (...) (25 years ago, 21-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
