Set Reference Set Reference (Popup) Parts Reference News News (Debate)

Off-Topic / Debate / 796

Re: New Web Page —Richard Dee     On Wed, 12 May 1999 00:32:49 GMT, Larry Pieniazek uttered the following profundities... (...) No comments on education. I am not of schooling age, nor have children, or likely to in the near future. (When considering flameage in your replies, (...) (26 years ago, 12-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                Re: New Web Page —James Brown       In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Dee writes: <snipped several pointed questions about gun control> (...) How about: People react to a dangerous situation depending on a number of factors, one of which is their knowledge of their capabilities. If (...) (26 years ago, 12-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Richard Dee       On Wed, 12 May 1999 22:20:20 GMT, James Brown uttered the following profundities... (...) Thank you. That was along the lines of what I had hoped to convey. (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                Re: New Web Page —Mike Stanley       (...) Why? People are usually as polarized on this issue as the abortion issue. (...) It is my contention that the only thing more disgusting than bringing up a tragedy like this in such a "if you support the right to own a gun you think those (...) (26 years ago, 12-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —John DiRienzo         I just want to put my two cents on this one, whereas I will just keep my big mouth shut about the other threads... For what its worth, Mike Stanly seems to absolutely right! (again) Mike Stanley wrote in message ... (...) Good point, I think I will (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Christopher L. Weeks           (...) For the record, I think that my beliefs are subject to change, but others have tried to convince me and it hasn't happened on this issue. (...) This is the key practical point, as far as I see it. (...) And this is the key ethical point which (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            Re: New Web Page —Steve Bliss           (...) I believe it has something to do with the fact that the police are only *supposed* to be involved in situations where a crime has been committed. No crime, no punishment. Can you imagine what would happen if citizens could be punished because (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            Re: New Web Page —John DiRienzo           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 (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Larry Pieniazek         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. (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Mike Stanley         (...) Yeah, that's why I won't be wasting much time on it. The total nuts on both sides are wrong, imo. (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Lee Jorgensen         (...) I would have to agree with Mike. The biggest problem with gun legislation, is that it's in the second amendment of the US Constitution. Spelled out specifically. If the government deems is necessary to take away that amendement, what's to stop (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Steve Bliss           (...) There's already nothing to stop them from overruling any of the amendments. I don't see your argument. Steve (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            Re: New Web Page —Christopher L. Weeks             (...) The second amendment means that if they get too carried away with negating our rights, we can take them back. (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            Re: New Web Page —Mike Stanley           (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Richard Dee           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 (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Larry Pieniazek             (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Ed Jones             (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Larry Pieniazek               (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                    Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Steve Bliss                 (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                        Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Duane Hess                 (...) I was about to seriously flame you, but then I figured that you were being sarcastic. ...You were being sarcastic, weren't you? Duane (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                        Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Steve Bliss                 (...) 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 (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                        Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Duane Hess                   (...) Why are we in this NG then? I can't debate either statement :-) Duane (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                        Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —John Neal                   (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 15-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                            Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Larry Pieniazek                   (...) Don't pin that on the D only. The R is right there behind them in "me too" mode. (26 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                        Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Mike Stanley                 (...) Well, except for maybe that one case that happens every now and then when the criminal trial verdict was clearly wrong. (26 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                        Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Christopher L. Weeks                 (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                        Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —James Brown                   (...) <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 (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                        Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Larry Pieniazek                   (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                            Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —John Neal                   Two things. 1) You can *never* be 100% sure that anyone committed any crime with circumstantial evidence. 2) Were you a juror for the O.J. travesty, uh sorry, trial? -John <donning asbestos suit for wrath of Lar> (...) Repeat after me. I was (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                            Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Larry Pieniazek                   (...) Agreed. But it takes "beyond a reasonable doubt" not "certain", We had very reasonable doubts based on what we were presented. But I'm pretty sure this particular perp was guilty, or that the DA was lying to us about the circumstances. There (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                            Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —John Neal                   (...) ?? [1] (...) [1] didn't you mean to put the footnote *after* "H"? ;-) -John (...) (26 years ago, 18-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)                                            Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Larry Pieniazek                   (...) perform proper subexpression substitution (1) and you get IMNAAHO which after variable substitution(1) results in In My Not At All Humble Opinion. So no. it was in the right place. Anyone here think of me as humble? Didn't think so. (1) (...) (26 years ago, 18-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)                                            Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —John Neal                     (...) Holy purple imacs, Macman, we've been slighted! (I think) Lar's quite obscure here...must go look up "innumerate" in this context. At least we mac users don't end our sentences with prepositions;-) -John (...) (26 years ago, 18-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)                                                Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Larry Pieniazek                       (...) Real Computers are grey, or possibly black. Furthermore, that was a fragment, not a sentence. Stuff THAT up your 8 wide tunnel portal. (26 years ago, 19-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)                                                    Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —John Neal                         (...) Which, a "real computer", or your fragment [1]? If you meant the computer, then I guess it is a *good* thing it's 8 wide;-) [1] Naughty sentence structure we mac users would never use on our pink computers;-) -John (...) (26 years ago, 19-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)                                                    Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Jasper Janssen                       (...) Larry! For shame! Indigo is a perfectly acceptable color for a computer. It runs Unix (Well.. kindasorta Unix, anyway), after all. Jasper (25 years ago, 30-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)                                                Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Larry Pieniazek                       (...) Or periods. Apparently, anyway. (26 years ago, 19-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)                                                    Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —John Neal                         (...) How's this Jurassic (...) (26 years ago, 19-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)                                                    Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Larry Pieniazek                         (...) In your case, Neanderthal springs to mind. But that's not a period, it's a subspecies. That fits. When I think of you, subhuman DOES seem to fill the bill. (26 years ago, 19-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)                                                        Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Jasper Janssen                           (...) <stuff> (...) Has Mr Neal been doing naughty things in my absence? Jasper (25 years ago, 30-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)                                                        Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —John Neal                         (...) *I* have been good. But enough about me. Where have *you* been? It's been fun watching you whirling through the posts getting caught up and getting in your .02's worth;-) -John (...) (25 years ago, 31-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)                                                        Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Jasper Janssen                         (...) Glad you like it ;) I've been everywhere, sorta. alt.comics.user-friendly alt.fan.bert-hubert alt.folklore.urban alt.humor.best-of-usenet alt.lifestyle.barefoot alt.peeves alt.sex.ctulhu alt.sport.darts alt.sport.snooker alt.sysadmin.bofh (...) (25 years ago, 31-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)                                                    Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —John Neal                       (...) <Duck!> Another one, ProtoimacMan! Quick, do something! What's that? You want a banana?! Not me, I already eight;-) -John (...) (26 years ago, 19-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)                                                Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page) —Lindsay Frederick Braun                     (...) BTW, The preposition rule doesn't really exist. It's up there with the one that says "never split infinitives," which doesn't really exist either. Bill Bryson wrote a rather entertaining exposition on it in _Mother Tongue_ that made a (...) (26 years ago, 21-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)                                                Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page) —Jasper Janssen                     (...) I just noticed today that one of the Teletubbies is an ObMelanin-challenged character. I thought they kept PC out of that show (considering Mr Falwell's recent gaffe), but alack, no such luck. Jasper (26 years ago, 27-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)                                            Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Jasper Janssen                   (...) You're a lot more humble than "The Humblest Man On The Net". So, well... No further comment. Jasper (26 years ago, 27-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)                                        Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Terry Keller                   (...) Sounds like a movie title, or a 'professional' wrestling bill; "Lugnet Gun Debate Wars III: The Wrath Of Lar" -- Terry K -- (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                        Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page) —Steve Bliss                   On Fri, 21 May 1999 09:56:29 GMT, Mr L F Braun <braunli1@pilot.msu.edu> wrote: [interesting stuff snipped off] (...) ... I am a miwwionaire ... Steve (26 years ago, 21-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)                                        Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Richard Dee                   On Mon, 17 May 1999 14:25:19 GMT, Christopher L. Weeks uttered the following profundities... (...) An argument I had often used here in relation to Louise Woodward. (The general populace in the UK were convinced of her innocence, but had not the (...) (25 years ago, 31-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                        Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Richard Dee                   On Mon, 17 May 1999 23:40:30 GMT, Larry Pieniazek uttered the following profundities... (...) Why the death penalty was abolished in the UK. Shall we go down that road? Would the incorrect execution of one individual sway the overwhelmingly (...) (25 years ago, 31-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                            Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Larry Pieniazek                     (...) Been down it before. Most libertarians are opposed to Capital Punishment. Too irreversible. Now, granted, even if you're sentenced to life, you could still die before your time due to some random prisoner or guard, but at least the odds of (...) (25 years ago, 31-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Jasper Janssen                       (...) They don't have to make license plates. They could be making low-tech electronics, as currently typically hand-made in the East. Jasper (25 years ago, 1-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Terry Keller                       (...) Or they could be put to work staffing phones for airline reservations. Handling credit card transactions for unsuspecting travelers. Oh, wait. Been done. Stupid idea. :-/ -- Terry K -- (25 years ago, 1-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                    Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Mike Stanley                       (...) I'd say prisoners should be put to hard physical labor. I've always pictured the most appropriate and just prison as one that in many ways resembles what I lived in during basic training in the Army. Very tight "living quarters" with no (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Richard Dee                       On Tue, 1 Jun 1999 00:17:12 GMT, Jasper Janssen uttered the following profundities... (...) Even higher-tech! But those are jobs that potentially pay very well in the west. There are bound to be some regional-margin, profit potential products, where (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Richard Dee                       On Tue, 1 Jun 1999 02:21:22 GMT, Mike Stanley uttered the following profundities... (...) Road building. People always need new roads. Roads always need repair. Cleaning of public monuments or buildings. With a toothbrush. Mining. With a hammer and (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                    Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Christopher L. Weeks                         (...) Cleaning? Building! The Egyptians built the Pyramids with hand labor, I'm sure we could too. Or a row of sphinxes, each with the likeness of a president...one each. (...) Honestly, I think it's silly to waste their time...why not seek to use (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                    Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Frank Filz                       (...) While I do agree that prisoners should be put to work, the Bill of Rights also has a statement about cruel and unusual punishments. Also, overly mindless work is likely to result in more problems in prison. I say give them less desireable, yet (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —John Neal                       <MPG.11be590bb94e339...ugnet.com> <37553A69.6AA0B7DF@c...souri.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I do not think that the Egyptians built the (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                    Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Christopher L. Weeks                       (...) I have not been convinced of the existance of some ancient astronauts who would have helped out. I do not believe that they are a recent project. This only leaves the ancients. (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Richard Dee                       On Wed, 2 Jun 1999 14:09:10 GMT, Christopher L. Weeks uttered the following profundities... (...) But it should be punishment, as well as rehabilitation, no? (25 years ago, 2-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                    Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Christopher L. Weeks                       (...) No. Well, sort of. This will fly in the face of what many people believe, but punishment - in and of itself - is silly. Punishment only makes sense if it will achieve some outcome...typically teaching a lesson. When children are punished, most (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Lindsay Frederick Braun                       <MPG.11be590bb94e339...ugnet.com> <37553A69.6AA0B7DF@c...souri.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Question: Would Grover Cleveland get two? :) LFB. (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —John Neal                       <375581D8.3E8859C3@uswest.net> <37568EBF.4515046D@c...souri.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) But of course! [1] Actually, Dr. Graham Hancock (URL) (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                    Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Terry Keller                       (...) By all means Troll away. :-) Might be fun. Though it will inevitably lead to someone mentioning that Von Daniken (sp?) guy. (oh wait, I just did) -- Terry K -- (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Richard Dee                       On Thu, 3 Jun 1999 14:22:07 GMT, Christopher L. Weeks uttered the following profundities... (...) I am sure we agree somewhere in there, except for maybe the interpretation of punishment. The work would be productive, & repay the debt to society (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Christopher L. Weeks                     <3756A767.EB4CE78@uswest.net> <37570950.2349784@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) See, it was inevitable. ;-) (25 years ago, 4-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                            Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Frank Filz                   (...) In fact, I seem to remember that Michael Dukakis (former govener or Massachussetts and one time presidential canditate for non-americans and those with short memories) caught flak for being soft on crime for finally officially recognizing that (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                        Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page) —Richard Dee                   On Fri, 21 May 1999 09:56:29 GMT, Mr L F Braun uttered the following profundities... (...) Teletubbies cannot possibly be a cause of violence, merely a reaction to it. I propose as a target for violent urges. Though students in the UK suggest they (...) (25 years ago, 31-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)                                            Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page) —John Neal                   Wow, Richard. Remember, any time spent watching that show cannot be gotten back;-) -John (...) (25 years ago, 31-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)                                        Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page) —Richard Dee                   On Mon, 31 May 1999 23:04:38 GMT, John Neal uttered the following profundities... (...) I watched it at work. :o) Watch mindless drivel? Or watch the dribbling mindless? (1) (1) Sort-of supervisory position....work for an airline.(2) (2) May or may (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)                                        Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Richard Dee                   On Mon, 31 May 1999 22:11:06 GMT, Larry Pieniazek uttered the following profundities... (...) We agree on something. Even though most that have been executed have no doubt received a correct conviction, the irreversibility of it.... Productivity (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                        Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Richard Dee                 On Tue, 1 Jun 1999 18:35:52 GMT, Frank Filz uttered the following profundities... (...) Probably not known about because it is too common an occurrence, in countries where capital punishment exists, or has existed. (If it happens twice, anywhere, (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                    Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Frank Filz                 (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                    Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Jasper Janssen               (...) Yeah. Right. You're making this claim way too boldly here, IMHO. Oppressive to the colonies, hell yes, but oppressive in its own society? Not very. IOW, that does not an oppressive regime make. So, why haven't I seen anyone point to the two (...) (26 years ago, 28-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Duane Hess               (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                    Doberman control (Was: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page) ) —Jeremy H. Sproat                 (...) 'Cause a doberman will bite your face off if it misfires. :-P Cheers, - jsproat (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)                                    Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Christopher L. Weeks                 (...) 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. (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                        Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Duane Hess                 (...) 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_ (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                        Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Christopher L. Weeks                   (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                            Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Duane Hess                   (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                            Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Mike Stanley                   (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                            Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Duane Hess                   (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                        Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Mike Stanley                 (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                        Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Frank Filz                 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 (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                    Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Mike Stanley                 (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                        Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Frank Filz                   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 (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                            Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Steve Bliss                   (...) That is my hope, belief, and aim. Steve (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                            Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Duane Hess                   (...) This may be some common ground where we can all agree. Duane (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                            Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Mike Stanley                     (...) I can agree with the thought. Never safe to assume that the losers who end up making up the regulations and nit-picky junk would actually create a program that would be effective. (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Steve Bliss                       (...) True. In which case, it would be time to change the legislation. But, I think training which is mostly ineffective is still better than no training. Maybe I've been watching too much TV (entirely likely), but I have these mental images of (...) (26 years ago, 18-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Duane Hess                       (...) I can only hope that anyone who holds a gun has the same feelings that I do. I have enough experience with guns (at least rifles and a few different types of handgun) that I am confident in my own abilities to use one if need be, but it still (...) (26 years ago, 18-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Mike Stanley                       (...) Debatable, I guess. The "training" that they require in TN, at least as administered here in Knox county, is laughable. The written test is practically answered question by question by the instructor. The firing test is about as hard as it (...) (26 years ago, 18-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                    Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Martin Legault                       (...) Hi, I don't know if I am like a hair in the soup but I don't have time to read all previous postings in that thread. What I can see is that your debating gun control, in Canada if you want to buy a weapon you need a permit and succed a weapon (...) (26 years ago, 18-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                A summation? (was Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Larry Pieniazek                       <slrn7k3ois.1dt.cjc@...S.UTK.EDU> <FBy91u.K5w@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) You came late but your statement above is the crux of the debate. A lot of people do not buy this link, do (...) (26 years ago, 19-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                    Re: A summation? (was Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Christopher L. Weeks                         (...) What can change the opinions? I know that in discussions, I have changed my mind on stances, but I can't isolate the essential element of what convinced me - beyond inarguable logic. But why is it that with pretty similar backgrounds, we see (...) (26 years ago, 19-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                    Re: A summation? (was Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Duane Hess                         In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <Snipped a bunch of stuff> Larry, you are correct in saying that very few opinions will be changed as a result of the debating that is currently raging withing this group. The reason that I debate (...) (26 years ago, 19-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                    Re: A summation? (was Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Martin Legault                       (...) number (...) I feel happy to know another (1) american that is not "gun crazy". Some time poeple realy realy want to do or own wathever they want that they will find any excuse possible to validate their choice even if they now that they are (...) (26 years ago, 19-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: A summation? (was Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Larry Pieniazek                       <37421ED7.8F4BB887@voyager.net> <FBzGnp.L04@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Ya, me too. A debate is different than an argument! In formal debating the goal is to convince the bystanders, (...) (26 years ago, 20-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: A summation? (was Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Larry Pieniazek                       <37421ED7.8F4BB887@voyager.net> <FC01x0.2AH@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Who? I am not "gun crazy", whatever that means, but I own a handgun, am trained in its effective use(1), am (...) (26 years ago, 20-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                    Re: A summation? (was Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Martin Legault                       (...) <snip> (...) Ho no! you do! :-( (...) (26 years ago, 20-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: A summation? (was Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Richard Dee                       On Wed, 19 May 1999 13:55:11 GMT, Christopher L. Weeks uttered the following profundities... (...) Because to some (not necessarily me, I am not stating my true beliefs until I have read all posts), gun ownership can restrict freedom. By which I (...) (25 years ago, 31-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: A summation? (was Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Richard Dee                       On Wed, 19 May 1999 14:09:25 GMT, Duane Hess uttered the following profundities... (...) Was I challenging them? Wishing to understand them? Trolling you? (25 years ago, 31-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                    Re: A summation? (was Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Duane Hess                       (...) Yes, you were challenging me. Which is not a bad thing. In trying to understand my point of view you were asking questions which I may, or may not have had an answer for. For those questions that I had an answer for, I stated my answer. For (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Trolling etc. (was: Re: A summation? (was Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page)) —Christopher L. Weeks                     <MPG.11bcd21f4c15bcb...ugnet.com> <FCnK1r.I33@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) This reminds me of the bone-head required English writing class that I had to take for my college degree in (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                            Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Christopher L. Weeks                   (...) 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)                                            Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Jasper Janssen                     (...) 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 (26 years ago, 28-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                            Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Christopher L. Weeks                   (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 28-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                            Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Jasper Janssen                   (...) 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...). (...) Well, yeah. I mean, however much _anyone_ may or (...) (25 years ago, 30-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                            Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Christopher L. Weeks                   (...) 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. (25 years ago, 1-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                        Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Duane Hess                 (...) Yes, I am very aware of the impact that this would have. That is my point. (...) weapons (...) a (...) useless (...) from (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                    Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Richard Dee               On Fri, 14 May 1999 14:37:11 GMT, Duane Hess uttered the following profundities... (...) But is in itself an amendment. Other rights and issues have been amended, reinforced, clarified, etc. (and one repealed). One observation, and I am not (...) (25 years ago, 31-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                    Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Jasper Janssen                 (...) You can run for president if both your parents, at the time of your birth, had the American nationality. Army brats _can_ run for president. Also, if you are born in a region which later _becomes_ part of the US, you can do so. This was (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                    constitutional discussion (was:Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Christopher L. Weeks                 (...) I think it's a pretty strong corner-stone for our nation. It may need to be altered as time marches on...I just don't see a burning need. Actually, I would like to see the ammendments that pass the rights and duties which aren't specifically (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                        Re: constitutional discussion (was:Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Duane Hess                   (...) <SNIP> (...) OK, I don't agree with you on gun control, but I agree with this statement. I don't see any difference between running the country (government) and running a business. One issue that comes to mind is a top heavy business. If the (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                            Re: constitutional discussion (was:Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Richard Dee                   On Tue, 1 Jun 1999 20:11:48 GMT, Duane Hess uttered the following profundities... How depressing. I posted non-controversial things. People actually agreed with a statement or two I had made. Should go to fun instead of debate. A country is a (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                            Re: constitutional discussion (was:Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Larry Pieniazek                   (...) No particular LP stance. Divisive issue, but we're a big tent. There are those of the libertarian persuasion, including myself, who are not convinced that soverignity requires territoriality, that is, that only one governmental system should (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                            Re: constitutional discussion (was:Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Christopher L. Weeks                     Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Is it really a divisive issue? (...) Puhleeese? We can all read The Machinery of Freedom and discuss the historical legal system of Iceland and relate how a PPL might (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                            Re: constitutional discussion (was:Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Steve Bliss                     X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235 (...) But then there's no competition, so they don't have any incentive to increase value. Steve (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: constitutional discussion (was:Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Jasper Janssen                     On Thu, 3 Jun 1999 15:47:24 GMT, blisses@worldnet.att.net (Steve Bliss) wrote: <governments> (...) Sure there is. There is just as much competition between governments as between companies. There's over 200 countries on this globe. Contrast _that_ (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                            Re: constitutional discussion (was:Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Richard Dee                     X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.10 On Thu, 3 Jun 1999 00:05:56 GMT, Larry Pieniazek uttered the following profundities... (...) I shall perhaps look that up. One example which came to mind was the Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson. (...) (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                                Re: constitutional discussion (was:Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Jasper Janssen                     (...) + All right, Humphrey, close down the hospital. - Yes, Prime Minister. Jasper (25 years ago, 5-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                            Re: constitutional discussion (was:Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Jasper Janssen                   (...) Or for a slightly darker, and shorter, look, try the Spike Bike series, available on the internet. Jasper (25 years ago, 5-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                        Re: constitutional discussion (was:Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Richard Dee                 On Tue, 1 Jun 1999 19:21:06 GMT, Christopher L. Weeks uttered the following profundities... (...) But horses are non-humanoid quadrapeds, and slaves were in fact bipedal humanoid. The only difference between slaves and non-slaves were skin kerotin (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                        Re: constitutional discussion (was:Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Christopher L. Weeks                 (...) I agree that the distinction was foolish, and it was clear that some (Jefferson possibly) slave owners purposfully deluded themselves because they had it so good with slaves. nontheless, I think that is the explanation of why slaves didn't (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                        Re: constitutional discussion (was:Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Richard Dee                   On Thu, 3 Jun 1999 14:50:20 GMT, Christopher L. Weeks uttered the following profundities... (...) They did get a lot of other things correct, though. A shame it took another 109 years for the world to become re- enlightened. (Cuba in 1898 I believe (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                        Re: constitutional discussion (was:Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Frank Filz                 (...) And everyone is going to tremble when Alabama gets the bomb... (25 years ago, 4-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                    (canceled) —Christopher L. Weeks                                Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Lee Jorgensen             (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Larry Pieniazek             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 (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Steve Bliss             (...) 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 (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Mike Stanley               (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page —Christopher L. Weeks             (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            Re: New Web Page —Jeff Stembel             (...) All laws are reasonable, even that one in New York(?) that says it is illegal to have an Ice Cream cone in you pocket. ;) Jeff (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)                                Re: New Web Page —Jeremy H. Sproat             (...) Oh, that is *so* unfair to us ice cream enthusiasts. This is cruel and unusual nourishment, and has language *specifically* addressing it in the Constitution. Cheers, - jsproat (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)                                Re: New Web Page —Tom McDonald               (...) illegal (...) LOL I get around that law by carrying it in my shoe. But I guess I'm still breaking the Constitution! BTW, is it just the cone that's illegal or does it have to have ice cream in it? Here in California if there was no ice cream (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)                                    Re: New Web Page —Jeff Stembel               (...) breaking (...) Hehehehe! It may just be Ice Cream, but I'm not sure. I *think* I heard this on the history channel. There's another I forgot to mention. In Florida, it is illegal to tie your elephant to a parking meter. ;) Jeff (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)                                    Re: New Web Page —Jeremy H. Sproat                 (...) Grrrr. That does it! I am *finished* goofing around. This kind of legistlature just gets me all red in the nose. It gives me a big frown on my face. Great. Now my makeup's running and my hankie is making strange honking sounds. I'm taking my (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)                                    Re: New Web Page —Tom McDonald               (...) That's because they can't cash in on it. I can see some of the courtroom proceedings now: Defendant: "Well there wasn't a meter when I got there, your honor." Judge: "No meter at all? We have other parking tickets dated that day for that (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)                                Re: New Web Page —Steve Campbell             (...) Man, that's really cold... SteveC (URL) (26 years ago, 18-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)                            Re: New Web Page —Mike Stanley           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, (...) (26 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            Re: New Web Page —John Neal             <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 (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                Re: New Web Page —Larry Pieniazek             (...) 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. (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                Re: New Web Page —Steve Bliss             (...) What's HCI? (...) On the open road, you are only seconds away from death. Scary thought, the first time you realize it. Especially if you're doing 70MPH through a forest area at the time. In case anyone hasn't noticed, I see a *big* parallel (...) (26 years ago, 18-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                Re: New Web Page —James Brown               (...) Actually, unless theres an amendment I'm not aware of, you don't have the right to own a car. You have the opportunity to own a car, like any property, based on their availability and your financial capability. You can be granted the (...) (26 years ago, 18-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                Re: New Web Page —Terry Keller             (...) So true. I hit a turkey last year. Damn thing stepped out of the brush and started to walk onto the road. In slow motion, I see its legs flex and launch itself into the air....... SMACK! Right into the windshield on the passenger side. Thought (...) (26 years ago, 19-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                Re: New Web Page —Larry Pieniazek               (...) And old granddads. While we're at it, get rid of Johnny Walker! (...) Still applies. Followups set to .pun (26 years ago, 19-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.pun)                                    Re: New Web Page —Mike Stanley                 (...) Just as long as you don't get rid of Bushmills. (26 years ago, 20-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.pun)                                    Re: New Web Page —Jasper Janssen               (...) Now _that_ (the latter) would be an improvement. Jasper (26 years ago, 28-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)                                Re: New Web Page —Steve Bliss             (...) And if you did this in TN, you could have turkey for dinner. Steve (26 years ago, 19-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            Re: New Web Page —Richard Dee           On Sun, 16 May 1999 16:26:40 GMT, Mike Stanley uttered the following profundities... (...) Unable for those particular items. However, as stated elsewhere, requested the information to lead to understanding and enlightenment. It is possible to (...) (25 years ago, 31-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            Re: New Web Page —Mike Stanley             (...) If I were a mindreader and could know what I was dealing with was a petty thief who wanted nothing more than my television or my toys, then MAYBE, just maybe I wouldn't shoot him to death. Given the fact that I would more than likely be (...) (25 years ago, 31-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                Re: New Web Page —Christopher L. Weeks               (...) Right. Just pop a cap in each knee and let the f@*#er get away easy. :-) (...) Right. Ya pays ya money ya takes ya chances. The burgler chose a line of work that was likely to be short-lived. (...) Oops, maybe I was wrong in my earlier note. (25 years ago, 1-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                    Re: New Web Page —John Neal               (...) Ha, so he could go find himself a bloodsucker and sue *you*!! And he'd prolly win. It's the American Way... (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                Re: New Web Page —Richard Dee             On Mon, 31 May 1999 23:10:10 GMT, Mike Stanley uttered the following profundities... <snipped for brevity> (...) Perhaps I might have worded it more specifically, such as you surprise a burglar, wearing shorts, no shirt, holding a tv or castle in (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            Re: New Web Page —Christopher L. Weeks           (...) As much as anyone can. Can you rule out the possibility that you might freak out and decide to use your automobile as a deadly weapon? Since you can not rule that out any more than Mike can rule out the same WRT his handgun(s), I figure that (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            Re: New Web Page —Richard Dee           On Tue, 1 Jun 1999 19:45:08 GMT, Christopher L. Weeks uttered the following profundities... (...) And, as much as I hate guns, can no more say now how my opinions would change (or not) had I or someone close to me been, or should become, a victim of (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Jeff Stembel         (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Christopher L. Weeks           (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            Re: New Web Page —Terry Keller           (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            Re: New Web Page —Steve Bliss           (...) 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 (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            Re: New Web Page —Terry Keller           (...) True. And any who did would throw popcorn and tell you to shut up. (...) Yep. That is the idea. Complete freedom in a society is a chimera. -- Terry K -- (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            Re: New Web Page —Steve Bliss           (...) I much prefer to yell "Use the force, Luke!" in showings of any of the first three movies. SW is starting to sound like a bad Abbott and Costello bit[1]. "What's the first movie?" "Number 4" "No, the first one" "Right" Steve /1/ Did the "Click (...) (26 years ago, 18-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Frank Filz           (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Richard Dee         On Fri, 14 May 1999 16:30:06 GMT, Jeff Stembel uttered the following profundities... (...) And implies justification for the draft/conscription, subject to personal ownership of arms. (25 years ago, 31-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Steve Bliss       (...) I agree with this statement. I think a 'gun license', similar to a 'driving license', is a reasonable and rational requirement for gun ownership. Anyone who wants to legally obtain a gun should be willing to go through a period of training and (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Frank Filz         (...) The only problem I see with a gun license is the creation of a list of gun owners, which would make the job of the out of control government cracking down on the population easier (recall that this is one of the major reasons for the 2nd (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Steve Bliss         (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Guns, guns, guns (was: Re: New Web Page) —Christopher L. Weeks         (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Richard Dee         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 (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Mike Stanley         (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Christopher L. Weeks       (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —John DiRienzo       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? (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Larry Pieniazek         John DiRienzo wrote: <snip> (...) Well said and very libertarian, thank you. (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Christopher L. Weeks         (...) So, should we assume that taxation, in any form other than optional user fees, by your definition is evil? (If so, we agree.) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —John DiRienzo         Christopher L. Weeks wrote in message <37402D13.FE6DEC19@c...ri.edu>... (...) a (...) Well, obviously! And to think the evil man Jesus said, "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's!" This may be good advice which can be worded in other ways - obey your (...) (26 years ago, 18-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —John Neal         Wow, you lost me there. Please clarify the "evil man Jesus" and "better fictitious god" statements. -John (...) (26 years ago, 20-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Larry Pieniazek         (...) Under his analysis Jesus was evil, not just misguided, and was a man, not the Son of God. Further, God is fictitious, and there exist better fictions, for example the one he gave. Seems clear to me. Try to keep up, eh? I confess I hadn't taken (...) (26 years ago, 20-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Jesus is OK (was Re: New Web Page) —John Neal         (...) Analysis?! Based on what? Not facts. For "rational folk", y'all seem pretty confident in things about which you know nothing, which to me sounds irrational. Further, you hold God is fictitious because you have no proof, which *certainly* (...) (26 years ago, 20-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: Jesus is OK (was Re: New Web Page) —Duane Hess         (...) Here we go again. History does have a way of repeating itself. (26 years ago, 20-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: Jesus is OK (was Re: New Web Page) —Larry Pieniazek         (...) **I'M** certainly not going to plow this ground again. This has been talked about here ad nauseum and I haven't the bandwidth to get into a debate about the existence of god. Suffice it to say that I'm as satisfied of his non existance as (...) (26 years ago, 21-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: Jesus is OK (was Re: New Web Page) —John Neal           (...) I've heard that before;-) (...) The Inquisition moved to Michigan??! What a terrible imposition;-) (...) Don't look at me. **I'M** not the troll who trolled out "evil Jesus" and "fictitious god". I have no intentions of cramming anything down (...) (26 years ago, 21-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: Jesus is OK (was Re: New Web Page) —Steve Bliss         (...) Tell me about it. I spend all day dodging the inquisitor. Steve (26 years ago, 21-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Richard Dee       On Fri, 14 May 1999 21:58:19 GMT, John DiRienzo uttered the following profundities... (...) There's that word, Constitutionally, again. Used as though it was without flaw, without error, a holy scripture as though written by god(s) (...) (25 years ago, 31-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                Re: New Web Page —Frank Filz       I should probably stay out of this but... Note that I don't personally own a gun. (...) The availability of guns is a factor in the recent school tragedies, but most of the tragedies would probably still have happened in some way (though probably (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Christopher L. Weeks         (...) Maybe (...) How so? This is the only one that I don't 'get' right off. (...) I really think these last two bullets are right on. Everything else stems from these, and I really think that the second to last is derivative of the last. Parents (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Frank Filz         (...) In that I think it leads people to want a solution to some problem NOW! This makes violence as a means to solve a problem more likely. It also creates higher stress which makes it more likely that someone will crack. (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Lindsay Frederick Braun       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 (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Larry Pieniazek         Great post. Sums up the arguments I was advancing pretty cogently. Mr L F Braun wrote: <snip> (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Lee Jorgensen       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 (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Steve Bliss       (...) If he did that, he would have lost the argument by default. Steve (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Mention Hitler? You lose (was Re: New Web Page —Larry Pieniazek       (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: Mention Hitler? You lose (was Re: New Web Page —Lindsay Frederick Braun       (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 15-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                Re: New Web Page —Christopher L. Weeks     (...) How would that change anything? (...) OK, I'll bite :-) (...) Absolutely. 100% (...) I don't want to call them insignificant, but I think that due to the way you've phrased the question, the only answer I can give is Yes. I think that the RKBA (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                Re: New Web Page —Richard Dee       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!" (...) (...) (26 years ago, 13-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Jeff Stembel         (...) 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 (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Mike Stanley         (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Jeff Stembel         (...) like (...) I'll see what I can do. I'm sure it's on one of my numerous disks lying around my desk. :) Anyways, sorry for not responding earlier, I stopped reading the board and I just now remembered that people may have answered my posts. :) (...) (26 years ago, 21-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Christopher L. Weeks       (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Jeff Stembel         (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Christopher L. Weeks         (...) 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. (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Lindsay Frederick Braun         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 (...) (26 years ago, 15-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Frank Filz           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 (...) (26 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            Re: New Web Page —Lindsay Frederick Braun           Sorry for the absence--it's been a long week. (...) I'm not talking about accepting French aid--which was instrumental to our success--but in exalting the French and the aristocracy of that country. There was a ton of Francophilia going on in the (...) (26 years ago, 21-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Christopher L. Weeks         (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Lindsay Frederick Braun         Hi again, (...) I try only to make stuff up when it's inconsequential. ;) My "field" isn't early US/18th C. Britain, it's later, so all I have is ancillary knowledge and methodological things. I'm in agreement with the "they had different worries" (...) (26 years ago, 21-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Lindsay Frederick Braun           (...) Apologies--I snipped the conversation-order. Erk. I need to stop working so late. LFB. (26 years ago, 21-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Christopher L. Weeks         (...) "The people" - then and now - are whatever people we assume the constatution governs. That has clearly changed. I don't have answers to the fine points (e.g. are illegal aliens part of the people?) but I think that we can comfortably agree (...) (26 years ago, 21-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Frank Filz         (...) The Massachusetts militia were organized by towns. I think under an elected officer. The towns of course were (and still are) governed by open town meeting (total democracy).I don't recall how a leader was chosen when the militia of several (...) (26 years ago, 21-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Mike Stanley       (...) 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? (26 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Christopher L. Weeks         (...) Yeah, but have you checked out the new blow-dried Andrew Jackson on the 20? We're moving that way :-) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Duane Hess         (...) Do you think that's gel I see in his portrait? It looks like he's fresh from the stylist. :-) Duane (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —John Neal         Yeah, "but he's worth it!";-) -John (...) (26 years ago, 20-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Lindsay Frederick Braun         (The Color of Money [isn't that a movie?] stuff snipped) (...) The stylist may simply have been afraid of him. Look at the eyes--they're absolutely psychotic in a way I've never seen on US money. So he's coiffed *and* crazy; this may be part of the (...) (26 years ago, 23-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Terry Keller         (...) It might be pretty to look at, but I think it is a waste. Sure, the coins will "last longer, thus reducing printing costs associated with bills". But who really wants to carry around big, heavy dollar coins? And it will probably be big - size (...) (26 years ago, 24-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Lindsay Frederick Braun           (...) The big failing was the thickness. Had it been twice as thick, there probably wouldn't have been such a lousy response to it. It really was way too quarterlike (the infamous "Carter Quarter," which you can still get in large numbers from (...) (26 years ago, 24-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            Re: New Web Page —Christopher L. Weeks             (...) Am I the only one who likes the SueB? I never got them confused with quarters (but I was in the third grade) and still feel nostalgic when I get them in change at the post office vending machines. (...) And $2s rock too. They must have at (...) (26 years ago, 25-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            Re: New Web Page —Frank Filz             (...) At certain caving events I go to, the organizers, and most of the vendors stock up on $2 bills. The idea is that when you go out to a restaurant for dinner, or otherwise spend money in town, the townies see all these $2 bills and realize how (...) (26 years ago, 25-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                Re: New Web Page —Larry Pieniazek               (...) So you're saying 2's rock too?? Or are you saying they're a bit hollow? Seriously, I have heard of other groups that want people to know what their economic impact is doing the same thing. Seems a neat idea. (26 years ago, 26-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                    Re: New Web Page —Steve Bliss               (...) It sure beats marking quarters. Steve (26 years ago, 26-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                                Re: New Web Page —Lindsay Frederick Braun             (...) Hey, I know you can get $1 bills from the Treasury in pads--can you get $2 that way too? An old roomie of mine had no end of trouble from people refusing to believe that $1 on a pad could possibly be real. I get funny enough looks passing $2 (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            Re: New Web Page —Richard Dee           On Mon, 24 May 1999 23:09:02 GMT, Mr L F Braun uttered the following profundities... Snipped for brevity...... Pound coins do make life easier! Except for posting money, one couldn't send off a pound note to a charity, one only had a fiver! They (...) (25 years ago, 31-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Steve Bliss         (...) Augh! Quoting from (URL) (...) Why couldn't they have gone with a 27 or 28mm diameter? That would have been enough to differentiate the two coins! At least it won't have the same 'reeded' edge as a quarter! Hopefully, the thickness and weight (...) (26 years ago, 25-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Lindsay Frederick Braun           (...) Augh! is right! Oh, that's just plain idiotic. The only rationale I can see is that they don't want to have to retool all of the old coin-op machines in the post office and public transit around the country (provided it will be about the same (...) (26 years ago, 25-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Terry Keller           (...) My mistake. Same size. I still think it is not needed. -- Terry K -- (26 years ago, 25-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Steve Bliss           (...) That's a better explanation than anything I thought up. It especially makes sense, if the major rationale for a new dollar coin is for it to be used in vending machines. And if the size limit for vending machines is the 26.5mm quarter. (...) (...) (26 years ago, 25-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            Re: New Web Page —John Neal             (...) Don't forget-- this is America where a) bigger is better, b) bigger is more valuable, and 3;) therefore a dollar coin must be the size of a coaster. I point to Suzy B as an attempt to the contrary to rest my case. Oh, and I forgot-- the land (...) (26 years ago, 25-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            Re: New Web Page —Mike Stanley           (...) I haven't been paying much attention to this topic, either here or in the news, so it's new to me. Works for me, though. We make a point of saving all our change and using it to pay for groceries (at a store that has one of the counting (...) (26 years ago, 25-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Larry Pieniazek           <374a9c3e.76110762@lugnet.com> <slrn7klkb6.3rr.cjc@...S.UTK.EDU> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) You're willing to GIVE UP 8 cents on the dollar? Yeesh. Buy one of those machines and roll your own. (...) (26 years ago, 26-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            Re: New Web Page —Mike Stanley           (...) Well, if the machine actually works and doesn't require a lot of intervention from me it would be a good deal. If it requires a lot of TLC then it becomes a waste of my time. Dunno, I've spent hours rolling 40 or 50 dollars worth of coins (...) (26 years ago, 26-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Christopher L. Weeks           <374B3CBA.BCA00FF5@voyager.net> <slrn7kmk19.3vq.cjc@...S.UTK.EDU> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) My bank just does this for free. Is that rare or something? Why not just take it in occasionally when (...) (26 years ago, 26-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            Re: New Web Page —Mike Stanley           (...) My bank doesn't accept unrolled coins. I'm switching bank soons anyway, at least for the majority of my banking. We already have a savings account at the UTK credit union. My checking acct at my current bank is free, but I have to do all my (...) (26 years ago, 26-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            Re: New Web Page —Steve Bliss           (...) You must be younger than you seem. Policy has varied widely on this burning issue, but it used to be that *most* banks would roll coins for account holders. Steve (26 years ago, 26-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            Re: New Web Page —Mike Stanley           (...) Hrmmmm.... Thanks, I think? I wonder how young I seem? :) (...) Well, my bank sucks. I've only had accounts at ... 3 banks in my life, though, so I have limited experience. Wells Fargo, Nations Bank, and now First American. Soon I will move (...) (26 years ago, 26-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —John Neal           <374B6266.6F2EB049@c...souri.edu> <slrn7kn0lu.40s.cjc@...S.UTK.EDU> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Mine does it too, although it's a Credit Union. As (...) (26 years ago, 26-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            Re: New Web Page —Christopher L. Weeks             (...) Yeah, I suppose that's an issue, but I've never been screwed so much that I'd notice. Also, it's the same machine they use for their own stuff, so I'd assume that it's pretty top notch engineering. (26 years ago, 26-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                            Re: New Web Page —Lindsay Frederick Braun           (...) <plug> Same here--I don't deal with banks regularly anymore, but it seems that most small banks around NJ don't provide those little services while Credit Unions do. That, and much friendlier rates, interest-bearing no-fee checking, a solvent (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —John Neal         <374B86D0.1FEC2102@uswest.net> <37563579.4B4C2B7B@p...t.msu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) You are preaching to the choir here, brother! (25 years ago, 4-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Terry Keller       (...) Sure, lots of countries have pretty money. Some are outright garish. But I think the greenback has a certain understated elegance to it. -- Terry K -- (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Lindsay Frederick Braun         (...) Plus a certain understated recognition value. There's a brief piece on US currency and its legitimacy as a *global* standard of exchange in the New York Times magazine this weekend--worth reading, even if the nationalistic hyperbole gets (...) (26 years ago, 23-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Richard Dee       On Mon, 17 May 1999 23:41:55 GMT, Terry K uttered the following profundities... (...) I like the detail in US paper currency. I dislike the new style. (Same with postage stamps. Older US postage stamps were beautiful. These '90's ones look like they (...) (25 years ago, 31-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Jasper Janssen         (...) Sure you do. You just don't notice it any more... Sure, you can grow a habit of always checking the number on the bill before spending it. But what if you don't have your reading-glasses on? Recognising whether a bill is red, green, or blue is (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Terry Keller       (...) Generally agreed. (...) I can understand that. (...) Huh? Why is it illegal? -- Terry K -- (25 years ago, 1-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Richard Dee       On Tue, 1 Jun 1999 01:22:14 GMT, Terry K uttered the following profundities... (...) An assumption, based on the fact that most images of paper currency usually have something obscuring an important part of the note. Shall we do so, anyway? Front (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Terry Keller       (...) Oh, you want to scan them and compare online? AFAIK, in the US, it is not illegal to make copies of currency as long as the copy is a certain minimum percentage larger or smaller. Not sure of the percentage. 25% +- does spring to mind, though. (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Making money on the Net (Was: New Web Page) —Jeremy H. Sproat       (...) It's my understanding, also, that some percentage of the scan or copy needs to be obscured or obliterated. But that probably wouldn't get in the way of getting two scans, with different parts missing, and pasting them together digitally... (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: Making money on the Net (Was: New Web Page) —Terry Keller         (...) I must be sick, I just took the time to search this out: (URL) interesting. The most interesting point is the how to define "after their final use" in section #3. And, come to think of it, how does one specify a size on a computer monitor? For (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: Making money on the Net (Was: New Web Page) —Richard Dee         On Thu, 3 Jun 1999 08:49:06 GMT, Terry K uttered the following profundities... (...) I'll read it later. I do know a phenomenal amount of US dollar notes pass through London, via some US city, each week. Replacement of old bills going to the US, and (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: Making money on the Net (Was: New Web Page) —Richard Dee         After all of the discussion about currencies, I have scanned a few bank notes so people can compare. Here is the site: (URL) is the text from the page, should anyone wish to send me scans of their banknotes. After discussing currency on Lugnet, I (...) (25 years ago, 10-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: Making money on the Net (Was: New Web Page) —Frank Filz         (...) refused both last night and today. (25 years ago, 11-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: Making money on the Net (Was: New Web Page) —Frank Filz         (...) Must have been a server problem, works now... Nice. There is some kind of image problem though, the reverse of the UK 10 pound note is larger than the front. (25 years ago, 11-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: Making money on the Net (Was: New Web Page) —Larry Pieniazek         This page will load a LOT faster in most browsers if you use the height and width tags on the IMG tags. See the source of just about any of my pages for the syntax. (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: Making money on the Net (Was: New Web Page) —Richard Dee         Once upon a time, (on Fri, 11 Jun 1999 18:28:15 GMT, to be precise!), Larry Pieniazek uttered the following profundities.... (...) We had been discussing currencies. I think it was Mike who commented on other countries' pretty banknotes. (25 years ago, 11-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: Making money on the Net (Was: New Web Page) —Richard Dee         Once upon a time, (on Fri, 11 Jun 1999 12:38:54 GMT, to be precise!), Frank Filz uttered the following profundities.... (...) Nope, no typo! I linked to it directly from this post. You wouldn't be the 1st person to report refused connection, though. (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: Making money on the Net (Was: New Web Page) —Richard Dee         Once upon a time, (on Fri, 11 Jun 1999 18:15:04 GMT, to be precise!), Frank Filz uttered the following profundities.... (...) Whoops! Looks like I cut off a few millimetres of the right side. I intend to rescan them anyway, as they weren't the best (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: Making money on the Net (Was: New Web Page) —Richard Dee       Once upon a time, (on Fri, 11 Jun 1999 18:28:15 GMT, to be precise!), Larry Pieniazek uttered the following profundities.... (...) Didn't see that part. I deleted the height and width tags for the first one (used Web Edit Pro), and just copy/pasted (...) (25 years ago, 11-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                Re: New Web Page —John Neal       (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Lee Jorgensen       (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —John DiRienzo       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 (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                Re: New Web Page —Larry Pieniazek     (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                Re: New Web Page —Ed Jones     (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                Re: New Web Page —Larry Pieniazek       (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Duane Hess         (...) *LOL* Larry, you do have a way with words (...) I do agree with you on the TLG reference though. Duane (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Popular society (Was: New Web Page) —Jeremy H. Sproat         (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: Popular society (Was: New Web Page) —Mike Stanley         (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Ed Jones       (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Larry Pieniazek       (...) 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, (...) (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Ed Jones         (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 15-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Ed Jones         (...) 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. (26 years ago, 15-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Mike Stanley         (...) 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, (...) (26 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Christopher L. Weeks         (...) 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. (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Mike Stanley         (...) Really? I will have to look that up now. If for no other reason than curiosity. I'm not sure I'm ready to accept that I can only exercise my 2nd ammendment rights within the confines of my own state. (26 years ago, 20-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                        Re: New Web Page —Lindsay Frederick Braun         (...) My father explained it thus, many moons ago: If you're going to be carrying firearms from one state into another, you have to obtain a license from all the states involved--wherever you'll be carrying the firearm. If the target area (pun (...) (26 years ago, 24-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Richard Dee       On Fri, 14 May 1999 21:36:58 GMT, Larry Pieniazek uttered the following profundities... (...) Big news here a few years back. High car-rental ratios there, and rental cars were easily identifiable. They changed the registration plates as a result, (...) (25 years ago, 31-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                Re: New Web Page —Lindsay Frederick Braun       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 (...) (26 years ago, 15-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                Re: New Web Page —Mike Stanley     (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                Re: New Web Page —James Brown     (...) 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? (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                Re: New Web Page —Mike Stanley       (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —James Brown       (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Lindsay Frederick Braun       (...) Seems to me that the ones who'll break in while you are there *and* in a fairly gun-free area are either blindingly stupid or--more likely--intelligent and armed. After all, they're the ones who aren't caught or killed, and they rob again and (...) (26 years ago, 24-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                Re: New Web Page —Larry Pieniazek       (...) 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 (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —James Brown       (...) But the odds are as much in favor of the fatality being mine as anyone elses. If I'm involved in a violent crime, I would simply rather the chance of a fatality was slim or none. (...) Hm. I'm sorry, but the number of little old ladies who get (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                Re: New Web Page —Christopher L. Weeks     (...) If you live in the US (do you?) guns are readily available to criminals. When I was in highschool (roughly 1985-6) I was periferally associated with a group of kids who brought guns from Texas to Missouri and sold them to other kids at a huge (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                Re: New Web Page —James Brown     (...) I do not live in the US. Define 'readily available'. I can, with a certain amount of paperwork, go down to my local sporting goods store, or outdoor supplier, and pick up a hunting rifle or shotgun. I don't even know what I would have to do to (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                Re: New Web Page —Larry Pieniazek       (...) You're going to do what he says, huh? Even when he remembers that he forgot his mask, realises you probably ID'ed him very well (remember, you were pointing out how you'd be observing every detail, that's often a fairly noticable behaviour), (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —James Brown         (...) As (...) Subject to circumstances, obviously. (...) And anyone who invades my home, without a mask, without having the minimal intelligence necessary to check if there is anyone home first, is not at the top of the food chain. I am confident (...) (26 years ago, 18-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —Steve Bliss       (...) You don't need a gun for that -- no invader could ever *find* them. ;) Steve (26 years ago, 18-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                    Re: New Web Page —John Neal       (...) Unless they checked in his bed--(he sleeps with them ) (...) (26 years ago, 20-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)                Re: New Web Page —Mike Stanley     (...) Ah, so there we have it. Canada. Now I understand. You guys have what, 2, maybe 3 people per square mile up there? Not enough people in one area to stir up the kind of trouble we have to deal with down here. :) (26 years ago, 20-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

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