 | | Re: New Web Page
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | Re: New Web Page
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | Guns, guns, guns (was: Re: New Web Page)
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) **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)
|
|
(...) 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)
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
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)
|
