Subject:
|
Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 13 May 1999 22:03:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
800 times
|
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 May 1999 15:07:00 GMT, Lee Jorgensen uttered the following
profundities...
> Mike Stanley wrote:
>
> > <everything snipped>
>
> 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 them from taking away the first amendment, or the
> fifth amendment? Nothing.
I was under the impression that legislation was necessary to
amend an amendment, such as a referendum. Is that not the case?
> In the Columbine shooting, there were 18 gun-related laws broken.
> How does adding more laws fix that? The only laws that will, are going
> to restrict _MY_ rights. The shooting was senseless, and a tragedy,
> but that shouldn't stop me, a non-felon, non crime committing person,
> from obtaining or have the right to obtain a gun.
>
> If I infringe on YOUR rights, then that's a problem, but if not, why
> do you want to infringe upon mine?
>
>
But please demonstrate a *need* to own a gun, I still
don't understand why you would defend the *right* to a own a
gun without a reasonable *need*. Simply because a law says you can?
Is there no such thing as a silly law, or a ridiculous law?
Or is gun ownership a really important right for some people?
Why?
--
_____________________________________________________________
richard.dee@nospam.virgin.net remove nospam.(lugnet excepted)
Web Site: http://freespace.virgin.net/richard.dee/lego.html
ICQ 13177071 AOL Instant Messenger: RJD88888
_____________________________________________________________
For the best Lego news, visit: http://www.lugnet.com/news/
Need instructions for a model? http://www.kl.net/scans/
_____________________________________________________________
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) 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: New Web Page
|
| (...) 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
|
| 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) 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)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
