Subject:
|
Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 May 1999 13:19:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
863 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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 rights of others, it is my right
> to acquire it.
>
> However, I'll do it anyway. The reason is defense. Defense against those
> that would initiate the use of force against me, be they criminals of
> the individual kind or criminals of the statist kind.
>
> The founding fathers put the wording they used into the 2nd amendment
> for a reason. Look up the meaning of militia as it was meant in 1790. An
> armed population is a civil population and is the final check.
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 right to bear arms - arms in those days were muskets - not machine guns,
not missle launchers, not oozies, etc., etc., etc.
The right to bear arms - an amendment that needs to be clarified and redefined
for the 21st century. If we have a right to bear arms, then I would love
nothing more than for the inane, inbred, ignornant, irrational, idiots of the
NRA to have their own little civil among themselves and blow themselves away
with their assault rifles, their ak47s, etc.
But isn't that exactly what caused Colorado??? Children with easy access to
attack arms.
The right to bear arms, to the NRA, guarantees the right to use those arms
indiscriminately and without repercussion.
(doning flame suit)
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) 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
|
| (...) 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)
| | | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
