Debate : 823


Off-Topic / Debate / 823

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)