Subject:
|
Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 May 1999 14:37:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
726 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ed Jones writes:
> 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)
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 rifles, one
was modified for easier concealment.
The remaining weapon was manufactured for a completely different purpose. That
particular weapon was never intended for hunting anything other than a human.
There was laws restricting the sale of that weapon and those laws were broken.
How can you keep weapons out of the hands of an individual who is mentally
unstable and intent on creating as much destruction as possible?
Guns kill, that was their design intent. I agree with the right to bear arms
though. That was a right written into the Constitution and I will support it.
What I will not support though is the NRAs stance that automatic and semi-
automatic weapons are protected under this right. What use, other than "sport
shooting" do these weapons have? None. They are bought and stored by
(generalization) paranoid individuals who feel that they need them to protect
their family and possesions. More often then not, the storage of these weapons
is inadequate. To protect children from the fire arm stored in the house, the
ammunition should be stored seperately. The gun should also be equipped with a
trigger lock. This protects the child from the gun, but renders the gun useless
in the event of a "hostile attack from outside forces."
As you can see, there is a catch 22 here. Buy a gun to protect the family from
intruders, but render the gun useless to protect the family from the gun.
Why not buy a Doberman?
Duane
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) 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. (...) (25 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 16-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) 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 (...) (25 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
|
|
|
|
