Subject:
|
Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 May 1999 15:07:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
924 times
|
| |
|
|
Ed Jones wrote:
> 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.
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 through is a direct result of using the deaths
of 13 victims to advance bad laws.
>
> >
> > 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.
However, invasion can come from within. If an oppressive government takes over,
then we NEED to remove it. By force if necessary.
>
> The right to bear arms - arms in those days were muskets - not machine guns,
> not missle launchers, not oozies, etc., etc., etc.
Arms is a loose term. You can be armed with a knife. You can be armed with a
club. Each item is useless until one wields it.
>
> 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.
Maybe we need to 'clarify and redefine' the First amendment? The NRA (and I'm
not a member) promotes knowledge of guns as well. A gun is dangerous to a person
who does not have the proper training and respect for the power that it contains.
>
> But isn't that exactly what caused Colorado??? Children with easy access to
> attack arms.
The whole problem with the situation in Colorado, is that they were planning this
for
over a year. A YEAR. What type of prevention can you take with somebody
determined?
Look how long it took to find the UniBomber.
The problem with the schooling system is another topic, but deals with the
over-inflation of
self-esteem. They are praised for everything, even insignificant things. The
problem with
that, is that when they encounter something that they cannot do, they get mad and
angry,
instead of dealing with it. There have been studies that prove this.
>
> The right to bear arms, to the NRA, guarantees the right to use those arms
> indiscriminately and without repercussion.
False. There are still laws against even simple discharge of a gun within city
limits. Also
the problem with your statement, is that a criminal does not regard laws, hence the
name
CRIMINAL. Odds are a law abiding citizen will take the proper training to ensure
that
accidents are minimized.
--
Lee Jorgensen, Programmer/Analyst - Bankoe Systems, Inc.
mailto:jorgensen@bankoe.moc <-- reverse moc
mailto:ljorgensen@uswest.ten <-- reverse ten
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| 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 (...) (25 years ago, 14-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
|
|
|
|
