 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
