Subject:
|
Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 May 1999 15:49:01 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
C576653@CCLABS.MISSOURI.antispamEDU
|
Viewed:
|
916 times
|
| |
|
|
Duane Hess wrote:
>
> Guns kill, that was their design intent.
To the best of my knowledge, my Ruger never has.
> 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 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.
> What use, other than "sport
> shooting" do these weapons have?
Hunting. Killing people. Home defense. Collecting. Just to name a few.
> None.
Obviously wrong.
> 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.
You seem to know a lot more that I would have thought possible. How do
you get into all those peoples' houses to check on their firearms
storage system? Are you related to Santa Clause?
> To protect children from the fire arm stored in the house, the
> ammunition should be stored seperately.
Which children? Do all these nefarious gun toting paranoids also have kids?
> 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."
Unless you can remove the trigger guard quickly. My trigger guard
requires a little tool to remove and (for now) my son is able to
manipulate it correctly. I think the trigger guard in important since I
(obviously irresponsibly) keep ammunition in the gun.
> 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.
That's just not how it is.
> Why not buy a Doberman?
But what NEED do you have for a doberman? Dobermans are dangerous too.
I was attacked by a doberman when I was eleven (I wasn't hospitalized,
so not too bad) but I've never been shot. Many of my neighbors raise
Pit Bulls. I am wildly more afraid of them than I am of the fact that
they own guns. (the people, not the dogs :-)
--
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Weeks
central Missouri, USA
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
