Subject:
|
Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 7 Jan 2001 20:22:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
486 times
|
| |
|
|
someone wrote:
> True, but it doesn't matter. Guns are not designed to kill people. That's
> just reactionary liberal disarmament garbage. Guns are
> designed to sell.
Ah, ok. The AK and the AR-15's, are not designed to kill, that's right. NO,
they are designed to maim- how could I forget reading the info that 5.56 is
based on?
What exactly is the purpose of a pistol kept under your clothing in a state
with a "right to carry" law? Is it there because the owner thinks he should be
able to make a loud noise in public then?
As if. As Larry points out, he picked his gun on the basis of its ability to
kill someone.
I believe I have stated elsewhere in this thread, that I think that some
portions of the law are stupid. I think that what has been implmented so far
is probably not overly restrictive- having to know which end of the gun to
point at the target is not all that bad of a idea before you own one...if you
ask me :). However, I do agree that the law as it stands will not do all that
much to reduce crime. It will elminate some crimes, such as the shooting in
1996 or so of a British tourist in the Ottawa area by two teens who had bought
ammo at a Canadian Tire store- with nether one of them being of legal age to
pruchase ammo at the time, but no requirement to card, so the store sold the
ammo, and the tourist ended up dead due more to stupidity than anything else.
I don't think that having to tell how many weapons is really all that
important, but that one should have to register that one owns weapons is to me
not a overly onious task. I have for the last 4 years lived under similar
restrictions (in fact, _far_ more stringent ones, if you wish to find them,
look under QR&O's for gun ownership in Military Quarters).
I think the law is stupid, but that every person who is publicly flaunting the
law should be hauled into court, and charged. The guns should be seized, and
destroyed. What you do in private is one thing, but if you are going to flaunt
the law on one issue, then the law should come down like the clappers of _ _ _
_ on you for it.
James
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
| (...) be (...) First, I really (really!) meant consumer firearms. Military contract is a bit different. Now, the purpose (if you mean _my_ purpose) when I travel with a concealed firearm is not to kill people. It is to defend myself. I have defended (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
| (...) So, tell me again, WHY in the heck do we have to get a liscense to purchase amunition? What's wrong with a drivers liscence or other proof-of-age certificate? Oh, how dumb of me, could it be that there IS a reason we have to shell out huge (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
| (...) Well I'm not sure I agree. I bought my revolver (and the hollowpoint bullets I keep in the speed loader) based on my evaluation of how much bang for the buck I got. Those hollowpoints will stop a person dead in his tracks. I would have shot (...) (23 years ago, 7-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
188 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
|
|
|
|
