Subject:
|
Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 Jan 2001 21:00:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
512 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Culberson writes:
>
> Scott A wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Just because the social situation in the UK isn't currently in a state
> > > where one needs to fear, it doesn't mean that it will always be that
> > > way.
> >
> > But I think it is that way because there are no/little guns. I am pretty
> > sure I have seen no more than 5-10 non-military guns in my 32 years here.
> > All those 5-10 were in the hands of the police.
>
>
> How can you say that? What would the presence/absence of guns have to
> do with the social situation.
The criminals are not armed (mostly), so the police do not need them.
> There are no guarantees that government
> will not "turn bad".
What? Tony Blair goes mad, and the army supports him - I doubt it. What
would his aim be?
> What I'm saying is that IF the social situation
> WERE to turn bad, you might suddenly realie that the freedom to own a
> firearm for your own personal protection may not have been such a bad
> idea afterall.
Have you been watching Rambo?
Scott A
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: My Gun Control Rant
|
| (...) How can you say that? What would the presence/absence of guns have to do with the social situation. There are no guarantees that government will not "turn bad". What I'm saying is that IF the social situation WERE to turn bad, you might (...) (24 years ago, 8-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
|
|
|
|
