Subject:
|
Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 16 May 1999 16:54:14 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
CJC@NEWSGUYantispam.COM
|
Viewed:
|
974 times
|
| |
|
|
Duane Hess <DNJHESS@ZDNETMAIL.COM> wrote:
> Killing people. Yes. That's what guns were originally designed for. They had
> a better rage than the bow and were better at the job. You don't need
> automatic or semi-automatic weapons to do the same function a revolver could
> perform. I stand by my one shot one kill theory. I also challenge you to
> go to a gun dealer and tell him that this is the reason why you are buying
> the gun.
>
> Home defence. Same argument as above although this one won't bring the police
> down on you when you mention it to the gun dealer.
>
> Collecting. I can go along with this if the weapon has been rendered
> inoperable (remember, I'm talking semi-automatic and automatic weapons here).
So it is your belief that a revolver is ok while a semi-automatic
pistol like my Glock is not. What's the difference, really? I can
almost guarantee you that I could kill someone with the revolver more
efficiently than the Glock, if for no other reason than the .357
hollowpoint magnums I keep in the revolver will do a lot more damage
than the 9mm hollowpoints in the Glock.
Or is it the capacity issue? Sure, I have to reload after six shots
in the revolver. Big deal, that's what speed loaders are for (or
should they be outlawed as well?), and even if I didn't have those
handy I bet I can reload my revolver quickly enough to keep killing a
group of already scared and cowed people. Maybe I could kill more
people total with the Glock simply because I could carry more 15 round
magazines (pre-ban, sorry) than I could boxes of .357 shells.
It's so funny to see how certain terms to describe firearms have
become demonized, both by the media and by an ignorant populace
willing to believe it.
"OH NO! He used a semi-automatic pistol that allowed him to fire a
shot every time he pulled the trigger!!!! Run and hide!!!"
Big deal, I fire a shot with my revolver every time I pull the trigger
as well, but since my revolver looks like something John Wayne would
carry I guess it's "ok".
> What NEED do you have for a gun? I will concede that a Doberman as well as
> other breeds of canine can be dangerous. There are now laws which restrict
> them too, but that isn't a Constitutional issue now is it?
Nope. I don't remember an amendment about dogs.
--
Lego Shop at Home: 800-835-4386 (USA) / 800-267-5346 (Canada)
www.lugnet.com/news/ - A great new resource for LEGO fans worldwide
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| Mike Stanley wrote in message ... (...) Of course if one got down to it, one could make a constitional issue of it since the Bill of Rights specifically indicates that it is not the sole enumeration of rights. It is an enumeration of the rights (...) (26 years ago, 17-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
