Subject:
|
Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 May 1999 21:39:38 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
c576653@cclabs(AntiSpam).missouri.edu
|
Viewed:
|
1082 times
|
| |
|
|
Duane Hess wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Bliss writes:
> > On Mon, 17 May 1999 03:02:25 GMT, "Frank Filz" <ffilz@mindspring.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The big reason I see some value in gun licensing is that education could
> > > become a part of the requirement to own a gun which would tremendously
> > > increase the percentage of gun owners who are responsible.
> >
> > That is my hope, belief, and aim.
> >
> > Steve
>
> This may be some common ground where we can all agree.
Sorry to be the fly in the ointment, but not for me, thanks. I believe
that requiring training is an infringement on the RKBA and specifically
violates the second. If the government can require training, and they
want to make guns improbably difficult to bear, they could then just
define training such that no one would be willing to do it.
--
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Weeks
central Missouri, USA
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) IF you mean that the constitution should be amended so that the right to keep and bear arms is dependent on some very specific training, then I agree with your method of making that change (as opposed to just passing laws that violate the (...) (25 years ago, 28-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
