 sj |
||
|
||
Help: Gun debate thread
|
|
|
Subject: Gun debate thread From: kendall Date: 12 Mar 00 - 12:49 PM How do I retrieve that thread on gun control? Rick Fielding had some interesting info on the issue.. |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: katlaughing Date: 12 Mar 00 - 12:52 PM Type gun or guns in the filter box, then set the Age to 1 year or beyond and you will find them. The alternative way is to go to Quick Links, click on Forum Search, put Rick's name in the appropriate box and then scan down the list of his postings until you find the one you are looking for. |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: kendall Date: 12 Mar 00 - 02:05 PM thanks Kat |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Rick Fielding Date: 12 Mar 00 - 02:07 PM Oh, oh. Now what did I say? Did I mean it? Had I just read some article that ticked me off? Rick |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: kendall Date: 12 Mar 00 - 02:14 PM I cant seem to find what I'm looking for..it was from Rick Fielding, and it had to do with the NRA ads which are designed to scare the hell out of gun worshippers |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Rick Fielding Date: 12 Mar 00 - 02:31 PM Kendall!!! I remember enough of it to know that the ads were MOST DEFINITELY NOT meant to scare gun worshippers! They were meant to scare folk who's countries have GUN CONTROL LAWS. For Christ's sake there's a hell of a diference! Rick |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Dave (the ancient mariner) Date: 12 Mar 00 - 02:37 PM And the gun controls dont work but cost a fortune... |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Irish sergeant Date: 12 Mar 00 - 06:32 PM I told myself I wasn't going to open this can of worms. Hi all. The problem isn't guns. They are, after all, only tools. The problems are A)teaching our kids respect for themselves and each other. B) Enforcing the laws that exist already equally. C)Punishing appropriately. The government has enough power already! After guns what will theyu want next? Just so you all know, I'm no big advocate of people owning rocket launhers etc but let's use some common sense. Neil (Irish Sgt,.) |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Timehiker Date: 12 Mar 00 - 06:42 PM Amen, Irish Sarge, Unfortunately, the radicals have control of both sides of this arguement. I wish I knew how to inject some common sense into it, but I don't, so I reckon I won't make a fuss. Just make sure you vote your conscience. Take care, Timehiker |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: kendall Date: 12 Mar 00 - 07:47 PM Look, all I want is to refresh that statement by Rick that the NRA ad is a crock of shit.. |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Gaffer Date: 12 Mar 00 - 08:04 PM What are these "gun" things? Is it some sort of American contraption for making people live longer? I seem to have come across the term in a song or two but the meaning is rarely elaborated. |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Mar 00 - 08:07 PM Does the American Consitution actually have anything to say about the right to use common sense?
|
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Gaffer Date: 12 Mar 00 - 08:34 PM Sorry chaps! Seem to have missed the old point again - thread's not about guns but about gun CONTROLS : as luck would have it, I do know a thing or two about them. Apparently there are about two of them: one is known as the safety catch and seems to be to stop the thing from going off, and the second is known as a trigger which appears to have the opposite effect - this would seem a rather counter-productive arrangement to me, and I believe that the earliest models were fitted with neither and were prone to kill as many people behind them as in front of them - a dterrent so effective that all four of the Three Musketeers relied exclusively on their swords, so maybe these gun control opponents have a point. Possibly a compromise position might be reached and that dangerous-sounding control removed leaving only the safe-sounding one. Sorry chaps, can't be your President - not a natural-born American - they used forceps! |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Wolfgang Date: 13 Mar 00 - 04:00 AM Kendall, here's how you find it, an improved variant of katlaughing's idea. go to the forum search; enter 'Fielding' forUserName AND enter 'gun' for Subject. that brings you only the about 20 threads in which Rick had his say in the several threads about guns. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Chet W. Date: 13 Mar 00 - 07:09 AM I won't enter this discussion again except to say that it does seem to be pointless. If the idea that the huge number of guns in this country somehow contributes to the huge number of gun deaths does not make sense, then there's nothing else that I can say. The courts will interpret the law. The gun lobbies will buy votes for more laws (or less) and children and others will continue to die in the most violent country in the world. Happy arguing. Chet |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: bob schwarer Date: 13 Mar 00 - 09:24 AM How does Switzerland do it with a gun required? Bob S. |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: kendall Date: 13 Mar 00 - 09:44 AM No good Kat, I just cant get it up...shut up spaw. |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Rick Fielding Date: 13 Mar 00 - 11:55 AM OK, this is what I remember about the "ONE POST" that I put in. The NRA was doing a television ad saying how bad things had gotten in the countries which had gun control. They used interviews and clips that were completely bogus regarding Canada and England. The Canadians they focused on are friends of Neo-Nazi Ernst Zundel...but they were presented as "average Canadians" which couldn't be farther from the truth. They showed demonstrations in Britain that were in reality the "fox Hunting Lobby" and claimed they were average Brits massing against their Government. The whole "militia" phenomonen just doesn't happen here for many reasons. A. Because of our 3 (or 4) party system, any unpopular Govt. can be gone in the blink of an eye (remember Joe Clark?) B. Despite being a huge country, we have no real military clout, other than to trot around the world being "peace-keepers") C. The native people that we almost anihilated have almost nothing to fight back with and consequently don't pose a threat to take over our cities and scare the crap out of "white folks". D. A politician like Pat Buchannan, or a preacher like Jerry Falwell, would be laughed out of business before they ever reached the kind of power that would mobilize the far right. I don't have anything against gun owners per se. Would never be caught dead blowin' away a deer (or squirrel for that matter) but am certainly not a vegetarian. (remember the steak and kidney pie thread?) I just found it sad that the NRA had to lie so blatantly (or had so little knowledge about anything non-American) to make their point. End of story. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: kendall Date: 13 Mar 00 - 12:39 PM thats the one I was looking for, thanks |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: kendall Date: 13 Mar 00 - 01:05 PM Just for the record, I own a gun. It is a .38 special, 2 inch barrel. I am licensed to carry it, and I would resist any attempt to have it taken away. However, for those who can read...A WELL REGULATED MILITIA..etc. my right to keep and bear arms as an individual, comes not from the constitution, but from a gut less congress, and a strong gun lobby. |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Eric the Viking Date: 13 Mar 00 - 02:43 PM I couldn,t help adding to this from my own persective. I see, read and hear about the numbers of lunatics who shoot and kill people in the states and though I believe that we don't really need guns in any society except for the armed forces who of nessecity need them I do believe that it is people who kill, not guns. I don't know how many guns there are in the states, it must run into millions but the percentage of abusers who kill, main or threaten with them must be in the decimal point of the total percentage. Humans will always find a way to kill and though I think human life should not be wasted I can understand both sides of the argument. In the UK a couple of years ago we had some very violent knife incidents. I very much regret the deaths of children in Dunblane through shooting, the death of the headmaster of a London school (Philip Laurance) and the injuries to the children and staff in the school in Birmingham. But we had a typical knee-jerk reaction here (like the dangerous dogs act) and knife carrying became outlawed. (except for 3 inch pen knife blades) I have always carried a knife since I was about ten years old, so that give me about 40 years of experience. I have large, small and folding knives. I have never even carved my name with one in the wrong place let alone used any of them for the wrong purpose. I sharpen pencils at school,I fish, I hike, I cycle long tours, I have been wild camping, a large heavy blade knife is very useful, but I cannot carry one any longer. I had friends who used to shoot and I also used to shoot .22, 12 Bore and black powder-never shot at anything except proper targets. There are very few legitimate guns in the UK, most had to be surendered eg semi automatics and automatics-some collections worth thousands of pounds, chopped up and melted down. If you have the mind to kill or injure someone then you will find a way. I did notice that none or not many criminals handed in their guns for cutting up and destroying so it makes litle difference if they are banned or not. If you add up the number of gun deaths and knife deaths and compare them to cigarette cancers/heart disease deaths or automobile deaths or deaths through alcohol then they weigh little against the arguments to ban cars or cigs (not fags for those in USA) We even had beef on the bone banned in the UK because there was a remote chance of CJD- they never banned putting benzine (a known carcinogen) in unleaded petrol though did they? Cheers Eric. |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: MarkS Date: 13 Mar 00 - 06:37 PM Dear Kendall: Your right to keep and bear arms does not come from the congress, a gun lobby or the constitution. Your right to keep and bear arms is one of the inalienable rights with which you were "endowed by your creator" etc. The constitution does not give you the right; is takes it as axiomatic that the right is yours and forbids government from infringing it. Would that our elected officials today read the simple text of the document they have sworn to protect and defend. MarkS
|
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Mar 00 - 07:07 PM The only arms you were endowed with by your creator are the ones hanging from your shoulders.
How come we never seem to hear about people in the States insisting on their constitutional right to wear swords? Much more decorative, much more impressive, much less likely to kill bystanders. Not that easy to kill anyone at all, actually, especially by accident.
I'd have thought there'd be a case for arguing that the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is more basic than any "right to bear arms", other than the natural variety.
I understand the Swiss don't go in for shooting each other the way Americans do. If this changed, and they had massacres in schools all over the place, I suspect they'd have a referendum, and impose drastic restrictions, since that is the way the Swiss work. (But then I gather all the indications are that, if the Americans were allowed to have a referendum on the subject, that is what they would vote for as well.) |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Osmium Date: 13 Mar 00 - 07:13 PM I have resisted entering into both this and previous very emotive threads on the subject but have to agree with M of H above; any law or natural state that puts the life of a child at more risk than it needs to be seems nonsense to me and things have changed since the civil war in America; haven't they? |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: kendall Date: 13 Mar 00 - 07:24 PM Actually, it's not even our fault..that right to keep and bear arms stuff is a direct result of the oppression of the colonists by the British government 200 years ago. It is an over reaction as it were.diving for cover.. OK 'nuff said..lets just drop this once and for all..ok? I got the info I was asking for when I started this thread. |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Art Thieme Date: 14 Mar 00 - 01:27 AM There are no inalienable rights. There are just the things we allow and don't allow at a given moment in time. To me, this song highlights the whole problem :
Bob shot one and Louis shot two,
Angels laid him away,
Miss Collins wept--Miss Collins moaned,
Oh, my lord, now, ain't it hard,
("Louis Collins" --- Mississippi John Hurt--1928) |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: GUEST,Frankie Date: 14 Mar 00 - 05:41 PM Maybe the 2nd amendment should have read "...right to bear muskets." |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: katlaughing Date: 14 Mar 00 - 06:12 PM Amen to that, Frankie. |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Mar 00 - 09:34 PM Maybe it reallly was "the right to bare arms", and someone spelt it wrong...
But the point I raised before interests me, is this bizarre provision understood to cover swords as well? And if not, why not?
After all, swords were still pretty commonly worn at the time. Is there a National Sword Association which is keeping a low profile?
Does the provision cover blowpipes and catapults and battleaxes as well? And how about 12 foot pikes? Or knobkerries? Boomerangs? Those nasty little star-shaped things they throw around in Kung Fu movies? Klingon battlars, or whatever they're called - now that's what I call a real tough guy's weapon. Guns are for wimps. |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Chet W. Date: 14 Mar 00 - 09:39 PM Should point out that in Switzerland that all men of 18 to something are issued a weapon and are considered on-call soldiers, but they are also given a sealed box of bullets, and should that box become untimely unsealed there's hell to pay. That along with the above- mentioned relative lack of interest, compared to the US, of expressing masculinity (or more to the point the lack of it) by brandishing weapons and occasionally using them, would help to explain some of the difference. This may seem weird, but it struck me when I watched the movie Braveheart a few years ago (that showed battlefield scenes with hacking and spearing) that this was a much more civilized way to fight that with modern weaponry. If you're going to kill someone you should have to look at his eyes and smell his sweat and your own adrenaline, rather than firing the cowardly shot from a distance, which any depraved chicken shit can do for the price of a carton of smokes. Chet |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Midchuck Date: 14 Mar 00 - 10:33 PM That's just the point. Guns are for wimps. A good big man can always beat a good little man in a fist fight or a sword fight or a club fight or.... But with guns the big guy is just a bigger target. Guns took away the large oaf's natural advantage. The large oafs have never forgiven this. Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: GUEST,Smitty Date: 15 Mar 00 - 12:36 AM If some of you folks took the time to do a little research on 2nd amendment, you would come across dozens and dozens of letters between various political factions who formulated the amendment. They all agreed that the wording " a well regulated militia" referred to a government agency that had, (historically) become uncontrollable or under the control of an dictator or similar. The individual right to bear arms was an effort to offset this military power and never let it get the upper hand in this country as it had all over the rest of the world. |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: The Shambles Date: 15 Mar 00 - 05:43 AM I avoided this thread but I am now glad that I opened it. The good common sense expressed here gives me some hope.
She could have been my daughter and he could be my son..
Tears And Winter Rain(Song For Kayla)
The slightest glimpse of springtime
Will things now be different?
This life was not of her choosing
The slightest glimpse of springtime
Will things now be different? |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Hyperabid Date: 15 Mar 00 - 06:51 AM Oops... This subject again. To quote one of our more famous comics Eddie Izzard:- "The NRA tell you that guns don't kill people... People kill people... But you've got to admit the gun helps!" Hyp |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Art Thieme Date: 15 Mar 00 - 11:39 AM The 1700s was a different time. Those who wrote the ammendment knew that without guns/weapons they wouldn't've been able to break away from England's/government's unacceptable rule. To protect what was won (a new and better government we felt), this law was seen to be important enough to require an ammendment to the constitution. (All this is pretty obvious so far.) In the year 2000 some say we have an out of control situation with desperate and sometimes paranoid PEOPLE willing to use guns to blow others who are different out of existence. "Social contract" tells us that in extraordinary times we need to take extraordinary measures. We make a deal to give up some things in order to achieve others. To insure domestic tranquility we sometimes use outrageous methods to quell outrageous and dangerous people/situations. Will those measures be taken? Well, only if THE GOVERNMENT, with the consent of the majority, sees fit to do it. "THE LAW" is whatever the Supreme Court says it is at any given moment. With the current Supreme Court in the U.S.A., no or at least few measures will be taken to limit guns. That's just a fact here and now. The Supreme Court, as it stood under Chief Judge Earl Warren and back in Rooseveltian times, just may have simply outlawed guns given our rate of anarchy in certain recent years. We sent the cavalry out West in the 1860s.---For better or for worse, we did it. During the Civil War we solved the problems in a similar but larger way. Where will it all end? Who the hell knows??? My hopes for us all are that we will avoid the worst of it------as individuals, as a people, as a country---as a world. Now I see why "May you live in interesting times" is a curse. Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Mar 00 - 03:31 PM I still want to know - if I come over on a trip to America is it all right if I wear a sword on my belt or carry a meat axe around with me? I mean I wouldn't want to fail to keep in tune with the spirit of the Constitution. |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Peg Date: 15 Mar 00 - 03:46 PM aw come on, guns don't kill people... people with guns kill people. peg |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Jim Krause Date: 15 Mar 00 - 04:12 PM "A well regulated militia, being necessary . . ." is frequently forgotten, omitted or ignored in the whole gun debate. The POINT was that gun ownership in 1789 was PREDICATED upon the owner's membership in the State Militia (nowadays known as the National Guard) In the 18th century this was mandatory service for ALL men age 16 to 60, and avoidance of militia drill was punishable by jail or fine. In other words, you had the right to be in the National Guard, not to own a gun for the heck of it. If we really wanted to keep the spirit of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution alive, any citizen who could legally buy a military style automatic weapon,would be AUTOMATICALLY enlisted in his or her state's National Guard, and be required to attend drill complete with arm and ammunition. How would the NRA like that? |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Rick Fielding Date: 15 Mar 00 - 04:15 PM Just heard another one, "Guns don't kill people, people with agendas kill people"! Weird thing. Even though I'm pretty gun-control, many years ago at a private firing rage (I'll never be rich but I know some rich folks) I discovered that I was a crack shot. Hmmmmmmm, that Red Ryder Daisy air rifle must have had SOME effect. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: katlaughing Date: 15 Mar 00 - 04:19 PM guns are purposely designed to kill the argument about cars killing is specious; no one engineers a car to see how many people it can plow down in a matter of seconds how many children have stolen their parents' car, then driven it into their schools in order to kill as many classmates as possible? Why do we insist in having objects whose sole purpose is to kill, available to children? McGrath, interesting question. I am sure people would freak out and tackle you as a crazy man if you showed up at customs that way. Any kind of combat/killing needs to involve up close and personal....long range allows desensitisation and a surreal impersonality which are antisocial. |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Wesley S Date: 15 Mar 00 - 04:49 PM I can't help but think that 99.999 percent of the people have already made up their minds how they feel about this subject { abortion too } and nothing written here will make them change their position either way. I've stopped talking with my brother about it - he feels one way and I'm on the other side. So may I be so bold as to ask what the point of this thread is?? Are we trying to convert the other side or are we trying to vent? Just curious as to the reason behind the posts here. This is not a criticism - just an observation. |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Art Thieme Date: 15 Mar 00 - 06:17 PM ALL ingroups exist for recognition from the outgroup. Art |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Mar 00 - 07:08 PM "I am sure people would freak out and tackle you as a crazy man if you showed up at customs that way."
It's tempting...
The thing is, I can't see any way how the constitutional bit can be interpreted in a way that allowed guns, and forbade cutting and crushing weapons which were in fact less dangerous.
Soddy's suggestion about the National Guard would make sense.I'd imagine there'd have to be some other kind of about being in any kind of National Guard, such as eye tests and sanity tests and such like, which might affect a fair number of NRA enthusiasts.
They used to have a rule in South Africa that knobkerries. These are "cultural weapons", sticks with great lumps on the end of them, sort of Zulu shillelaghs, that the size of the knob (shut up 'spaw) couldn't be bigger than you could fit in your mouth.
They could try something like that I suppose with the American cultural weapons..."Put for gunny where your mouth is" as the saying almost goes.
|
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Chet W. Date: 15 Mar 00 - 09:38 PM I for one am tired of the amateur constitutional interpretations and trying to read the minds of people dead for centuries. I think now that this whole gun thing is a chance for us to show whether we are decent people or not. It is just too much for me to try to fathom someone sitting at home with scads of loaded guns, feeling smug about his/her rights, and not being willing to consider that people having their children shot at school might have some rights too. That person is just too selfish for words, or for any more of my consideration. Grow up and do the right thing. It's not too late for most of us. Chet |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: GUEST,Smitty Date: 16 Mar 00 - 05:06 AM For our British friend - who am I quoting? " It's Tommy this, Tommy that, Tommy step aside--- Oh yes, let us do away with all the guns, gun nuts and extremists; including those who formulated the 2nd amendment. We are SO much more sophisticated today--- Visualize a group of toughs kicking down your door to get your social security check. Gee, gosh, I don't think anyone has the right to protect themselves. Such a VIOLENT thought. They police will come - - - - Get real gentlemen! Why do you think law enforcement people go armed. Why do you think the criminal elemlents are gleeful indeed at the though of disarming all civilians?? Again to our British friend: Does your memory go back to WWII when dear ole England begged ( and received) hundreds of civilian arms from the good ole US of A to help repel the Nazis when they crossed the Channel. |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Hyperabid Date: 16 Mar 00 - 05:34 AM I am a little perplexed by this argumanet as I have now seen it several times in various threads on this subject. "I need a gun because if I don't have one the forces of the state will come and torture me and seize all I have." It would seem to me that you live in a 200 year old democracy that remains the most powerful indutrialised nation in the world, in the unlikely event that the forces of the state decide to repress you, I feel resonably sure that a couple of handguns or rifles are not going to make much difference. I seem to remember your national guard and army have tanks and stuff like that. We in the UK remain eternally grateful for the help provided by US citizens and the US goverment in fighting WWII - a war that was about the survival of democracy in Europe. High handed and sarcastic reminders are a daily blessing that always endear our transatlantic cousins to us. Kind regards... Hyp. |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: bob schwarer Date: 16 Mar 00 - 07:31 AM Thank you. |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Elektra Date: 16 Mar 00 - 06:42 PM Going somewhat crosswise to the topic here, but I find all the remarks about children being "endangered" most interesting...
Other than the brute strength bits, I could (and did) diassemble, clean and reassemble any of my father's guns/rifles before I was six. Never once did I so much as go near them if he wasn't right there beside me. He ingrained respect for the power of firearms so deeply within me that to this day I cannot point a gun at someone in jest, even if I have verified for myself that the chamber/barrel/magazine is empty.
On the other hand, as an adult having served in the military, I can say with complete confidence: while I pray that (gods forbid) I never have to shoot anyone, I sure as hell ain't gonna miss.
My point is, _education and parenting_, more than anything else, are the real issues here, when it comes to children and guns. I think too many people want to pass the buck on this, when really it belongs right in each of our laps. When my son was young I did not keep guns in the house, though we discussed gun safety fairly regularly, along with other important topics. (What to do if you find one, what to do if a friend has one, etc.) Sadly, common sense cannot be legislated. Even worse, the types of parent who can't or won't display any sense are exactly the ones who would be unaffected by attempts to legally "force" it on them. (Witness the recent 6 yr old who murdered a classmate, whose parents were dealing drugs and apparently had a houseful of stolen and "lost" weapons.) I have no problem with a waiting period, and I believe anyone who actively carries should be required to take periodic safety/training classes.
I don't like hunting for sport, though if people actually USE what they kill I have no problem with it. I agree that guns are a tool -- though granted, a largely unnecessary one. There will always be people on the violent fringes of things... AND people who need protection from them. But blanket anti-gun laws will not make either of those problems go away.
My $0.02 *elektra*
|
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: Osmium Date: 16 Mar 00 - 07:10 PM Elektra Whils't I agree that wise parenting can make the use of the most dangerous weapon "safe" in the hands of some - the item that most of us non USA citizen's find hard to comprehend is that simple statistics show that USA children are more at risk than any other nation from guns - that is there is a simple and good correlation between the number of guns in the USA per head of population and the number of child deaths by shooting, whether accidental or intentional, and it is higher than any where else in th world. Lastly, and not directed to you personally, it has never taken the working classes long to arm themselves to sufficient levels to win a war against there own governments should the need really arise. Civil war will never be comfortable so why keep weapons for an eventuality which will probably never happen but further risks the life of your child. Nearly last, within any population there will be an unstable element, look at MudCat!, so good parenting will never happen accross the whole population - therefore arms should be issued only to those who really need them and then under the most stringent of controls. Don't trust your government just vote them out if they ain't trustworthy. |
|
Subject: RE: Help: Gun debate thread From: GUEST,Laurel Paulson-Pierce Date: 16 Mar 00 - 07:49 PM to bring us back to the musical vein-- Cheryl Wheeler has a song "If it were up to me, I'd take away the guns" which is an amazing string of lyrics and Ani DeFranco's title song on her new album is also about NRA and weapons title? To The Teeth (as in armed....) |
| Share Thread: |