Ok lets not talk politics. There are enough flame wars on this list allready.
On Tuesday 14 September 2004 06:41 pm, Rick Meeker wrote:
I'll bite. Gun control isn't hitting what law-abiding citizens are shooting at. Just so you know, law-abiding citizens are shooting at criminals in the case of self defense. Law makers pass laws that are supposed to target the lawless and law-abiding citizens suffer for it.
Bare in mind, in order for a socialist gov't to subjugate a people, without war, two things are required:
- Take away the people's right to bare arms
- Make the people totally dependent on the government
Does this sound like any major party platforms to anyone? Hint - I'm not a Democrat.
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of crash 3m Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 12:38 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OT] Clinton Assault Weapon Ban Ending - was-RE:gmailinitiations
Isn't gun control hitting what your shooting at?
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:59:52 -0500, David H. Askew [email protected]
wrote:
Cliche answers provide neither real insight, or solutions, but rather oversimplify complex issues. Thanks for the "McQuote".
-dave
On Saturday 11 September 2004 1:55 pm, James R. Sissel wrote:
I think most people would agree that, despite the unparralleled
intelligence
of the framers, the Constitution is a document of limited wording, and
that
it has been utilized by the Supreme Court as a basis for many
decisions
that
the framers never envisioned. While I would agree that, under a free society, gun-control of any kind is a threat to my liberty, I would
also
agree, that we need to have a good balance between personal freedom
and
national security.
''They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety," observed Benjamin Franklin, "deserve neither liberty nor
safety."
Kclug mailing list [email protected] http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
Kclug mailing list [email protected] http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug