Are you saying none of the amendments should have been passed? Because I see
a need for most of them.
Kat
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 13:33:55 -0400 "Barber, Kenneth L." <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> If we stuck to their constitution we'd have
> been surprised at just how wise
> they were and how well it would have worked.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Trisha Cummings [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 1:11 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: another shooting
>
> Actually I knew that!!! But given our current
> politicians who change with
> the tide - that's now slightly out of date. How
> could they know the future,
> and how things have turned out when they had
> only the past to use as a
> guideline.
>
> Trisha
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Barber, Kenneth L. [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 1:10 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: another shooting
> >
> > You know the founding fathers had a reason
> for the firearms clause in the
> > 2nd amendment. It was not to protect the
> rights of people to have a gun to
> > hunt, it was not even to protect the right
> to have a gun to protect
> > yourself from criminals (even though these
> are legitimate uses for guns)
> > it
> > was put that so that the populance would have
> guns to protect themselves
> > from,,,, GOVERNMENT.... OUR FOUNDING FATHERS
> assumed that a well armed
> > populance would overthrow a government that
> got too oppressive.
> >
> > Amazing what you learen reading the writing
> of the founders, is it any
> > surprize that an opressive government either
> limits what you can read or
> > in
> > our case see to it that most people do not
> learn to read.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cleveland, Kyle E.
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 12:26 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: another shooting
> >
> > Actually, most incidents of firearms homicide
> are not "avoidable
> > accidents",
> > but volitional acts of one criminal killing
> another criminal--generally
> > over
> > drugs--but it's doubtful you or I will have
> much luch changing the other's
> > rationale, true?
> >
> > -Kyle
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kathy Salkin
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 12:22 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: another shooting
> >
> >
> > I'm a gun control advocate generally
> speaking, not because outlawing guns
> > would make it harder for criminals to get
> guns - it doesn't - but because
> > stupid people legally get guns and stupidly
> kill others through avoidable
> > accidents. I don't think we have enough gun
> safety requirements in place.
> >
> > That's not an issue here, though, because
> you're right, whether you have a
> > gun
> > to defend yourself or not would not be a
> factor in whether you could
> > defend
> > yourself against the sniper. You can't.
> It's that simple and that's
> > what's
> > so scary.
> >
> > Kat
> >
> > > As much as I admire and respect your
> opinions,
> > > Kat, I really can't fathom
> > > how additional firearms legislation is
> going to
> > > help--now or in the future.
> > > Does this man, or any criminal for that
> matter,
> > > give a damn about THE LAW?
> > > Especially when the laws already on the
> books
> > > are unenforced, under-enforced
> > > or plea-bargained into impotence. I know
> it's
> > > an old wheeze, but there's
> > > truth in the saying that "when you outlaw
> guns,
> > > only outlaws will have
> > > guns"--at least in our American culture.
>
|
