From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have stayed out of this debate because I thought both sides were generally
interested in generating more heat than light. However, I do find a several
points in IG's latest posting that I would like to take issue with:
~I realise now that is because I am
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think this debate has run its course.
I cannot, in all honesty, be bothered to repeat myself all the time by
responding to individual posts.
I have clearly stated my position, which is universally disagreed with.
(Venomously and vehemently I might add!)
I would
From: "pa49", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There seems to be an almost self-destruct air about the debate regarding who
should and who should not be "allowed" firearms. Why would anyone want to
remove an individuals right to defend him or herself in the appropriate
manner? The appropriate manner can only
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I find that disturbing
coming from a dealer. (I presume..'Jackson rifles?)
This is a very dangerous statement. Why is the simple
stating of an opinion disturbing? We've been down this
potential path before.
No credible political party
subscribes to the
From: "pa49", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Have to agree to disagree on this. I have no wish to live in a society
where
guns are as freely available as you want them to be. I find that disturbing
coming from a dealer. (I presume..'Jackson rifles?)
As I said elsewhere, this viewpoint of freedom from
From: Peter H Jackson, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The restrictions which you have in mind, be they heavy or light,
bear only on people who have no desire or propensity to commit
crime. Such restrictions are not in the interests of society as a
whole. So the answer to your assumption is no. Guns should
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jonathan writes, If we had a system that issued FAC's, or any type of
licence or privilege for that matter, based on the grounds that you didn't
like the look of someone then no one would get them.
That's what this comes down to - suggestions that X% of FAC
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OK. I'll risk the hate mail and say that I tend agree with some at least of
what IG says! Is there anyone out there who hasn't looked around the
firing point and thought " Now how the hell did he/she ever get a
certificate?"
Fortunately none of us are privy to
From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As there has been so much venom vented on this topic, I would love to know
what views the contributors hold on the subject of who should not be allowed
to hold a firearm or shotgun certificate.
I take it that it is the general consensus that there should
From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve: it's simpler than even that. A scanner used with a
CAD program, will produce almost anything within reason, depending
upon the capabilities of the machinery (tolerances).
Peter: Your first comment above is legion; that is why it
is
From: "IG", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The restrictions which you have in mind, be they heavy or light,
bear only on people who have no desire or propensity to commit
crime. Such restrictions are not in the interests of society as a
whole. So the answer to your assumption is no. Guns should be
sold and
From: "jim.craig", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OK. I'll risk the hate mail and say that I tend agree with some at least of
what IG says! Is there anyone out there who hasn't looked around the
firing point and thought " Now how the hell did he/she ever get a
certificate?"
Fortunately none of us are
From: Peter H Jackson, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
As there has been so much venom vented on this topic, I would
love to know
what views the contributors hold on the subject of who should
not be allowed to hold a firearm or shotgun certificate.
I take it that it is the general consensus that there
13 matches
Mail list logo
