----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID:
<4b9b6112-4c7d-4d57-8b2a-63d6261b8ac2n@googlegroups.com> 8299818f
@REPLY: <urs03iduo0un08qpfu12uq04ho6lom3th8@4ax.com>
e89da993
@REPLYADDR edstas...@gmail.com
<edstasiak1067@gmail.com>
@REPLYTO 2:5075/128 edstas...@gmail.com
@CHRS: CP866 2
@RFC: 1 0
@RFC-References: 1@reader2.panix.com>
<878p2ip2o5tck5sfc7dumcm480doqhb2vo@4ax.com> 1@reader2.panix.com>
<149c1cf9-d97e-412b-9947-648c8dfd429fn@googlegroups.com> 2@reader2.panix.com> <tab03i1vqqatn9fs5g2jthqtp70o89kauc@4ax.com>
<urs03iduo0un08qpfu12uq04ho6lom3th8@4ax.com>
@RFC-Message-ID:
<4b9b6112-4c7d-4d57-8b2a-63d6261b8ac2n@googlegroups.com>
@TZUTC: -0700
@PID: G2/1.0
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
> The Horny Goat
> > pyotr filipivich
> >
> > Unless one can come up with a plausible means of convincing the
> >veterans and other ordinary people that the Government (British,
> >American or {Colony | State} should have a monopoly on a particular
> >firearm, I doubt any attempt to limit the right to keep and bear arms
> >will result in civil war as people say "I didn`t have family suck up
> >government issued musket balls just to move a tyrannical government
> >3000 miles closer."
>
> It`s probably a non-problem if you are able to restrict the right to
> single shot weapons below a certain size. For instance nobody has
> the right to a "self-defence cannon". One thing you are likely to get
> approved is a maximum number of weapons per individual plus a
> blanket ban on weapons for felons.
There is no point where gun control advocates will ever say;
"That`s enough gun control."
--- G2/1.0
* Origin: usenet.network (2:5075/128)
SEEN-BY: 50/109 301/1 463/68 467/888 4500/1
5001/100 5005/49 5020/715 830 848
SEEN-BY: 5020/1042 4441 12000 5030/49 1081 5054/8
5064/56 5075/35 128 5083/1
SEEN-BY: 5083/444
@PATH: 5075/128 5020/1042 4441