charlie b wrote:

LRod wrote:

On Sun, 29 May 2005 18:37:58 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Since, those, who in the past have derided gun control as going after
the wrong probelm by asking "what are they going to ban next, knives?"

Yes, I actually have said that for nearly 40 years.

The keeper of the Pointy Stick web page better take care, he may be
considered a violence enabler in the future.

Maybe in the past. Nowadays they'll arrest him as a terrorist and
process him under the Patriot Act (should be called the Kafka Act).

--
LRod

Get it while you can folks - The Pointy Stick Compendium Project

http://home.comcast.net/~charliebcz/...OfContent.html

As for gun control, I'm more inclined towards bullet control.
Guns don't kill people. Bullets kill people.

I propose a compromise gun control. Everyone can have as
many as they want. But each must be a) taller than the person
carrying it and b) be limited to a single shot. If you can't
disable an assailant with one shot you probably shouldn't
have a firearm anyway. If you're worried about mulltiple
assailants then carry two or three firearms of the type and
size suggested.

Same rule for the police? After all, with all their training they should
only need one shot shouldn't they? And I guess that they should quit
teaching police the double-tap?

And I presume from your comment about size that you favor legalizing open
carry?

Now will someone please explain why a private citizen
should be able to , and perhaps use, armor piercing
bullets?

Define "armor piercing bullet" in such a way that it does not subsume the
majority of bullets.

charlie b
donning his Poo Suit

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)