From: Sayke@aol.com
Date: Mon May 31 1999 - 02:03:52 MDT
In a message dated 5/30/99 6:59:37 PM PST, joedees@bellsouth.net writes:
<much snippige="in which joe outlines a, IMHO, reasonable and complete set of
weapon legislation guidelines; if legislation can be called resonable">
true, i think crocker, lorray & co. would say that "no weapon
legislation is a good amount of weapon legislation", but... whats feasible
here? whats the goal of this? are we discussing the best way to set up a
future society, or are we discussing the best way to modify our present ones?
it seems to me that the discussion has gone off on a nifty spiraling
idealogical tanget, which, while perhaps important and interisting for some,
is easily be described for many more as a waste of bandwith...
so what was the scope/scale/point of this whole mess, anyway? there
have been lots of answers offered, but even by checking the archives im
unable to determine the question. ::shrug:: or the whole debate can be called
a dead horse, and we can all stop kicking it. im content either way. the only
outcome i would not be diggin is for this incredibly diverse and interisting
list to die the slow cancerous death that 'gene seems to be warning us
about...
"the trick is to throw yourself at the ground and miss"
sayke
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:54 MST