In a message dated 5/30/99 6:59:37 PM PST, email@example.com 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"