🚀 go-pugleaf

Hippolyte Lizard <hippolyte.lizard@buzzard.net> wrote in message
news:98jt82$2n3@news.or.intel.com...

> But for weeks it seems this NG has been crammed with the endless half-baked
> rantings of a small but loud collection of usenet gasbags obsessing on that
> broad intersection of law, interpretation and morality that this
> much-overworked subject never fails to stir up.  The arguments circle around
> each other like a small crowd of knife-fighters, none of them able to deal a
> deadly or even particularly injurious blow.  But I keep coming back,
> fascinated in spite of myself, hoping for a little color on the floor maybe;
> but it always looks the same and I get bored again.

It may surprise you to find that not everybody reading this thread is some sort
of absolutist with a position to push.  Some of us may think that an absolute gun
ban and an absolute ban on gun control are equally half-baked ideas, and are
interested in knowing what the legalities (as defined by actual high court rulings,
not by dueling historians) are that make it possible to set the laws somewhere in
between.  Those who take the opposing absolutist views are obviously not going
to change each others' minds, but unless they're just posting because they enjoy
insulting each other, I assume they're trying to persuade the rest of us.