🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <38p03r$m2h@crchh518.bnr.ca>, Tom G <tomg@bnr.ca> wrote:
>Yup.  Many also believe that requiring drivers licenses was the first 
>step to banning driving.  Any day now we will all be walking.

HOW many times must it be said? I guess at least once more, so I'll say
it: "Boy, don't we all *wish* that guns were licensed exactly as tightly
as driving."

o No license needed to operate on private property.

o No license needed to transport the item across public property as long
  as it's not being operated.

o Licenses cheap, readily available, and universally granted.

o One license allows you to operate as many of the items as you want.

o No license needed to purchase the item.

o No limits on the power of the item.

So if you're willing to impose these restrictions (and no others!) on the
right to own guns, I'm all for it!

The tendency for moderate gun control to evolve into restrictive gun control
and eventually bans with dismaying speed need not be argued... history is
rife with examples (c.f. Great Britain, New York, Illinois) and if you refuse
to *learn*, we can't help you.

-- 
__/\__  Jonathan S. Haas          | Jake liked his women the way he liked
\    /  positron@neosoft.com      | his kiwi fruit: sweet yet tart, firm-
/_  _\  Finger for PGP 2.3 key    | fleshed yet yielding to the touch, and
  \/    Don't Tread On Me         | covered with short brown fuzzy hair.