> >> Russell,
> >> Surely you recognize the distinction between and gun and a TV 
> >> receiver!!!???
> 
> > Perhaps he comes from politically repressive dictatorship?
> 
> I have no problem at all with the above being said *BUT* I 
> find it hard to understand what point is being made by the 
> 1st response and even harder to understand the second.
> 
> I'd be genuinely interested in knowing how my expressing the 
> concept that 'not having a licence for something leads to it 
> (or you depending on the particular arrangement) being 
> unlicensed leads anyone to the conclusion that I "come from" 
> a politically repressive dictatorship.
> 
> If I understand the US system, and I think I understand it 
> well enough for application to the present discussion, US 
> citizens sought and obtained the right to bear arms because 
> they thought that their government might on some occasions 
> turn out to be a repressive dictatorship (which they may need 
> their furry arms to combat).
> 
> In free and democratic countries like the one I "come from" 
> the vast majority of citizens are happy to forgo the right to 
> furry arms without a licence as we are not overly fearful 
> that our government may morph into a repressive dictatorship.


Oh good lord, a Friday night gun nut thread.  :)  or perhap be  =:-O

I thought part of it was to stop the British getting ideas.  Unlike
Australia, where the British were only interested in it as a good dumping
ground for the riff-raff.  Later on the riff-raff PAID the British to come
over.  Ten-pound poms, as they were known.  I wonder if they got for 3 for a
twenty.

Tony

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist