[Info-vax] Nice printers for OpenVMS?

[David Froble]

Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
> Bob Koehler wrote 2012-08-09 15:59:
>> In article <5022c923$0$44509$c3e8da3$f017e9df at news.astraweb.com>, JF 
>> Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot at vaxination.ca> writes:
>>>
>>> In the case of the USA constitution, the failure is in the choice of
>>> words. If they meant that the citizens should have a means to overthrow
>>> a government or at least stop a rogue govt, then they should have stated
>>> it in such words instead of "right to bear arms".
>>
>>     200 years ago the founders made sure that the Constitution can be
>>     changed.
>>
>>     But how would you overthrow a violent government without arms?  When
>>     India threw out the British, the British were actually sensitive
>>     to international opinion.  Oppresive governments generally are not.
>>
> 
> Does *anyone* think that the main driving force of the NRA members
> is protect themselfs from the *government* ? Of course not.
> 
> 

I don't support the NRA.  I think they might be a bit too obsessive. The problem 
is, if you support some rational control of the distribution and ownership of 
weapons, then some zealot will sooner or later attempt to insert wording into 
some legislation to promote their own goals.  so, all you can do is stand firm 
and don't let anything start a slide into something inadvisable.

I do support the right of citizens to own weapons.  I don't support 
inappropriate use of weapons.

But I have to wonder.  Until at least recently, Switzerland REQUIRED people to 
have military training, and to keep their weapons at their homes.  Why am I not 
hearing some huge denunciation of the Swiss?  If you say that they don't have 
any problems, then you're also saying that it isn't the guns, it's the people.