[Info-vax] Nice printers for OpenVMS?

[Doug Phillips]

On 8/8/2012 3:49 PM, Dirk Munk wrote:
> David Froble wrote:
>> Jan-Erik Soderholm wrote:
>>
>>> What a complete set of BS !
>>
>> You might think so.  Doesn't make you any more right than anyone else.
>>
>>> How on earth can you compare a cow with (legaly!) bying a semi-automatic
>>> handgun and shooting people at a cinema (or in a Siek temple)...
>>
>> I never did that.
>>
>> What I did was point out to someone who probably feels that he is
>> non-violent that in fact, he is not.
>
> I never claimed that. However in a civilized society it is the
> prerogative of the authorities to use deadly force (if necessary) to
> fight crime.
>
> If the US really needs armed civilians to keep the streets save, than
> apparently after more than 200 years you haven't been able to create a
> normal society. Keep in mind that Canada has a somewhat similar history
> with immigration from all kind of people, but Canadians don't feel the
> need to defend themselves with firearms.
>

Well, now you're just being silly;

from the Criminal Code of Canada:
##
SOR/98-207 PART 1
CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL NEEDS RESTRICTED FIREARMS OR 
PROHIBITED HANDGUNS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 20 OF THE ACT
Protection of Life

2. For the purpose of section 20 of the Act, the circumstances in which 
an individual needs restricted firearms or prohibited handguns to 
protect the life of that individual or of other individuals are where

     (a) the life of that individual, or other individuals, is in 
imminent danger from one or more other individuals;

     (b) police protection is not sufficient in the circumstances; and

     (c) the possession of a restricted firearm or prohibited handgun 
can reasonably be justified for protecting the individual or other 
individuals from death or grievous bodily harm.
##