[Info-vax] Nice printers for OpenVMS?

[David Froble]

Doug Phillips wrote:
> 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.
> ##

GASP!  Hitting JF with FACTS?  What a low blow ....