On Sun, 03 May 2020 21:13:56 +1000, Bruce > wrote:

>On Sun, 03 May 2020 08:08:21 -0300, Lucretia Borgia
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 03 May 2020 10:31:15 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 02 May 2020 20:50:28 -0300, Lucretia Borgia
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 03 May 2020 07:55:15 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 02 May 2020 18:47:48 -0300, Lucretia Borgia
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 02 May 2020 14:30:01 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Lucretia Borgia wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They are not weapons you would use for hunting or defending your home,
>>>>>>>> but rather military type weapons, made to kill many and quickly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's what war is all about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I can agree but it is why I am glad they are going to be only for the
>>>>>>military in this country. Civilians do not need them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Weapons of war. I agree that I think men who want to own them are
>>>>>>>> really covering up their own physical inadequacies, something like old
>>>>>>>> bald men driving Maserati's.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Q: I suppose with the feminist thing, did you also
>>>>>>>support women's right to fight in combat? Should they
>>>>>>>also be drafted if a draft ever happens again?
>>>>>>>Not YOUR daughter though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So much burble - I did and do support a woman's right to fight in
>>>>>>combat, yes, they should also be drafted but maybe not to actually
>>>>>>fight, as with men, some are not combat minded.
>>>>>
>>>>>All men are?
>>>>
>>>>Can't you read? "as with men, some are not combat minded'
>>>
>>>So if I had been Canadian or American and drafted and said "Sorry, I'm
>>>not combat minded", I wouldn't have to fight?
>>
>>There are other jobs even in times of war. Sending someone in to
>>combat who is not able to handle it is a liability.
>
>So can we agree that women and men who don't want combat should
>equally not have to go into combat? Or do you make a distinction?

ffs - where did I say that?