| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Gactimus" |
| Date: |
20 Jan 2005 09:27:17 AM |
| Object: |
Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
It looks like Spike Lee was right. Mr. Michael "Bowling for Columbine"
Moore's bodyguards do carry guns,
"Filmmaker Michael Moore's bodyguard was arrested for carrying an unlicensed
weapon in New York's JFK airport Wednesday night."
Well, well, well, could a man who believes that you don't have the "right to
bear arms" actually have a gun packing bodyguard protecting him? I guess as
far as Moore is concerned, there's one standard for all of us peons and
another standard for VILs (very important liberals) like himself.
Sure, Moore may think that "ordinary people" -- like YOU -- can't be trusted
to have a gun to defend your families. It's just too risky. Oh, but if
Michael Moore might be in danger, well that's a different matter all
together; he's special, you see, the rules that he wants to apply to the
"little people" shouldn't apply to him.
What a hypocrite.
.
|
|
| User: "PLMerite" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
21 Jan 2005 07:49:58 PM |
|
|
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1106335804.458396.98220@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Sorry, but he is not moving to ban all guns in that quote as you
contend. He wants to ban guns that fire multiple rounds per trigger
pull (burst automatics and full automatics) and handguns. He does not
want to ban single shot rifles and shotguns, which are often used in
hunting. Therefore, he does not want to ban all guns. Therefore, your
cite does not support your point.
That's not what the quote said. Moore said "handguns."
Do you even know the difference between semi- and full-automatic?
And for the record, I agree with banning the civilian sale of automatic
pistols and rifles (exception: antiques because of their historical
value), but I also think that handguns, rifles, and shotguns should
remain legal to own. With the exception of ownership of antiques and
historical pieces, there is no reason that a civilian should own a
functional automatic weapon. And yes, I do know that with only minor
modification, a semi-automatic can be changed to a full automatic, but
that mod is illegal to do already, IIRC.
I also think that we have too many laws on the books dealing with gun
ownership. (Over 20,000, I think) That entire body of laws should be
scrapped, rewritten, and tightened up to that they are fairly simple
and straightforward, with as few loopholes as possible, and as
universally applicable as possible as well, without cutting into our
right to own and use firearms legally.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
21 Jan 2005 10:02:28 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:49:58 GMT, "PLMerite"
<stockade@smokebombhill.com> said in alt.atheism:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1106335804.458396.98220@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Sorry, but he is not moving to ban all guns in that quote as you
contend. He wants to ban guns that fire multiple rounds per trigger
pull (burst automatics and full automatics) and handguns. He does not
want to ban single shot rifles and shotguns, which are often used in
hunting. Therefore, he does not want to ban all guns. Therefore, your
cite does not support your point.
That's not what the quote said. Moore said "handguns."
"He does not want to ban single shot rifles and shotguns, which are
often used in hunting. Therefore, he does not want to ban all guns."
Banning handguns isn't banning all guns.
Do you even know the difference between semi- and full-automatic?
Banning semi- and fully-automatic weapons isn't banning all guns.
What part of "he is not moving to ban all guns" confuses you?
--
"They laughed at Newton, they laughed at Einstein, but they also laughed at
Bozo the Clown."
- Carl Sagan
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "AH#49 writes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
22 Jan 2005 08:18:12 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:49:58 GMT, "PLMerite"
<stockade@smokebombhill.com> said in alt.atheism:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1106335804.458396.98220@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Sorry, but he is not moving to ban all guns in that quote as you
contend. He wants to ban guns that fire multiple rounds per trigger
pull (burst automatics and full automatics) and handguns. He does not
want to ban single shot rifles and shotguns, which are often used in
hunting. Therefore, he does not want to ban all guns. Therefore, your
cite does not support your point.
That's not what the quote said. Moore said "handguns."
"He does not want to ban single shot rifles and shotguns, which are
often used in hunting. Therefore, he does not want to ban all guns."
Banning handguns isn't banning all guns.
Do you even know the difference between semi- and full-automatic?
Banning semi- and fully-automatic weapons isn't banning all guns.
What part of "he is not moving to ban all guns" confuses you?
What part of he wants to ban ANY particular gun at all confuses you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
22 Jan 2005 05:13:20 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 09:18:12 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:49:58 GMT, "PLMerite"
<stockade@smokebombhill.com> said in alt.atheism:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1106335804.458396.98220@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Sorry, but he is not moving to ban all guns in that quote as you
contend. He wants to ban guns that fire multiple rounds per trigger
pull (burst automatics and full automatics) and handguns. He does not
want to ban single shot rifles and shotguns, which are often used in
hunting. Therefore, he does not want to ban all guns. Therefore, your
cite does not support your point.
That's not what the quote said. Moore said "handguns."
"He does not want to ban single shot rifles and shotguns, which are
often used in hunting. Therefore, he does not want to ban all guns."
Banning handguns isn't banning all guns.
Do you even know the difference between semi- and full-automatic?
Banning semi- and fully-automatic weapons isn't banning all guns.
What part of "he is not moving to ban all guns" confuses you?
What part of he wants to ban ANY particular gun at all confuses you?
The claim was that he doesn't want to ban all guns, not anything to do
with banning any particular gun. Your 'response' was non-responsive.
--
"I can't activate two neurons simultaneously, and I vote"
- The theistic majority
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
22 Jan 2005 05:23:11 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:ven5v0hre710k60btnrg4krrerk8fi1hto@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 09:18:12 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:49:58 GMT, "PLMerite"
<stockade@smokebombhill.com> said in alt.atheism:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1106335804.458396.98220@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Sorry, but he is not moving to ban all guns in that quote as you
contend. He wants to ban guns that fire multiple rounds per trigger
pull (burst automatics and full automatics) and handguns. He does
not
want to ban single shot rifles and shotguns, which are often used in
hunting. Therefore, he does not want to ban all guns. Therefore,
your
cite does not support your point.
That's not what the quote said. Moore said "handguns."
"He does not want to ban single shot rifles and shotguns, which are
often used in hunting. Therefore, he does not want to ban all guns."
Banning handguns isn't banning all guns.
Do you even know the difference between semi- and full-automatic?
Banning semi- and fully-automatic weapons isn't banning all guns.
What part of "he is not moving to ban all guns" confuses you?
What part of he wants to ban ANY particular gun at all confuses you?
The claim was that he doesn't want to ban all guns, not anything to do
with banning any particular gun. Your 'response' was non-responsive.
I don't know about anyone else, but banning 99.5% of all current guns is
close enough to a total ban to make the difference pretty minor.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
22 Jan 2005 07:12:34 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:23:11 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
I don't know about anyone else, but banning 99.5% of all current guns is
close enough to a total ban to make the difference pretty minor.
Banning all guns not needed for hunting is pretty sane. If 99.5% of
all guns in existence in the country (other than law enforcement and
military weapons) are automatic or semi-automatic, something is very
wrong.
--
"Does it ever amaze anyone else how little faith some heterosexuals have
in heterosexuality? It's supposed to be this god-given human instinct
that only the warped and perverted ever stray from; but, it seems, if we
once tell our straight children a message even as mild as "some people
are gay, and that's all right," that'll be enough to send lil' Suzy into
the arms of women forever. It's a wonder the race has survived this
long, really..."
- Charles M Seaton (21 Dec 1994)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
22 Jan 2005 07:25:13 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:mdu5v05ps376df2iu49vednthnaue5cq0o@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:23:11 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
I don't know about anyone else, but banning 99.5% of all current guns is
close enough to a total ban to make the difference pretty minor.
Banning all guns not needed for hunting is pretty sane.
Except that isn't just what he is suggesting we ban. About the only thing
safe from Mr. Moore's ban would be single shot rifles and shotguns, and
those aren't very common. Heck they aren't even common among hunters. After
all, think about it. By definition any magazine, clip, or tube fed rifle or
shotgun is NOT a single shot. A single shot holds only one round....the one
in the chamber. That pretty much limits it to a few bolt actions and break
opens. Even the classic double barrel shotgun would be banned since it isn't
a single shot.
So either Mr. Moore is lying to you about the real extent of his ban, or
he's unaware of the extent of the ban he is proposing due to his ignorance.
Either way, it's would impact hunters....and quite a bit.
If 99.5% of
all guns in existence in the country (other than law enforcement and
military weapons) are automatic or semi-automatic, something is very
wrong.
Yea, you're an idiot that thinks that everyone should conform to your ideals
of what they should have. That's the only thing wrong around here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
22 Jan 2005 10:31:21 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:25:13 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:mdu5v05ps376df2iu49vednthnaue5cq0o@4ax.com...
Banning all guns not needed for hunting is pretty sane.
Except that isn't just what he is suggesting we ban. About the only thing
safe from Mr. Moore's ban would be single shot rifles and shotguns
Which is about all the firearms needed for hunting. (There's a
difference between 'need' and 'want'.) How many shots do you need to
bring down your target? (IOW, how bad a hunter are you?)
--
"The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, ratified by Congress
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 08:33:12 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:q1a6v09dm50j1apnimoi935cb2ldpvamcf@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:25:13 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:mdu5v05ps376df2iu49vednthnaue5cq0o@4ax.com...
Banning all guns not needed for hunting is pretty sane.
Except that isn't just what he is suggesting we ban. About the only thing
safe from Mr. Moore's ban would be single shot rifles and shotguns
Which is about all the firearms needed for hunting.
According to whom????
Most hunters I know don't use single shots, so they must feel the need or
desire for something more.
Further who are you and Mr. Moore to determine what all hunters need?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bama Brian" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 01:22:55 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:25:13 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:mdu5v05ps376df2iu49vednthnaue5cq0o@4ax.com...
Banning all guns not needed for hunting is pretty sane.
Except that isn't just what he is suggesting we ban. About the only thing
safe from Mr. Moore's ban would be single shot rifles and shotguns
Which is about all the firearms needed for hunting. (There's a
difference between 'need' and 'want'.) How many shots do you need to
bring down your target? (IOW, how bad a hunter are you?)
Since you're not a hunter at all, Al, your point is moot. If you hunted
anything at all, you'd know how off base your idea is.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 11:38:54 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:25:13 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:mdu5v05ps376df2iu49vednthnaue5cq0o@4ax.com...
Banning all guns not needed for hunting is pretty sane.
Except that isn't just what he is suggesting we ban. About the only thing
safe from Mr. Moore's ban would be single shot rifles and shotguns
Which is about all the firearms needed for hunting. (There's a
difference between 'need' and 'want'.) How many shots do you need to
bring down your target? (IOW, how bad a hunter are you?)
The real point is that you don't get to define my needs.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 04:21:41 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:38:54 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
Which is about all the firearms needed for hunting. (There's a
difference between 'need' and 'want'.) How many shots do you need to
bring down your target? (IOW, how bad a hunter are you?)
The real point is that you don't get to define my needs.
But the government gets to define your limits.
--
"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit
priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies
about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and
have always been an atheist."
- Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945,
responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein
to convert from atheism. Article by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic
magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 05:09:04 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:2r88v0tkn6va549fj4tahk0geocjv63h8n@4ax.com...
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:38:54 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
Which is about all the firearms needed for hunting. (There's a
difference between 'need' and 'want'.) How many shots do you need to
bring down your target? (IOW, how bad a hunter are you?)
The real point is that you don't get to define my needs.
But the government gets to define your limits.
Wrong. We define the limits of government.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
25 Jan 2005 06:23:46 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:09:04 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> thought hard and said:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:2r88v0tkn6va549fj4tahk0geocjv63h8n@4ax.com...
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:38:54 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
Which is about all the firearms needed for hunting. (There's a
difference between 'need' and 'want'.) How many shots do you need to
bring down your target? (IOW, how bad a hunter are you?)
The real point is that you don't get to define my needs.
But the government gets to define your limits.
Wrong. We define the limits of government.
It rarely listens to us, though.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AH#49 writes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 05:08:32 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:38:54 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
Which is about all the firearms needed for hunting. (There's a
difference between 'need' and 'want'.) How many shots do you need to
bring down your target? (IOW, how bad a hunter are you?)
The real point is that you don't get to define my needs.
But the government gets to define your limits.
Cite where the US Government defines our "needs!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 06:52:35 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:08:32 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:38:54 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
Which is about all the firearms needed for hunting. (There's a
difference between 'need' and 'want'.) How many shots do you need to
bring down your target? (IOW, how bad a hunter are you?)
The real point is that you don't get to define my needs.
But the government gets to define your limits.
Cite where the US Government defines our "needs!"
As soon as you respond to what I wrote.
--
"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want
you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our
goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by
God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want
pluralism."
-Randall Terry, Founder of Operation Rescue, The News-Sentinel, Fort
Wayne, Indiana, 8-16-93
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "AH#49 writes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 10:51:57 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:08:32 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:38:54 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
Which is about all the firearms needed for hunting. (There's a
difference between 'need' and 'want'.) How many shots do you need to
bring down your target? (IOW, how bad a hunter are you?)
The real point is that you don't get to define my needs.
But the government gets to define your limits.
Cite where the US Government defines our "needs!"
As soon as you respond to what I wrote.
I did. Now yer too afraid to answer simple guestions.
You use the word "limits" as needs, and then also carry that on to
define what a free people, as individuals, actualy want.
So tell me.
Being as you seem to agree with Mikey Moore, in his saying that having
a hunting rifle is OK, but, what if I don't hunt?
Can't I still have a "hunting weapon" merely because I want one?
Everybody I know that hunts, succesfully hunts animals with handguns as
well.
Well according to you and mike, I can not, and THEN you go on to say
that the constituion "limits" what type of weapons I can want.
Sooooooo, I'll ask again.
Show me where in the Constitution it states what you claim.
Take yer time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 02:08:07 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 10:38:54 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
Which is about all the firearms needed for hunting. (There's a
difference between 'need' and 'want'.) How many shots do you need to
bring down your target? (IOW, how bad a hunter are you?)
The real point is that you don't get to define my needs.
But the government gets to define your limits.
And that isn't you. Sorry, Al.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SaPeIsMa" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 11:13:15 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:mdu5v05ps376df2iu49vednthnaue5cq0o@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:23:11 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
I don't know about anyone else, but banning 99.5% of all current guns is
close enough to a total ban to make the difference pretty minor.
Banning all guns not needed for hunting is pretty sane. If 99.5% of
all guns in existence in the country (other than law enforcement and
military weapons) are automatic or semi-automatic, something is very
wrong.
--
So what about guns NOT needed for hunting
Why exactly should they be banned ?
Is hunting the ONLY valid use of a gun ?
Your myoppia is interesting
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 11:22:14 AM |
|
|
In article <10v7n48blh36102@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:mdu5v05ps376df2iu49vednthnaue5cq0o@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:23:11 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
I don't know about anyone else, but banning 99.5% of all current guns is
close enough to a total ban to make the difference pretty minor.
Banning all guns not needed for hunting is pretty sane. If 99.5% of
all guns in existence in the country (other than law enforcement and
military weapons) are automatic or semi-automatic, something is very
wrong.
--
So what about guns NOT needed for hunting
Why exactly should they be banned ?
Is hunting the ONLY valid use of a gun ?
Your myoppia is interesting
All handguns should be banned.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 11:28:07 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050922145955%spam@aol.com...
In article <10v7n48blh36102@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:mdu5v05ps376df2iu49vednthnaue5cq0o@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:23:11 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
I don't know about anyone else, but banning 99.5% of all current guns
is
close enough to a total ban to make the difference pretty minor.
Banning all guns not needed for hunting is pretty sane. If 99.5% of
all guns in existence in the country (other than law enforcement and
military weapons) are automatic or semi-automatic, something is very
wrong.
--
So what about guns NOT needed for hunting
Why exactly should they be banned ?
Is hunting the ONLY valid use of a gun ?
Your myoppia is interesting
All handguns should be banned.
Why?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 11:33:36 AM |
|
|
In article <XJOdnarC5pUxQ27cRVn-vA@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050922145955%spam@aol.com...
In article <10v7n48blh36102@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:mdu5v05ps376df2iu49vednthnaue5cq0o@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:23:11 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
I don't know about anyone else, but banning 99.5% of all current guns
is
close enough to a total ban to make the difference pretty minor.
Banning all guns not needed for hunting is pretty sane. If 99.5% of
all guns in existence in the country (other than law enforcement and
military weapons) are automatic or semi-automatic, something is very
wrong.
--
So what about guns NOT needed for hunting
Why exactly should they be banned ?
Is hunting the ONLY valid use of a gun ?
Your myoppia is interesting
All handguns should be banned.
Why?
Utilitarian reasons. Their danger outweighs their usefulness.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Lentz" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 12:28:01 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050933366857%spam@aol.com...
In article <XJOdnarC5pUxQ27cRVn-vA@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050922145955%spam@aol.com...
In article <10v7n48blh36102@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:mdu5v05ps376df2iu49vednthnaue5cq0o@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:23:11 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
I don't know about anyone else, but banning 99.5% of all current
guns
is
close enough to a total ban to make the difference pretty minor.
Banning all guns not needed for hunting is pretty sane. If 99.5%
of
all guns in existence in the country (other than law enforcement
and
military weapons) are automatic or semi-automatic, something is
very
wrong.
--
So what about guns NOT needed for hunting
Why exactly should they be banned ?
Is hunting the ONLY valid use of a gun ?
Your myoppia is interesting
All handguns should be banned.
Why?
Utilitarian reasons. Their danger outweighs their usefulness.
What danger? There are fewer than a thousand accidental firearm deaths a
year. That is from both long and short guns. Yet there a tens of
thousands of accidental motor vehicle deaths a year. Motor vehicles are
far more dangerous than handguns.
David
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 12:33:17 PM |
|
|
"David Lentz" <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:R0SId.159200$Uf.57044@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050933366857%spam@aol.com...
In article <XJOdnarC5pUxQ27cRVn-vA@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050922145955%spam@aol.com...
In article <10v7n48blh36102@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:mdu5v05ps376df2iu49vednthnaue5cq0o@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:23:11 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
I don't know about anyone else, but banning 99.5% of all current
guns
is
close enough to a total ban to make the difference pretty minor.
Banning all guns not needed for hunting is pretty sane. If 99.5%
of
all guns in existence in the country (other than law enforcement
and
military weapons) are automatic or semi-automatic, something is
very
wrong.
--
So what about guns NOT needed for hunting
Why exactly should they be banned ?
Is hunting the ONLY valid use of a gun ?
Your myoppia is interesting
All handguns should be banned.
Why?
Utilitarian reasons. Their danger outweighs their usefulness.
What danger? There are fewer than a thousand accidental firearm deaths a
year. That is from both long and short guns. Yet there a tens of
thousands of accidental motor vehicle deaths a year. Motor vehicles are
far more dangerous than handguns.
Exactly.
What about all those who drive and drink too, should we go back to
prohibition because people who drink and drive are far more dangerous than
owners of handguns?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 12:45:36 PM |
|
|
In article <9NKdnbEK69rTcG7cRVn-ow@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David Lentz" <dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:R0SId.159200$Uf.57044@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050933366857%spam@aol.com...
In article <XJOdnarC5pUxQ27cRVn-vA@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050922145955%spam@aol.com...
In article <10v7n48blh36102@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:mdu5v05ps376df2iu49vednthnaue5cq0o@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:23:11 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
I don't know about anyone else, but banning 99.5% of all current
guns
is
close enough to a total ban to make the difference pretty minor.
Banning all guns not needed for hunting is pretty sane. If 99.5%
of
all guns in existence in the country (other than law enforcement
and
military weapons) are automatic or semi-automatic, something is
very
wrong.
--
So what about guns NOT needed for hunting
Why exactly should they be banned ?
Is hunting the ONLY valid use of a gun ?
Your myoppia is interesting
All handguns should be banned.
Why?
Utilitarian reasons. Their danger outweighs their usefulness.
What danger? There are fewer than a thousand accidental firearm deaths a
year. That is from both long and short guns. Yet there a tens of
thousands of accidental motor vehicle deaths a year. Motor vehicles are
far more dangerous than handguns.
Exactly.
The sheep speaks.
What about all those who drive and drink too, should we go back to
prohibition because people who drink and drive are far more dangerous than
owners of handguns?
You are way to simple minded to be trying to get involved in this
conversation. Go away.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 12:44:40 PM |
|
|
In article <R0SId.159200$Uf.57044@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050933366857%spam@aol.com...
In article <XJOdnarC5pUxQ27cRVn-vA@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050922145955%spam@aol.com...
In article <10v7n48blh36102@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:mdu5v05ps376df2iu49vednthnaue5cq0o@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:23:11 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
I don't know about anyone else, but banning 99.5% of all current
guns
is
close enough to a total ban to make the difference pretty minor.
Banning all guns not needed for hunting is pretty sane. If 99.5%
of
all guns in existence in the country (other than law enforcement
and
military weapons) are automatic or semi-automatic, something is
very
wrong.
--
So what about guns NOT needed for hunting
Why exactly should they be banned ?
Is hunting the ONLY valid use of a gun ?
Your myoppia is interesting
All handguns should be banned.
Why?
Utilitarian reasons. Their danger outweighs their usefulness.
What danger? There are fewer than a thousand accidental firearm deaths a
year. That is from both long and short guns. Yet there a tens of
thousands of accidental motor vehicle deaths a year. Motor vehicles are
far more dangerous than handguns.
And far more useful. One need only look at the statistics to see that
handguns are more dangerous than they are useful. Comparing guns to
motor vehicles is like comparing clouds to carrots.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Lentz" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 02:22:57 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051044409421%spam@aol.com...
In article <R0SId.159200$Uf.57044@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050933366857%spam@aol.com...
In article <XJOdnarC5pUxQ27cRVn-vA@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050922145955%spam@aol.com...
In article <10v7n48blh36102@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:mdu5v05ps376df2iu49vednthnaue5cq0o@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:23:11 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
I don't know about anyone else, but banning 99.5% of all
current
guns
is
close enough to a total ban to make the difference pretty
minor.
Banning all guns not needed for hunting is pretty sane. If
99.5%
of
all guns in existence in the country (other than law
enforcement
and
military weapons) are automatic or semi-automatic, something is
very
wrong.
--
So what about guns NOT needed for hunting
Why exactly should they be banned ?
Is hunting the ONLY valid use of a gun ?
Your myoppia is interesting
All handguns should be banned.
Why?
Utilitarian reasons. Their danger outweighs their usefulness.
What danger? There are fewer than a thousand accidental firearm deaths
a
year. That is from both long and short guns. Yet there a tens of
thousands of accidental motor vehicle deaths a year. Motor vehicles
are
far more dangerous than handguns.
And far more useful. One need only look at the statistics to see that
handguns are more dangerous than they are useful. Comparing guns to
motor vehicles is like comparing clouds to carrots.
There are fewer than a thousand accidental gun deaths a year. That is
from all guns, not just handguns. Firearms do not pose a problem. They
are safe. And they are useful. There are tens of thousands of DGU's
each year.
David
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 03:26:17 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051044409421%spam@aol.com...
In article <R0SId.159200$Uf.57044@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050933366857%spam@aol.com...
In article <XJOdnarC5pUxQ27cRVn-vA@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050922145955%spam@aol.com...
In article <10v7n48blh36102@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:mdu5v05ps376df2iu49vednthnaue5cq0o@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:23:11 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
I don't know about anyone else, but banning 99.5% of all current
guns
is
close enough to a total ban to make the difference pretty minor.
Banning all guns not needed for hunting is pretty sane. If
99.5%
of
all guns in existence in the country (other than law enforcement
and
military weapons) are automatic or semi-automatic, something is
very
wrong.
--
So what about guns NOT needed for hunting
Why exactly should they be banned ?
Is hunting the ONLY valid use of a gun ?
Your myoppia is interesting
All handguns should be banned.
Why?
Utilitarian reasons. Their danger outweighs their usefulness.
What danger? There are fewer than a thousand accidental firearm deaths
a
year. That is from both long and short guns. Yet there a tens of
thousands of accidental motor vehicle deaths a year. Motor vehicles are
far more dangerous than handguns.
And far more useful. One need only look at the statistics to see that
handguns are more dangerous than they are useful.
So why did you carry one?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 03:32:01 PM |
|
|
In article <lOmdnRGksLLji2ncRVn-og@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051044409421%spam@aol.com...
In article <R0SId.159200$Uf.57044@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050933366857%spam@aol.com...
In article <XJOdnarC5pUxQ27cRVn-vA@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050922145955%spam@aol.com...
In article <10v7n48blh36102@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:mdu5v05ps376df2iu49vednthnaue5cq0o@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:23:11 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
I don't know about anyone else, but banning 99.5% of all current
guns
is
close enough to a total ban to make the difference pretty minor.
Banning all guns not needed for hunting is pretty sane. If
99.5%
of
all guns in existence in the country (other than law enforcement
and
military weapons) are automatic or semi-automatic, something is
very
wrong.
--
So what about guns NOT needed for hunting
Why exactly should they be banned ?
Is hunting the ONLY valid use of a gun ?
Your myoppia is interesting
All handguns should be banned.
Why?
Utilitarian reasons. Their danger outweighs their usefulness.
What danger? There are fewer than a thousand accidental firearm deaths
a
year. That is from both long and short guns. Yet there a tens of
thousands of accidental motor vehicle deaths a year. Motor vehicles are
far more dangerous than handguns.
And far more useful. One need only look at the statistics to see that
handguns are more dangerous than they are useful.
So why did you carry one?
It is ca | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
