| 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: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
08 Feb 2005 04:11:50 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:070220051947566859%spam@aol.com...
In article <110gce43d8f2n38@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Paul Erickson" <paul.erickson@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:4pjf01hahigmt5lar3hvfn5r7ro994hn23@4ax.com...
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:19:39 -0800, "Yardpilot" <yardpilot@gorge.net>
wrote:
"Sam" <srcarruth@yahoo.NO.SPAM.com> wrote in message
news:3TzKd.8721$8Z1.3289@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
David Lentz wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:280120051140363448%spam@aol.com...
In article <XiwKd.7387$ZD1.2684@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:280120051035037512%spam@aol.com...
<snip>
What IS the problem, Dave?
Easy access to guns. Keep up and stop avoiding the issues.
Guns are not the problem. Never have been. Guns are tools.
Guns
do
not
do bad things. Bad people do bad things. Sometimes bad people
do
bad
things with guns. Other times they leave their SUV on a rail
track.
Guns are clearly part of the problem. I guess you feel we should
all
be able to own rocket launchers, too?
How are guns any part of the problem? Guns are tools. They have
no
free
will.
David
so all those death from gunshots would have happened anyway?
What is your evidence to the contrary?
Well, this isn't evidence since there could hardly be real evidence of
that. But guns are technology that makes it easier to kill. That's
what they're for. Duh. Why else would they have been so intensively
developed?
If it's harder to kill, more people will fail at their attempts to
kill. And fewer accidents will be fatal.
Not evidence, just common sense.
Sadly, a lot of "common sense" is totally lacking of sense.
And just because there appears to be corelation does NOT mean that
there
is causality.
Learn to spell correlation and and your trite comment will be more
convincing. And in this case, there *is* causation.
Prove it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
08 Feb 2005 10:59:08 AM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:070220051947566859%spam@aol.com...
In article <110gce43d8f2n38@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Paul Erickson" <paul.erickson@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:4pjf01hahigmt5lar3hvfn5r7ro994hn23@4ax.com...
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:19:39 -0800, "Yardpilot" <yardpilot@gorge.net>
wrote:
"Sam" <srcarruth@yahoo.NO.SPAM.com> wrote in message
news:3TzKd.8721$8Z1.3289@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
David Lentz wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:280120051140363448%spam@aol.com...
In article <XiwKd.7387$ZD1.2684@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:280120051035037512%spam@aol.com...
<snip>
What IS the problem, Dave?
Easy access to guns. Keep up and stop avoiding the issues.
Guns are not the problem. Never have been. Guns are tools.
Guns
do
not
do bad things. Bad people do bad things. Sometimes bad people
do
bad
things with guns. Other times they leave their SUV on a rail
track.
Guns are clearly part of the problem. I guess you feel we should
all
be able to own rocket launchers, too?
How are guns any part of the problem? Guns are tools. They have
no
free
will.
David
so all those death from gunshots would have happened anyway?
What is your evidence to the contrary?
Well, this isn't evidence since there could hardly be real evidence of
that. But guns are technology that makes it easier to kill. That's
what they're for. Duh. Why else would they have been so intensively
developed?
If it's harder to kill, more people will fail at their attempts to
kill. And fewer accidents will be fatal.
Not evidence, just common sense.
Sadly, a lot of "common sense" is totally lacking of sense.
And just because there appears to be corelation does NOT mean that
there
is causality.
Learn to spell correlation and and your trite comment will be more
convincing. And in this case, there *is* causation.
Prove it.
He won't and can't.
--
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
08 Feb 2005 03:17:09 PM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <110gce43d8f2n38@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Paul Erickson" <paul.erickson@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:4pjf01hahigmt5lar3hvfn5r7ro994hn23@4ax.com...
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:19:39 -0800, "Yardpilot"
<yardpilot@gorge.net>
wrote:
"Sam" <srcarruth@yahoo.NO.SPAM.com> wrote in message
news:3TzKd.8721$8Z1.3289@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
David Lentz wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:280120051140363448%spam@aol.com...
In article <XiwKd.7387$ZD1.2684@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David
Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:280120051035037512%spam@aol.com...
<snip>
What IS the problem, Dave?
Easy access to guns. Keep up and stop avoiding the issues.
Guns are not the problem. Never have been. Guns are
tools. Guns
do
not
do bad things. Bad people do bad things. Sometimes bad
people do
bad
things with guns. Other times they leave their SUV on a
rail track.
Guns are clearly part of the problem. I guess you feel we
should all
be able to own rocket launchers, too?
How are guns any part of the problem? Guns are tools. They
have no
free
will.
David
so all those death from gunshots would have happened anyway?
What is your evidence to the contrary?
Well, this isn't evidence since there could hardly be real
evidence of
that. But guns are technology that makes it easier to kill.
That's
what they're for. Duh. Why else would they have been so
intensively
developed?
If it's harder to kill, more people will fail at their attempts
to
kill. And fewer accidents will be fatal.
Not evidence, just common sense.
Sadly, a lot of "common sense" is totally lacking of sense.
And just because there appears to be corelation does NOT mean
that there
is causality.
Learn to spell correlation and and your trite comment will be more
convincing. And in this case, there *is* causation.
Serious question: assuming that you are asserting that guns, or the
availability of guns, causes crime, do you have some proof?
If this is not your assertion, then to what causation are you
referring?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
08 Feb 2005 09:31:28 PM |
|
|
In article <1107897429.322171.45450@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
<r_c_brown@hushmail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <110gce43d8f2n38@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Paul Erickson" <paul.erickson@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:4pjf01hahigmt5lar3hvfn5r7ro994hn23@4ax.com...
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:19:39 -0800, "Yardpilot"
<yardpilot@gorge.net>
wrote:
"Sam" <srcarruth@yahoo.NO.SPAM.com> wrote in message
news:3TzKd.8721$8Z1.3289@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
David Lentz wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:280120051140363448%spam@aol.com...
In article <XiwKd.7387$ZD1.2684@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, David
Lentz
<dlentz10@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:280120051035037512%spam@aol.com...
<snip>
What IS the problem, Dave?
Easy access to guns. Keep up and stop avoiding the issues.
Guns are not the problem. Never have been. Guns are
tools. Guns
do
not
do bad things. Bad people do bad things. Sometimes bad
people do
bad
things with guns. Other times they leave their SUV on a
rail track.
Guns are clearly part of the problem. I guess you feel we
should all
be able to own rocket launchers, too?
How are guns any part of the problem? Guns are tools. They
have no
free
will.
David
so all those death from gunshots would have happened anyway?
What is your evidence to the contrary?
Well, this isn't evidence since there could hardly be real
evidence of
that. But guns are technology that makes it easier to kill.
That's
what they're for. Duh. Why else would they have been so
intensively
developed?
If it's harder to kill, more people will fail at their attempts
to
kill. And fewer accidents will be fatal.
Not evidence, just common sense.
Sadly, a lot of "common sense" is totally lacking of sense.
And just because there appears to be corelation does NOT mean
that there
is causality.
Learn to spell correlation and and your trite comment will be more
convincing. And in this case, there *is* causation.
Serious question: assuming that you are asserting that guns, or the
availability of guns, causes crime, do you have some proof?
The deaths.
If this is not your assertion, then to what causation are you
referring?
What I am saying is, guns do more harm than good. Simple as that.
Sure, you can find some weird incident where someone broke into a home
and the owner "protected himself" (although in most cases, shooting a
burglar will land you in jail). You can find some weird instance were
a guy is attacked by a bear in his backyard and, lucky for him, he just
happened to have an AK-47 with him. But when you weigh those RARE
cases against the common cases where a person gets mad at his or her
spouse and, in a fit of rage, kills the spouse, or when a child is
playing with the weapon, which children always do, and shoots himself
or his friend, or when some guy cuts you off on the freeway and you
lose it for a moment and jump out and shoot them, or when a child grabs
a gun and goes to a school to shoot the schoolyard bully, it isn't
worth it.
As a society, we weight the value of things constantly. Guns are the
same. Society would simply be a better and safer place without all
these angry, insecure, gun nuts running around.
What about the hunters? Yeah. I understand. I hunt. I wouldn't like
it either. But if that is what it takes - I will give up my shotgun.
I used to be a police officer. I have a weapons permit. I can own and
carry a concealed handgun. I don't. When I left the force I sold it
to another officer. I felt I couldn't advocate gun control if I, as a
civilian, kept a handgun.
Funny, though. I've never needed it. Maybe I WILL need it some day?
Sure. Maybe I'll need some plutonium, too. But for the sake of
society, I'll just have to do without it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
10 Feb 2005 08:53:43 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:080220051931280020%spam@aol.com:
What I am saying is, guns do more harm than good. Simple as that.
When in the hands of a criminal. All restrictions on guns should be
lifted. No one should be required to registered a gun, get a permit for a
gun, or even get a permit for concealed carry. Such laws are useless as a
crinimal is just going to ignore them and they restrict the rights of law
abiding citizens. New Hamshire seems to get along fine with such loose gun
laws.
The only law I somewhat I agree with is the waiting period which is in
place in some states to prevent crimes of passion.
Sure, you can find some weird incident where someone broke into a home
and the owner "protected himself" (although in most cases, shooting a
burglar will land you in jail).
Not in the United States! If some guy breaks into your house and you
believe your life is in danger you are legally allowed to shoot him unless
he tries to run away.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yardpilot" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
11 Feb 2005 09:43:41 AM |
|
|
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message news:420b7577$1@x-privat.org...
The only law I somewhat I agree with is the waiting period which is in
place in some states to prevent crimes of passion.
How does that work, exactly? If one already owns guns, does one have to buy
a special one to commit a crime? Can one not use other weapons instead just
because one thought about a gun? Does one say, "Damn! I'd kill the *****
if only there wasn't a waiting period on guns. Guess I'll just kick the
cat."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
11 Feb 2005 10:01:34 AM |
|
|
"Yardpilot" <yardpilot@gorge.net> wrote in
news:110pkb1g7aq96d1@corp.supernews.com:
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message news:420b7577$1@x-privat.org...
The only law I somewhat I agree with is the waiting period which is in
place in some states to prevent crimes of passion.
How does that work, exactly? If one already owns guns, does one have to
buy a special one to commit a crime? Can one not use other weapons
instead just because one thought about a gun? Does one say, "Damn! I'd
kill the ***** if only there wasn't a waiting period on guns. Guess
I'll just kick the cat."
I changed my mind.
"In fact, I take it back. Buying a gun should be as easy as buying a bag
of chips."
news:420bf49d$1@x-privat.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morton Davis" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
11 Feb 2005 11:07:55 AM |
|
|
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message news:420cd6de$1@x-privat.org...
"Yardpilot" <yardpilot@gorge.net> wrote in
news:110pkb1g7aq96d1@corp.supernews.com:
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message news:420b7577$1@x-privat.org...
The only law I somewhat I agree with is the waiting period which is in
place in some states to prevent crimes of passion.
How does that work, exactly? If one already owns guns, does one have to
buy a special one to commit a crime? Can one not use other weapons
instead just because one thought about a gun? Does one say, "Damn! I'd
kill the ***** if only there wasn't a waiting period on guns. Guess
I'll just kick the cat."
I changed my mind.
"In fact, I take it back. Buying a gun should be as easy as buying a bag
of chips."
To criminals, it always has been.
-*MORT*-
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
11 Feb 2005 09:10:03 PM |
|
|
In article <LD5Pd.64038$eT5.13775@attbi_s51>, Morton Davis
<anitkerry@go.com> wrote:
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message news:420cd6de$1@x-privat.org...
"Yardpilot" <yardpilot@gorge.net> wrote in
news:110pkb1g7aq96d1@corp.supernews.com:
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message news:420b7577$1@x-privat.org...
The only law I somewhat I agree with is the waiting period which is in
place in some states to prevent crimes of passion.
How does that work, exactly? If one already owns guns, does one have to
buy a special one to commit a crime? Can one not use other weapons
instead just because one thought about a gun? Does one say, "Damn! I'd
kill the ***** if only there wasn't a waiting period on guns. Guess
I'll just kick the cat."
I changed my mind.
"In fact, I take it back. Buying a gun should be as easy as buying a bag
of chips."
To criminals, it always has been.
-*MORT*-
Criminals get guns by stealing them from gun nuts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
12 Feb 2005 05:07:36 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:110220051910033123%spam@aol.com:
In article <LD5Pd.64038$eT5.13775@attbi_s51>, Morton Davis
<anitkerry@go.com> wrote:
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:420cd6de$1@x-privat.org...
"Yardpilot" <yardpilot@gorge.net> wrote in
news:110pkb1g7aq96d1@corp.supernews.com:
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:420b7577$1@x-privat.org...
The only law I somewhat I agree with is the waiting period which
is in place in some states to prevent crimes of passion.
How does that work, exactly? If one already owns guns, does one
have to buy a special one to commit a crime? Can one not use other
weapons instead just because one thought about a gun? Does one say,
"Damn! I'd kill the ***** if only there wasn't a waiting period
on guns. Guess I'll just kick the cat."
I changed my mind.
"In fact, I take it back. Buying a gun should be as easy as buying a
bag of chips."
To criminals, it always has been.
Criminals get guns by stealing them from gun nuts.
Wrong. Most illegal guns are smuggled in from other countries. I guess you
want the state to have a monopoly on weapons, you fucking Nazi. I guess
everything the founding fathers said about having an armed population to
defend themselves against an oppressive governement doesn't matter to you
at all. Of course nothing they said or wrote in the Constitution really
matters to the left.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
13 Feb 2005 09:45:50 PM |
|
|
In article <420e8c38@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:110220051910033123%spam@aol.com:
In article <LD5Pd.64038$eT5.13775@attbi_s51>, Morton Davis
<anitkerry@go.com> wrote:
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:420cd6de$1@x-privat.org...
"Yardpilot" <yardpilot@gorge.net> wrote in
news:110pkb1g7aq96d1@corp.supernews.com:
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:420b7577$1@x-privat.org...
The only law I somewhat I agree with is the waiting period which
is in place in some states to prevent crimes of passion.
How does that work, exactly? If one already owns guns, does one
have to buy a special one to commit a crime? Can one not use other
weapons instead just because one thought about a gun? Does one say,
"Damn! I'd kill the ***** if only there wasn't a waiting period
on guns. Guess I'll just kick the cat."
I changed my mind.
"In fact, I take it back. Buying a gun should be as easy as buying a
bag of chips."
To criminals, it always has been.
Criminals get guns by stealing them from gun nuts.
Wrong.
No. Right.
Most illegal guns are smuggled in from other countries. I guess you
want the state to have a monopoly on weapons, you fucking Nazi.
Nazi is Right Wing politics, spud.
I guess
everything the founding fathers said about having an armed population to
defend themselves against an oppressive governement doesn't matter to you
at all.
LOL! Yeah. I'm sure that 9mm of yours would do wonders against a
cruise missle.
Of course nothing they said or wrote in the Constitution really
matters to the left.
Liberals were the ones who wrote it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
13 Feb 2005 11:32:42 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:130220051945507765%spam@aol.com:
In article <420e8c38@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:110220051910033123%spam@aol.com:
In article <LD5Pd.64038$eT5.13775@attbi_s51>, Morton Davis
<anitkerry@go.com> wrote:
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:420cd6de$1@x-privat.org...
"Yardpilot" <yardpilot@gorge.net> wrote in
news:110pkb1g7aq96d1@corp.supernews.com:
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:420b7577$1@x-privat.org...
The only law I somewhat I agree with is the waiting period
which is in place in some states to prevent crimes of passion.
How does that work, exactly? If one already owns guns, does one
have to buy a special one to commit a crime? Can one not use
other weapons instead just because one thought about a gun? Does
one say, "Damn! I'd kill the ***** if only there wasn't a
waiting period on guns. Guess I'll just kick the cat."
I changed my mind.
"In fact, I take it back. Buying a gun should be as easy as buying
a bag of chips."
To criminals, it always has been.
Criminals get guns by stealing them from gun nuts.
Wrong.
No. Right.
Lack of proof noted.
Most illegal guns are smuggled in from other countries. I guess you
want the state to have a monopoly on weapons, you fucking Nazi.
Nazi is Right Wing politics, spud.
Since when did the right want a state monopoly on firearms?
I guess everything the founding fathers said about having an armed
population to defend themselves against an oppressive governement
doesn't matter to you at all.
LOL! Yeah. I'm sure that 9mm of yours would do wonders against a
cruise missle.
Since when did a defense against cruise missiles exist?
But of course what you are really asking is how can American citizens
defense themselves against a tyrranical American government. The answer is
a lot better than they could without being armed at all.
The American colonists' victory over England was made possible by gun
ownership, not by gun control.
Of course nothing they said or wrote in the Constitution really
matters to the left.
Liberals were the ones who wrote it.
Today's gun grabbing liberals have nothing in common with the writers of
the Constitution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
14 Feb 2005 09:29:26 AM |
|
|
In article <421037fa$1@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
Liberals were the ones who wrote it.
Today's gun grabbing liberals have nothing in common with the writers of
the Constitution.
"Lack of proof noted."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yardpilot" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
12 Feb 2005 01:04:39 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:110220051910033123%spam@aol.com...
In article <LD5Pd.64038$eT5.13775@attbi_s51>, Morton Davis
<anitkerry@go.com> wrote:
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message news:420cd6de$1@x-privat.org...
"Yardpilot" <yardpilot@gorge.net> wrote in
news:110pkb1g7aq96d1@corp.supernews.com:
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:420b7577$1@x-privat.org...
The only law I somewhat I agree with is the waiting period which is
in
place in some states to prevent crimes of passion.
How does that work, exactly? If one already owns guns, does one have
to
buy a special one to commit a crime? Can one not use other weapons
instead just because one thought about a gun? Does one say, "Damn!
I'd
kill the ***** if only there wasn't a waiting period on guns.
Guess
I'll just kick the cat."
I changed my mind.
"In fact, I take it back. Buying a gun should be as easy as buying a
bag
of chips."
To criminals, it always has been.
-*MORT*-
Criminals get guns by stealing them from gun nuts.
Proof required, silly boy.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
12 Feb 2005 03:57:25 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:110220051910033123%spam@aol.com...
In article <LD5Pd.64038$eT5.13775@attbi_s51>, Morton Davis
<anitkerry@go.com> wrote:
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message news:420cd6de$1@x-privat.org...
"Yardpilot" <yardpilot@gorge.net> wrote in
news:110pkb1g7aq96d1@corp.supernews.com:
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:420b7577$1@x-privat.org...
The only law I somewhat I agree with is the waiting period which is
in
place in some states to prevent crimes of passion.
How does that work, exactly? If one already owns guns, does one have
to
buy a special one to commit a crime? Can one not use other weapons
instead just because one thought about a gun? Does one say, "Damn!
I'd
kill the ***** if only there wasn't a waiting period on guns. Guess
I'll just kick the cat."
I changed my mind.
"In fact, I take it back. Buying a gun should be as easy as buying a
bag
of chips."
To criminals, it always has been.
-*MORT*-
Criminals get guns by stealing them from gun nuts.
In the case of the BATF CUE study in Washington DC. The "gun nuts" were the
DC police department and they were selling criminals the guns. About 40% of
all crime gun recovered originated within the DCPD.
Going to disarm the cops as well?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Ney" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
12 Feb 2005 07:30:08 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 04:57:25 -0500, an orbiting mind control laser caused
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> to write:
Criminals get guns by stealing them from gun nuts.
In the case of the BATF CUE study in Washington DC. The "gun nuts" were the
DC police department and they were selling criminals the guns. About 40% of
all crime gun recovered originated within the DCPD.
Going to disarm the cops as well?
That would be a good idea, especially with the DCPD. They've demonstrated
that they can't be trusted with a rolled-up newspaper, let alone things
like capsicum, tasers, and guns.
Frank Ney N4ZHG WV/EMT-B NRA(L) GOA CCRKBA JPFO ProvNRA LPWV
--
Government has four basic functions: Robbery, Rape, Slavery, Genocide.
The reason for this is that government, all government, is a criminal
enterprise. It has no legitimate purpose.
- Michael Bradshaw
http://www.ncc-1776.com/tle2004/tle298-20041121-02.html
United Airlines Must Die! http://www.dont-fly.com
Abuses by the BATF http://www.elfie.org/~croaker/batfabus.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
11 Feb 2005 10:22:34 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:10:03 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <LD5Pd.64038$eT5.13775@attbi_s51>, Morton Davis
<anitkerry@go.com> wrote:
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message news:420cd6de$1@x-privat.org...
"Yardpilot" <yardpilot@gorge.net> wrote in
news:110pkb1g7aq96d1@corp.supernews.com:
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message news:420b7577$1@x-privat.org...
The only law I somewhat I agree with is the waiting period which is in
place in some states to prevent crimes of passion.
How does that work, exactly? If one already owns guns, does one have to
buy a special one to commit a crime? Can one not use other weapons
instead just because one thought about a gun? Does one say, "Damn! I'd
kill the ***** if only there wasn't a waiting period on guns. Guess
I'll just kick the cat."
I changed my mind.
"In fact, I take it back. Buying a gun should be as easy as buying a bag
of chips."
To criminals, it always has been.
-*MORT*-
Criminals get guns by stealing them from gun nuts.
Sometimes that's true. That alone tells me something about the level
of violence that the criminals are capable of doing.
And armed criminals who know that their victims must be un-armed are
bold criminals indeed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
12 Feb 2005 10:10:35 AM |
|
|
In article <df0r01143obd2g5rtf22defqn2pkikmc1t@4ax.com>,
<3.14159@consultant.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:10:03 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <LD5Pd.64038$eT5.13775@attbi_s51>, Morton Davis
<anitkerry@go.com> wrote:
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message news:420cd6de$1@x-privat.org...
"Yardpilot" <yardpilot@gorge.net> wrote in
news:110pkb1g7aq96d1@corp.supernews.com:
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:420b7577$1@x-privat.org...
The only law I somewhat I agree with is the waiting period which is in
place in some states to prevent crimes of passion.
How does that work, exactly? If one already owns guns, does one have to
buy a special one to commit a crime? Can one not use other weapons
instead just because one thought about a gun? Does one say, "Damn! I'd
kill the ***** if only there wasn't a waiting period on guns. Guess
I'll just kick the cat."
I changed my mind.
"In fact, I take it back. Buying a gun should be as easy as buying a bag
of chips."
To criminals, it always has been.
-*MORT*-
Criminals get guns by stealing them from gun nuts.
Sometimes that's true. That alone tells me something about the level
of violence that the criminals are capable of doing.
That says NOTHING about violence.
And armed criminals who know that their victims must be un-armed are
bold criminals indeed.
You are speaking out of raw fear.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
12 Feb 2005 11:07:04 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:10:35 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <df0r01143obd2g5rtf22defqn2pkikmc1t@4ax.com>,
<3.14159@consultant.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:10:03 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <LD5Pd.64038$eT5.13775@attbi_s51>, Morton Davis
<anitkerry@go.com> wrote:
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message news:420cd6de$1@x-privat.org...
"Yardpilot" <yardpilot@gorge.net> wrote in
news:110pkb1g7aq96d1@corp.supernews.com:
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:420b7577$1@x-privat.org...
The only law I somewhat I agree with is the waiting period which is in
place in some states to prevent crimes of passion.
How does that work, exactly? If one already owns guns, does one have to
buy a special one to commit a crime? Can one not use other weapons
instead just because one thought about a gun? Does one say, "Damn! I'd
kill the ***** if only there wasn't a waiting period on guns. Guess
I'll just kick the cat."
I changed my mind.
"In fact, I take it back. Buying a gun should be as easy as buying a bag
of chips."
To criminals, it always has been.
-*MORT*-
Criminals get guns by stealing them from gun nuts.
Sometimes that's true. That alone tells me something about the level
of violence that the criminals are capable of doing.
That says NOTHING about violence.
You're a fool. A person willing to break into a home, and steal
property...risking a direct confrontation with a homeowner is not
afraid to commit violence. They are already guilty of a forcible
felony by breaking in, fool.
And armed criminals who know that their victims must be un-armed are
bold criminals indeed.
You are speaking out of raw fear.
No, I am speaking quite practically. Your insistence upon making this
an issue of testosterone and "being afraid" notwithstanding.
You believe that "fear" is weakness.
You are a fool.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
12 Feb 2005 11:41:03 AM |
|
|
In article <hpds01tsdgabfkkmgv82nn7rhae9a2k9ip@4ax.com>,
<3.14159@consultant.com> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:10:35 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <df0r01143obd2g5rtf22defqn2pkikmc1t@4ax.com>,
<3.14159@consultant.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:10:03 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <LD5Pd.64038$eT5.13775@attbi_s51>, Morton Davis
<anitkerry@go.com> wrote:
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message news:420cd6de$1@x-privat.org...
"Yardpilot" <yardpilot@gorge.net> wrote in
news:110pkb1g7aq96d1@corp.supernews.com:
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:420b7577$1@x-privat.org...
The only law I somewhat I agree with is the waiting period which
is in
place in some states to prevent crimes of passion.
How does that work, exactly? If one already owns guns, does one
have to
buy a special one to commit a crime? Can one not use other weapons
instead just because one thought about a gun? Does one say, "Damn!
I'd
kill the ***** if only there wasn't a waiting period on guns.
Guess
I'll just kick the cat."
I changed my mind.
"In fact, I take it back. Buying a gun should be as easy as buying a
bag
of chips."
To criminals, it always has been.
-*MORT*-
Criminals get guns by stealing them from gun nuts.
Sometimes that's true. That alone tells me something about the level
of violence that the criminals are capable of doing.
That says NOTHING about violence.
You're a fool. A person willing to break into a home, and steal
property...risking a direct confrontation with a homeowner is not
afraid to commit violence.
Nearly all burglaries are non-violent. Burglary is a non-violent
offense. Get an education.
They are already guilty of a forcible
felony by breaking in, fool.
"Forcible felony?" LOL! Hardly.
You leave your window open. I, from a public sidewalk, reach in and
grab a book off your table. Burglary or not?
And armed criminals who know that their victims must be un-armed are
bold criminals indeed.
You are speaking out of raw fear.
No, I am speaking quite practically.
Use all the euphemisms you like.
Your insistence upon making this
an issue of testosterone and "being afraid" notwithstanding.
Then why do you need a gun?
You believe that "fear" is weakness.
I believe that irrational fear is weaknes.
You are a fool.
You are scared of the boogie man.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
18 Feb 2005 12:19:57 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:120220050941034262%spam@aol.com:
You're a fool. A person willing to break into a home, and steal
property...risking a direct confrontation with a homeowner is not
afraid to commit violence.
Nearly all burglaries are non-violent. Burglary is a non-violent
offense. Get an education.
And where I live they can be legally shot. No questions asked.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
12 Feb 2005 01:29:24 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:41:03 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <hpds01tsdgabfkkmgv82nn7rhae9a2k9ip@4ax.com>,
<3.14159@consultant.com> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:10:35 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <df0r01143obd2g5rtf22defqn2pkikmc1t@4ax.com>,
<3.14159@consultant.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:10:03 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <LD5Pd.64038$eT5.13775@attbi_s51>, Morton Davis
<anitkerry@go.com> wrote:
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message news:420cd6de$1@x-privat.org...
"Yardpilot" <yardpilot@gorge.net> wrote in
news:110pkb1g7aq96d1@corp.supernews.com:
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:420b7577$1@x-privat.org...
The only law I somewhat I agree with is the waiting period which
is in
place in some states to prevent crimes of passion.
How does that work, exactly? If one already owns guns, does one
have to
buy a special one to commit a crime? Can one not use other weapons
instead just because one thought about a gun? Does one say, "Damn!
I'd
kill the ***** if only there wasn't a waiting period on guns.
Guess
I'll just kick the cat."
I changed my mind.
"In fact, I take it back. Buying a gun should be as easy as buying a
bag
of chips."
To criminals, it always has been.
-*MORT*-
Criminals get guns by stealing them from gun nuts.
Sometimes that's true. That alone tells me something about the level
of violence that the criminals are capable of doing.
That says NOTHING about violence.
You're a fool. A person willing to break into a home, and steal
property...risking a direct confrontation with a homeowner is not
afraid to commit violence.
Nearly all burglaries are non-violent. Burglary is a non-violent
offense. Get an education.
Fool. I am talking robbery, and home invasion.
Robbery, by definition, means violence is involved.
D'oh!
They are already guilty of a forcible
felony by breaking in, fool.
"Forcible felony?" LOL! Hardly.
Here, I bought you a clue:
Thank G-d I live in a state (FL) that has decent laws.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/citizen/documents/statutes/1997/ch0776/titl0776.htm
To wit:
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A
person is justified in the use of force, except
deadly force, against another when and to the extent
that the person reasonably believes that such conduct
is necessary to defend himself or herself or another
against such other's imminent use of unlawful force.
However, the person is justified in the use of deadly
force only if he or she reasonably believes that such
force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great
bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to
prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102.
776.08 Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means treason;
murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion
robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated
assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy;
unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive
device or bomb; and any other felony which involves
the use or threat of physical force or violence against
any individual.
History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 4, ch. 75-298; s. 289, ch. 79-400; s.
5, ch. 93-212; s. 10, ch. 95-195.
Your apology will be graciously received.
You leave your window open. I, from a public sidewalk, reach in and
grab a book off your table. Burglary or not?
Larceny and burglary.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/infores/clergy/robbery.htm
And armed criminals who know that their victims must be un-armed are
bold criminals indeed.
You are speaking out of raw fear.
No, I am speaking quite practically.
Use all the euphemisms you like.
I know you operate out of fear of gunowners.
And that's a fact.
Your insistence upon making this
an issue of testosterone and "being afraid" notwithstanding.
Then why do you need a gun?
For a number of reasons. I own a number of guns too; for the same
reason nobody uses just one golf club.
You believe that "fear" is weakness.
I believe that irrational fear is weaknes.
I would say "fear of law-abiding cizenry" is irrational.
I would say "fear of an inanimate object" is also irrational.
You are a fool.
You are scared of the boogie man.
LOL I am not scared of you, but you are scared to death of me :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
12 Feb 2005 04:18:21 PM |
|
|
In article <pqls01da19o4n48vr80u35c7pj5kgtafqh@4ax.com>,
<3.14159@consultant.com> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 09:41:03 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <hpds01tsdgabfkkmgv82nn7rhae9a2k9ip@4ax.com>,
<3.14159@consultant.com> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:10:35 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <df0r01143obd2g5rtf22defqn2pkikmc1t@4ax.com>,
<3.14159@consultant.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:10:03 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <LD5Pd.64038$eT5.13775@attbi_s51>, Morton Davis
<anitkerry@go.com> wrote:
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:420cd6de$1@x-privat.org...
"Yardpilot" <yardpilot@gorge.net> wrote in
news:110pkb1g7aq96d1@corp.supernews.com:
"Maaxx" <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:420b7577$1@x-privat.org...
The only law I somewhat I agree with is the waiting period which
is in
place in some states to prevent crimes of passion.
How does that work, exactly? If one already owns guns, does one
have to
buy a special one to commit a crime? Can one not use other
weapons
instead just because one thought about a gun? Does one say,
"Damn!
I'd
kill the ***** if only there wasn't a waiting period on guns.
Guess
I'll just kick the cat."
I changed my mind.
"In fact, I take it back. Buying a gun should be as easy as buying
a
bag
of chips."
To criminals, it always has been.
-*MORT*-
Criminals get guns by stealing them from gun nuts.
Sometimes that's true. That alone tells me something about the level
of violence that the criminals are capable of doing.
That says NOTHING about violence.
You're a fool. A person willing to break into a home, and steal
property...risking a direct confrontation with a homeowner is not
afraid to commit violence.
Nearly all burglaries are non-violent. Burglary is a non-violent
offense. Get an education.
Fool. I am talking robbery, and home invasion.
Robbery isn't burglary, spud. I'd bet even Osprey knows that.
Robbery, by definition, means violence is involved.
In home robberies are nearly unheard of, junior.
They are already guilty of a forcible
felony by breaking in, fool.
"Forcible felony?" LOL! Hardly.
Here, I bought you a clue:
Thank G-d I live in a state (FL) that has decent laws.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/citizen/documents/statutes/1997/ch0776/titl0776.htm
To wit:
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A
person is justified in the use of force, except
deadly force, against another when and to the extent
that the person reasonably believes that such conduct
is necessary to defend himself or herself or another
against such other's imminent use of unlawful force.
However, the person is justified in the use of deadly
force only if he or she reasonably believes that such
force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great
bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to
prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.
History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102.
776.08 Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means treason;
murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion
robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated
assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy;
unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive
device or bomb; and any other felony which involves
the use or threat of physical force or violence against
any individual.
History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 4, ch. 75-298; s. 289, ch. 79-400; s.
5, ch. 93-212; s. 10, ch. 95-195.
Your apology will be graciously received.
Except no force need be used in burglary.
You leave your window open. I, from a public sidewalk, reach in and
grab a book off your table. Burglary or not?
Larceny and burglary.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/infores/clergy/robbery.htm
Or maybe neither.
And you think it was by force?
And armed criminals who know that their victims must be un-armed are
bold criminals indeed.
You are speaking out of raw fear.
No, I am speaking quite practically.
Use all the euphemisms you like.
I know you operate out of fear of gunowners.
And that's a fact.
Live in your world.
Your insistence upon making this
an issue of testosterone and "being afraid" notwithstanding.
Then why do you need a gun?
For a number of reasons. I own a number of guns too; for the same
reason nobody uses just one golf club.
To get "birdies and eagles?"
Why do you need a gun?
You believe that "fear" is weakness.
I believe that irrational fear is weaknes.
I would say "fear of law-abiding cizenry" is irrational.
I would say "fear of an inanimate object" is also irrational.
OK by me. I don't fear guns at all.
You are a fool.
You are scared of the boogie man.
LOL I am not scared of you, but you are scared to death of me :)
But you own a bunch of guns while I sleep just fine without them...
You bore me. You and Bulba need to talk to each other for a while.
.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
