| 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 |
14 Feb 2005 04:34:36 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:130220051945507785%spam@aol.com...
In article <tCxPd.23216$Of5.15558@nntpserver.swip.net>, Maaxx
<maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
3.14159@consultant.com wrote in
news:bf2t019rm0ortihngdelrfcemmk0o23ki6@4ax.com:
But you own a bunch of guns while I sleep just fine without them...
you're afraid!
He's afraid of people who can defend themselves.
If you need a gun to defend yourself, that says a lot about you.
Yep, he is self reliant and prepared to do for himself rather hoping a
violent criminal will be merciful and/or the police will actually be able to
stop that criminal before he injures or kills him.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
10 Feb 2005 10:27:13 AM |
|
|
In article <420b7577$1@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"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.
When in the hands of EVERYONE.
The only law I somewhat I agree with is the waiting period which is in
place in some states to prevent crimes of passion.
So you admit guns encourage 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.
You are wrong. The prisons are full of people that think like this.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
10 Feb 2005 05:56:13 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:100220050827131876%spam@aol.com:
In article <420b7577$1@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"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.
When in the hands of EVERYONE.
The only law I somewhat I agree with is the waiting period which is in
place in some states to prevent crimes of passion.
So you admit guns encourage crimes of passion.
No, I don't. In fact, I take it back. Buying a gun should be as easy as
buying a bag of chips.
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.
You are wrong. The prisons are full of people that think like this.
Wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
10 Feb 2005 10:05:44 PM |
|
|
In article <420bf49d$1@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:100220050827131876%spam@aol.com:
In article <420b7577$1@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"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.
When in the hands of EVERYONE.
The only law I somewhat I agree with is the waiting period which is in
place in some states to prevent crimes of passion.
So you admit guns encourage crimes of passion.
No, I don't. In fact, I take it back. Buying a gun should be as easy as
buying a bag of chips.
So you are nuts.
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.
You are wrong. The prisons are full of people that think like this.
Wrong.
LOL! OK.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
11 Feb 2005 09:05:31 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:100220052005447085%spam@aol.com:
In article <420bf49d$1@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:100220050827131876%spam@aol.com:
In article <420b7577$1@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"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.
When in the hands of EVERYONE.
The only law I somewhat I agree with is the waiting period which is
in place in some states to prevent crimes of passion.
So you admit guns encourage crimes of passion.
No, I don't. In fact, I take it back. Buying a gun should be as easy as
buying a bag of chips.
So you are nuts.
No, I have a right to protect myself. Maybe you should put a sign on your
lawn saying, "This is a gun free home."
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
11 Feb 2005 10:13:56 AM |
|
|
In article <420cc9bb@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:100220052005447085%spam@aol.com:
In article <420bf49d$1@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:100220050827131876%spam@aol.com:
In article <420b7577$1@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"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.
When in the hands of EVERYONE.
The only law I somewhat I agree with is the waiting period which is
in place in some states to prevent crimes of passion.
So you admit guns encourage crimes of passion.
No, I don't. In fact, I take it back. Buying a gun should be as easy as
buying a bag of chips.
So you are nuts.
No, I have a right to protect myself. Maybe you should put a sign on your
lawn saying, "This is a gun free home."
What are you so afraid of that you have to protect yourself from?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
11 Feb 2005 10:29:37 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:110220050813561019%spam@aol.com:
In article <420cc9bb@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:100220052005447085%spam@aol.com:
In article <420bf49d$1@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:100220050827131876%spam@aol.com:
In article <420b7577$1@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"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.
When in the hands of EVERYONE.
The only law I somewhat I agree with is the waiting period which
is in place in some states to prevent crimes of passion.
So you admit guns encourage crimes of passion.
No, I don't. In fact, I take it back. Buying a gun should be as easy
as buying a bag of chips.
So you are nuts.
No, I have a right to protect myself. Maybe you should put a sign on
your lawn saying, "This is a gun free home."
What are you so afraid of that you have to protect yourself from?
People like you.
Are people who keep fire extinguishers in their houses paranoid?
Why are you so against personal liberty?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
11 Feb 2005 09:10:01 PM |
|
|
In article <420cdd71@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:110220050813561019%spam@aol.com:
In article <420cc9bb@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:100220052005447085%spam@aol.com:
In article <420bf49d$1@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:100220050827131876%spam@aol.com:
In article <420b7577$1@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"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.
When in the hands of EVERYONE.
The only law I somewhat I agree with is the waiting period which
is in place in some states to prevent crimes of passion.
So you admit guns encourage crimes of passion.
No, I don't. In fact, I take it back. Buying a gun should be as easy
as buying a bag of chips.
So you are nuts.
No, I have a right to protect myself. Maybe you should put a sign on
your lawn saying, "This is a gun free home."
What are you so afraid of that you have to protect yourself from?
People like you.
Why is that?
Are people who keep fire extinguishers in their houses paranoid?
Not the same thing. When you gun nuts resort to these kinds of
arguments I know you have had it.
Why are you so against personal liberty?
I'm a big fan of personal liberty.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
12 Feb 2005 04:44:56 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:110220051910013018%spam@aol.com:
In article <420cdd71@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:110220050813561019%spam@aol.com:
In article <420cc9bb@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:100220052005447085%spam@aol.com:
In article <420bf49d$1@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:100220050827131876%spam@aol.com:
In article <420b7577$1@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net>
wrote:
"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.
When in the hands of EVERYONE.
The only law I somewhat I agree with is the waiting period which
is in place in some states to prevent crimes of passion.
So you admit guns encourage crimes of passion.
No, I don't. In fact, I take it back. Buying a gun should be as
easy as buying a bag of chips.
So you are nuts.
No, I have a right to protect myself. Maybe you should put a sign on
your lawn saying, "This is a gun free home."
What are you so afraid of that you have to protect yourself from?
People like you.
Why is that?
Because people like you encourage an oppressive government.
Are people who keep fire extinguishers in their houses paranoid?
Not the same thing. When you gun nuts resort to these kinds of
arguments I know you have had it.
It is the same thing. Now you are lying.
Why are you so against personal liberty?
I'm a big fan of personal liberty.
From what you have been posting about guns, your statement is a lie.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
13 Feb 2005 10:42:49 PM |
|
|
In article <420e86e8@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:110220051910013018%spam@aol.com:
In article <420cdd71@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:110220050813561019%spam@aol.com:
In article <420cc9bb@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:100220052005447085%spam@aol.com:
In article <420bf49d$1@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:100220050827131876%spam@aol.com:
In article <420b7577$1@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net>
wrote:
"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.
When in the hands of EVERYONE.
The only law I somewhat I agree with is the waiting period which
is in place in some states to prevent crimes of passion.
So you admit guns encourage crimes of passion.
No, I don't. In fact, I take it back. Buying a gun should be as
easy as buying a bag of chips.
So you are nuts.
No, I have a right to protect myself. Maybe you should put a sign on
your lawn saying, "This is a gun free home."
What are you so afraid of that you have to protect yourself from?
People like you.
Why is that?
Because people like you encourage an oppressive government.
From the Republican.
Are people who keep fire extinguishers in their houses paranoid?
Not the same thing. When you gun nuts resort to these kinds of
arguments I know you have had it.
It is the same thing. Now you are lying.
OK - if you say so.
Why are you so against personal liberty?
I'm a big fan of personal liberty.
From what you have been posting about guns, your statement is a lie.
Be ignorant, I don't care.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
11 Feb 2005 09:49:49 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:10:01 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <420cdd71@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:110220050813561019%spam@aol.com:
In article <420cc9bb@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:100220052005447085%spam@aol.com:
In article <420bf49d$1@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:100220050827131876%spam@aol.com:
In article <420b7577$1@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"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.
When in the hands of EVERYONE.
The only law I somewhat I agree with is the waiting period which
is in place in some states to prevent crimes of passion.
So you admit guns encourage crimes of passion.
No, I don't. In fact, I take it back. Buying a gun should be as easy
as buying a bag of chips.
So you are nuts.
No, I have a right to protect myself. Maybe you should put a sign on
your lawn saying, "This is a gun free home."
What are you so afraid of that you have to protect yourself from?
People like you.
Why is that?
Are people who keep fire extinguishers in their houses paranoid?
Not the same thing. When you gun nuts resort to these kinds of
arguments I know you have had it.
LOL He makes perfect sense, but you're too delusional to see.
Why are you so against personal liberty?
I'm a big fan of personal liberty.
Not his, or mine for that matter.
You simple-minded folk have it all figured out...
....except for how to disarm the criminals.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
11 Feb 2005 09:57:43 PM |
|
|
In article <n2vq0111s87evdsrktmg1vjlcvc1kaplej@4ax.com>,
<3.14159@consultant.com> wrote:
You simple-minded folk have it all figured out...
...except for how to disarm the criminals.
Disarm everyone. The criminals will be in there somewhere.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yardpilot" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
12 Feb 2005 01:02:13 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:110220051957438887%spam@aol.com...
In article <n2vq0111s87evdsrktmg1vjlcvc1kaplej@4ax.com>,
<3.14159@consultant.com> wrote:
You simple-minded folk have it all figured out...
...except for how to disarm the criminals.
Disarm everyone. The criminals will be in there somewhere.
So says the "big fan of personal liberty."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
12 Feb 2005 03:54:52 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:110220051957438887%spam@aol.com...
In article <n2vq0111s87evdsrktmg1vjlcvc1kaplej@4ax.com>,
<3.14159@consultant.com> wrote:
You simple-minded folk have it all figured out...
...except for how to disarm the criminals.
Disarm everyone. The criminals will be in there somewhere.
You can't. The criminals will still have arms. See the reason they are
criminals is they don't obey the law, hence your laws saying they can't have
this stuff will be ignored. It has in every other country of the world no
matter how strict their gun control has been.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
11 Feb 2005 11:19:38 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:57:43 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <n2vq0111s87evdsrktmg1vjlcvc1kaplej@4ax.com>,
<3.14159@consultant.com> wrote:
You simple-minded folk have it all figured out...
...except for how to disarm the criminals.
Disarm everyone. The criminals will be in there somewhere.
So, how do you convince the criminals to surrender their guns?
Be specific!
.
|
|
|
| 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 <de4r019kqb7t6i8g6kr0hptu2b35hr9hu1@4ax.com>,
<3.14159@consultant.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:57:43 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <n2vq0111s87evdsrktmg1vjlcvc1kaplej@4ax.com>,
<3.14159@consultant.com> wrote:
You simple-minded folk have it all figured out...
...except for how to disarm the criminals.
Disarm everyone. The criminals will be in there somewhere.
So, how do you convince the criminals to surrender their guns?
Be specific!
This is the whole "Iraq Mistake" excuse the simple minded Republicans
use. Yeah - we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, just like you Democrats
said. It was a mistake. But now that we are there we can't get out.
We outlaw guns. We outlaw ammunition. We collect what we can. As the
weapons turn up, we take them and charge those who have them. Yes -
many will not give them up at first. It won't be instantaneous. But
it will happen over time. Don't use the excuse that since we were
foolish enough to have let every ***** in the country have twenty
weapons we can't get them back. I know Republicans look for simple
minded answers. It would take time and effort. It would be worth it.
But I agree it wouldn't be simple and over night, so Republicans might
not understand it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
12 Feb 2005 04:48:50 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:120220050810355122%spam@aol.com:
In article <de4r019kqb7t6i8g6kr0hptu2b35hr9hu1@4ax.com>,
<3.14159@consultant.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:57:43 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <n2vq0111s87evdsrktmg1vjlcvc1kaplej@4ax.com>,
<3.14159@consultant.com> wrote:
You simple-minded folk have it all figured out...
...except for how to disarm the criminals.
Disarm everyone. The criminals will be in there somewhere.
So, how do you convince the criminals to surrender their guns?
Be specific!
This is the whole "Iraq Mistake" excuse the simple minded Republicans
use. Yeah - we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, just like you Democrats
said. It was a mistake. But now that we are there we can't get out.
We outlaw guns. We outlaw ammunition. We collect what we can. As the
weapons turn up, we take them and charge those who have them. Yes -
many will not give them up at first. It won't be instantaneous. But
it will happen over time.
No it won't. It hasn't worked for drugs. What makes you think it will work
for guns? People will just get them smuggled in from other countries.
Why do you want to deprive law abiding citizens from owning guns? After
all, the criminals will always have them no matter how many laws you make.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
13 Feb 2005 10:42:49 PM |
|
|
In article <420e87d2@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:120220050810355122%spam@aol.com:
In article <de4r019kqb7t6i8g6kr0hptu2b35hr9hu1@4ax.com>,
<3.14159@consultant.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:57:43 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <n2vq0111s87evdsrktmg1vjlcvc1kaplej@4ax.com>,
<3.14159@consultant.com> wrote:
You simple-minded folk have it all figured out...
...except for how to disarm the criminals.
Disarm everyone. The criminals will be in there somewhere.
So, how do you convince the criminals to surrender their guns?
Be specific!
This is the whole "Iraq Mistake" excuse the simple minded Republicans
use. Yeah - we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, just like you Democrats
said. It was a mistake. But now that we are there we can't get out.
We outlaw guns. We outlaw ammunition. We collect what we can. As the
weapons turn up, we take them and charge those who have them. Yes -
many will not give them up at first. It won't be instantaneous. But
it will happen over time.
No it won't. It hasn't worked for drugs.
This isn't drugs. I guess would shouldn't outlaw nukes. It hasn't
worked for drugs.
What makes you think it will work
for guns? People will just get them smuggled in from other countries.
You think people are that scared? You think they are addicted the way
they are drugs?
Why do you want to deprive law abiding citizens from owning guns?
For the sake of society. The same reason I don't think you should own
plutonium.
After
all, the criminals will always have them no matter how many laws you make.
No they won't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
13 Feb 2005 11:08:01 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:130220052042492926%spam@aol.com:
In article <420e87d2@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:120220050810355122%spam@aol.com:
In article <de4r019kqb7t6i8g6kr0hptu2b35hr9hu1@4ax.com>,
<3.14159@consultant.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:57:43 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <n2vq0111s87evdsrktmg1vjlcvc1kaplej@4ax.com>,
<3.14159@consultant.com> wrote:
You simple-minded folk have it all figured out...
...except for how to disarm the criminals.
Disarm everyone. The criminals will be in there somewhere.
So, how do you convince the criminals to surrender their guns?
Be specific!
This is the whole "Iraq Mistake" excuse the simple minded Republicans
use. Yeah - we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, just like you
Democrats said. It was a mistake. But now that we are there we
can't get out.
We outlaw guns. We outlaw ammunition. We collect what we can. As
the weapons turn up, we take them and charge those who have them.
Yes - many will not give them up at first. It won't be
instantaneous. But it will happen over time.
No it won't. It hasn't worked for drugs.
This isn't drugs. I guess would shouldn't outlaw nukes. It hasn't
worked for drugs.
What makes you think it will work
for guns? People will just get them smuggled in from other countries.
You think people are that scared? You think they are addicted the way
they are drugs?
Why do you want to deprive law abiding citizens from owning guns?
For the sake of society. The same reason I don't think you should own
plutonium.
After
all, the criminals will always have them no matter how many laws you
make.
No they won't.
It's amazing how removed from reality you are. Just like the rest of the
left.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yardpilot" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
12 Feb 2005 01:03:16 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:120220050810355122%spam@aol.com...
In article <de4r019kqb7t6i8g6kr0hptu2b35hr9hu1@4ax.com>,
<3.14159@consultant.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:57:43 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <n2vq0111s87evdsrktmg1vjlcvc1kaplej@4ax.com>,
<3.14159@consultant.com> wrote:
You simple-minded folk have it all figured out...
...except for how to disarm the criminals.
Disarm everyone. The criminals will be in there somewhere.
So, how do you convince the criminals to surrender their guns?
Be specific!
This is the whole "Iraq Mistake" excuse the simple minded Republicans
use. Yeah - we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, just like you Democrats
said. It was a mistake. But now that we are there we can't get out.
We outlaw guns. We outlaw ammunition. We collect what we can. As the
weapons turn up, we take them and charge those who have them.
You are very confused or very stupid. Guns and weapons are not the same
thing.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
12 Feb 2005 10:59:08 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:10:35 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <de4r019kqb7t6i8g6kr0hptu2b35hr9hu1@4ax.com>,
<3.14159@consultant.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:57:43 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <n2vq0111s87evdsrktmg1vjlcvc1kaplej@4ax.com>,
<3.14159@consultant.com> wrote:
You simple-minded folk have it all figured out...
...except for how to disarm the criminals.
Disarm everyone. The criminals will be in there somewhere.
So, how do you convince the criminals to surrender their guns?
Be specific!
This is the whole "Iraq Mistake" excuse the simple minded Republicans
use. Yeah - we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, just like you Democrats
said. It was a mistake. But now that we are there we can't get out.
We outlaw guns. We outlaw ammunition. We collect what we can. As the
weapons turn up, we take them and charge those who have them. Yes -
many will not give them up at first. It won't be instantaneous. But
it will happen over time.
Like prohibition and the war on drugs?
LOL!!
Don't use the excuse that since we were
foolish enough to have let every ***** in the country have twenty
weapons we can't get them back.
You're a fool. You cannot legislate morality.
I know Republicans look for simple
minded answers.
I know you have no idea of reality. TONS of drugs are smuggled into
this country every day.
All you propose is the creation of a black market for guns, and a
disarmed society of law-abiding citizenry.
It would take time and effort. It would be worth it.
It would not be successful.
But I agree it wouldn't be simple and over night, so Republicans might
not understand it.
LOL We've been trying to explain this concept to you dim-witted libs
about the war on terror.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
12 Feb 2005 11:41:01 AM |
|
|
In article <l8ds01dpq2kgg47v377t6gdp8d2fvvml51@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 <de4r019kqb7t6i8g6kr0hptu2b35hr9hu1@4ax.com>,
<3.14159@consultant.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:57:43 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <n2vq0111s87evdsrktmg1vjlcvc1kaplej@4ax.com>,
<3.14159@consultant.com> wrote:
You simple-minded folk have it all figured out...
...except for how to disarm the criminals.
Disarm everyone. The criminals will be in there somewhere.
So, how do you convince the criminals to surrender their guns?
Be specific!
This is the whole "Iraq Mistake" excuse the simple minded Republicans
use. Yeah - we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, just like you Democrats
said. It was a mistake. But now that we are there we can't get out.
We outlaw guns. We outlaw ammunition. We collect what we can. As the
weapons turn up, we take them and charge those who have them. Yes -
many will not give them up at first. It won't be instantaneous. But
it will happen over time.
Like prohibition and the war on drugs?
Like Britain.
LOL!!
Moron.
Don't use the excuse that since we were
foolish enough to have let every ***** in the country have twenty
weapons we can't get them back.
You're a fool. You cannot legislate morality.
This isn't morality. We legislate guns.
I know Republicans look for simple
minded answers.
I know you have no idea of reality. TONS of drugs are smuggled into
this country every day.
So? What is with the side stepping?
All you propose is the creation of a black market for guns, and a
disarmed society of law-abiding citizenry.
The law-abiding citizenry are responsible for tens of thousands of
deaths each year in the US alone. As for black markets, your
aberrations don't hold water. We ban MANY things with a black market
being created. Perhaps YOU would violate the law and buy a gun on the
black market, most citizens would not.
It would take time and effort. It would be worth it.
It would not be successful.
It works elsewhere. The NRA, lies, distortions, and half-truths not
withstanding.
But I agree it wouldn't be simple and over night, so Republicans might
not understand it.
LOL We've been trying to explain this concept to you dim-witted libs
about the war on terror.
Define "terrorism" and "terrorist." If you can't define them, how can
you have a so-called "war" on them?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
18 Feb 2005 07:42:12 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:120220050941014152%spam@aol.com:
In article <420e8994$1@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:120220050941014152%spam@aol.com:
In article <l8ds01dpq2kgg47v377t6gdp8d2fvvml51@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 <de4r019kqb7t6i8g6kr0hptu2b35hr9hu1@4ax.com>,
<3.14159@consultant.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:57:43 -0800, "David W. Barnes"
<spam@aol.com> wrote:
In article <n2vq0111s87evdsrktmg1vjlcvc1kaplej@4ax.com>,
<3.14159@consultant.com> wrote:
You simple-minded folk have it all figured out...
...except for how to disarm the criminals.
Disarm everyone. The criminals will be in there somewhere.
So, how do you convince the criminals to surrender their guns?
Be specific!
This is the whole "Iraq Mistake" excuse the simple minded
Republicans use. Yeah - we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, just
like you Democrats said. It was a mistake. But now that we are
there we can't get out.
We outlaw guns. We outlaw ammunition. We collect what we can. As
the weapons turn up, we take them and charge those who have them.
Yes - many will not give them up at first. It won't be
instantaneous. But it will happen over time.
Like prohibition and the war on drugs?
Like Britain.
Britain still has gun crimes.
LOL! You are a real intellectual, aren't you?
The homicide rate for England with very restrictive gun laws, and
Switzerland, where every household is required to own an assault rifle had
virtually identical homicide rates during a period where England had twice
as many burglaries as Switzerland. Go figure.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
12 Feb 2005 04:56:20 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:120220050941014152%spam@aol.com:
In article <l8ds01dpq2kgg47v377t6gdp8d2fvvml51@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 <de4r019kqb7t6i8g6kr0hptu2b35hr9hu1@4ax.com>,
<3.14159@consultant.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:57:43 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <n2vq0111s87evdsrktmg1vjlcvc1kaplej@4ax.com>,
<3.14159@consultant.com> wrote:
You simple-minded folk have it all figured out...
...except for how to disarm the criminals.
Disarm everyone. The criminals will be in there somewhere.
So, how do you convince the criminals to surrender their guns?
Be specific!
This is the whole "Iraq Mistake" excuse the simple minded Republicans
use. Yeah - we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, just like you Democrats
said. It was a mistake. But now that we are there we can't get out.
We outlaw guns. We outlaw ammunition. We collect what we can. As
the weapons turn up, we take them and charge those who have them. Yes
- many will not give them up at first. It won't be instantaneous.
But it will happen over time.
Like prohibition and the war on drugs?
Like Britain.
Britain still has gun crimes.
Don't use the excuse that since we were
foolish enough to have let every ***** in the country have twenty
weapons we can't get them back.
You're a fool. You cannot legislate morality.
This isn't morality. We legislate guns.
The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.
I know Republicans look for simple
minded answers.
I know you have no idea of reality. TONS of drugs are smuggled into
this country every day.
So? What is with the side stepping?
All you propose is the creation of a black market for guns, and a
disarmed society of law-abiding citizenry.
The law-abiding citizenry are responsible for tens of thousands of
deaths each year in the US alone.
Good. The more dead criminals, the better.
As for black markets, your aberrations don't hold water. We ban MANY
things with a black market being created. Perhaps YOU would violate the
law and buy a gun on the black market, most citizens would not.
And the citizens who don't will be defenseless sheep. So then what's the
point of banning them if criminals can still buy them?
So far you have not come up with one good argument for banning law abiding
citizens from buying guns but keeping them in the hands of criminals.
It would take time and effort. It would be worth it.
It would not be successful.
It works elsewhere.
It hasn't worked anywhere. Everywhere where guns are banned, criminals
still can get them and gun crimes still occur.
The NRA, lies, distortions, and half-truths not withstanding.
Yeah, the NRA sucks for defending the Constitution!
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
13 Feb 2005 10:42:49 PM |
|
|
In article <420e8994$1@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:120220050941014152%spam@aol.com:
In article <l8ds01dpq2kgg47v377t6gdp8d2fvvml51@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 <de4r019kqb7t6i8g6kr0hptu2b35hr9hu1@4ax.com>,
<3.14159@consultant.com> wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:57:43 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <n2vq0111s87evdsrktmg1vjlcvc1kaplej@4ax.com>,
<3.14159@consultant.com> wrote:
You simple-minded folk have it all figured out...
...except for how to disarm the criminals.
Disarm everyone. The criminals will be in there somewhere.
So, how do you convince the criminals to surrender their guns?
Be specific!
This is the whole "Iraq Mistake" excuse the simple minded Republicans
use. Yeah - we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, just like you Democrats
said. It was a mistake. But now that we are there we can't get out.
We outlaw guns. We outlaw ammunition. We collect what we can. As
the weapons turn up, we take them and charge those who have them. Yes
- many will not give them up at first. It won't be instantaneous.
But it will happen over time.
Like prohibition and the war on drugs?
Like Britain.
Britain still has gun crimes.
LOL! You are a real intellectual, aren't you?
Don't use the excuse that since we were
foolish enough to have let every ***** in the country have twenty
weapons we can't get them back.
You're a fool. You cannot legislate morality.
This isn't morality. We legislate guns.
The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.
"A well regulated militia..." Funny how you gun nuts can't read.
I know Republicans look for simple
minded answers.
I know you have no idea of reality. TONS of drugs are smuggled into
this country every day.
So? What is with the side stepping?
All you propose is the creation of a black market for guns, and a
disarmed society of law-abiding citizenry.
The law-abiding citizenry are responsible for tens of thousands of
deaths each year in the US alone.
Good. The more dead criminals, the better.
Most are innocent people.
As for black markets, your aberrations don't hold water. We ban MANY
things with a black market being created. Perhaps YOU would violate the
law and buy a gun on the black market, most citizens would not.
And the citizens who don't will be defenseless sheep. So then what's the
point of banning them if criminals can still buy them?
Maybe this is the problem. Maybe you guns nuts assume that if you had
a gun and others didn't, you attack those without.
So far you have not come up with one good argument for banning law abiding
citizens from buying guns but keeping them in the hands of criminals.
Not the scenario. I guess reality is too difficult for you.
It would take time and effort. It would be worth it.
It would not be successful.
It works elsewhere.
It hasn't worked anywhere. Everywhere where guns are banned, criminals
still can get them and gun crimes still occur.
Gun violence is very low in Britain, for example.
The NRA, lies, distortions, and half-truths not withstanding.
Yeah, the NRA sucks for defending the Constitution!
Yeah. I guess that whole, "A well regulated militia..." thing just
escapes them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maaxx" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
13 Feb 2005 11:04:19 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:130220052042492934%spam@aol.com:
In article <420e8994$1@x-privat.org>, Maaxx <maaxx@xrs.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in
news:120220050941014152%spam@aol.com:
In article <l8ds01dpq2kgg47v377t6gdp8d2fvvml51@4ax.com>,
<3.14159@consultant.com> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 08:10:35 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
