Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You


 Religions > Atheism > Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 28 of 80

1
 

2
 

3
 

4
 

5
 

6
 

7
 

8
 

9
 

10
 

11
 

12
 

13
 

14
 

15
 

16
 

17
 

18
 

19
 

20
 

21
 

22
 

23
 

24
 

25
 

26
 

27
 

28
 

29
 

30
 

31
 

32
 

33
 

34
 

35
 

36
 

37
 

38
 

39
 

40
 

41
 

42
 

43
 

44
 

45
 

46
 

47
 

48
 

49
 

50
 

51
 

52
 

53
 

54
 

55
 

56
 

57
 

58
 

59
 

60
 

61
 

62
 

63
 

64
 

65
 

66
 

67
 

68
 

69
 

70
 

71
 

72
 

73
 

74
 

75
 

76
 

77
 

78
 

79
 

80
 
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: "Osprey"

Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You 23 Jan 2005 08:50:01 PM
"James H. Hood" <jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> wrote in message
news:41f45e18$0$13891$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net...


David W. Barnes <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051355052606%spam@aol.com...

In article <DfGdnaRDw6v9gWncRVn-qQ@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:rZGdnSxo58qzlGncRVn-3A@adelphia.com...


"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050939257794%spam@aol.com...

In article <jumdnanPgobJQm7cRVn-pA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:-KKdnRNICapNQ27cRVn-jQ@adelphia.com...


"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050923059003%spam@aol.com...

In article <10v7n48ooa9cp03@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:cgu5v09ujgpej8p4ljo9k3v59e1brfq22l@4ax.com...

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:31:26 -0500, AH#49 writes
<GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:

Al Klein wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 09:18:12 -0500, AH#49 writes:


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.


Pardon me, but Mike Moore _DID_ say that he prefers to have
certain
items that he and the liberal front doesn't like BANNED!


Those certain items don't include all guns, so the response

was

unresponsive.

Tell us all again, why ANY particular weapon should be
banned.


Lack of need? Danger to society?



1) Feel free to demonstrate that a "lack of need" is a valid
reason
for
banning anything.
By the way, you really don't "need" a car, since you
can

use

public
transit
So let's ban cars.
You really don't need soap and deodorant, people have
survived
without them for millenia
So let's ban soap and deodorants
Your really don't "need" electric light bulbs, people

have

survived
without them for millenia
So let's do away with light bulbs and electricity

while

were
at
it.

2) Feel free to demonstrate that any particular weapon is a
danger to
society


All handguns are a danger to society.


How?


Scout,
Don't even waste your time, killfile that idiot. He is a nut, he

thinks

cops who have to use their weapons, do so because they lost
control.
He doesn't believe in the second amendment.


Osprey is a guard who isn't allowed to carry a weapon. As for me, I
used to be a police officer who WAS allowed to carry a weapon. I am
STILL licensed to carry a concealed weapon. I just don't do it.


So tell us why were you a danger to society????


Oh boy, I see he is back to lying again. Not allowed to carry a
weapon?
Every one of us are qualified, we HAVE to be or else we don't have a

job.


You are a guard, not a police officer.


So are you going to do the JBT thing and claim only police officers are
qualified to carry handguns? By that criteria, alleged FORMER police
officer, you are not qualified to do so.

This is just one of the reasons why myself, and another state trooper said
that Barnes was never a police officer.
First off, he doesn't even understand the criminal justice field. He thinks
that correctional officers are the same
as mall security guards. Correctional Officers are the third part of what
makes up our criminal justice system and
mall security guards are not a part of that.
Second, police officers have a great deal of respect for correctional
officers. Most will tell you, for no amount of money
would they do what we have to do.
Third, he has absolutely no knowledge of the correctional system. He
doesn't understand that correctional officers, like state police, municipal,
county, and other law enforcement agencies are to be trained on the use of
fire arms.
Fourth, he thinks that if a correctional officers shoots an inmate who is
escaping from prison that correctional officer will be arrested. This was
one of the clinchers that convinced me he was never in law enforcement. A
correctional officer is bound to use deadly force if a level five inmate
(that is one who is incarcerated in a prison), escapes, attempts to harm
another officer or another inmate and no other recourse can be solved, or
destroying property.
Just a few months ago, we had a hostage situation. An inmate took a
counselor hostage. A correctional officer shot and killed the inmate. Now,
according to Barnes this officer should be arrested for shooting an unarmed
man. This of course was not the case, the officer did what he had to do and
he saved the woman's life. If he had not taken that shot, the counselor
would have been killed. He was just in the process of killing her, it was a
split second decision. According to Barnes, he said if an officer ever has
to fire his/her weapon it means they lost control. That is the part that
convinced the state trooper he was never in law enforcement.
I have been in Corrections for more than five years now, it is unfortunate
that Barnes has such a low regard towards correctional officers.
Those of us in this field have a high respect for all those in law
enforcement...city, county, state, river and bay, and so forth.
.
User: "David W. Barnes"

Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You 23 Jan 2005 10:32:43 PM
In article <R-CdnQ8gmcBH_GncRVn-hA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

"James H. Hood" <jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> wrote in message
news:41f45e18$0$13891$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net...


David W. Barnes <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051355052606%spam@aol.com...

In article <DfGdnaRDw6v9gWncRVn-qQ@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:rZGdnSxo58qzlGncRVn-3A@adelphia.com...


"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050939257794%spam@aol.com...

In article <jumdnanPgobJQm7cRVn-pA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:-KKdnRNICapNQ27cRVn-jQ@adelphia.com...


"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050923059003%spam@aol.com...

In article <10v7n48ooa9cp03@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:cgu5v09ujgpej8p4ljo9k3v59e1brfq22l@4ax.com...

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:31:26 -0500, AH#49 writes
<GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:

Al Klein wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 09:18:12 -0500, AH#49 writes:


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.


Pardon me, but Mike Moore _DID_ say that he prefers to have
certain
items that he and the liberal front doesn't like BANNED!


Those certain items don't include all guns, so the response

was

unresponsive.

Tell us all again, why ANY particular weapon should be
banned.


Lack of need? Danger to society?



1) Feel free to demonstrate that a "lack of need" is a valid
reason
for
banning anything.
By the way, you really don't "need" a car, since you
can

use

public
transit
So let's ban cars.
You really don't need soap and deodorant, people have
survived
without them for millenia
So let's ban soap and deodorants
Your really don't "need" electric light bulbs, people

have

survived
without them for millenia
So let's do away with light bulbs and electricity

while

were
at
it.

2) Feel free to demonstrate that any particular weapon is a
danger to
society


All handguns are a danger to society.


How?


Scout,
Don't even waste your time, killfile that idiot. He is a nut, he

thinks

cops who have to use their weapons, do so because they lost
control.
He doesn't believe in the second amendment.


Osprey is a guard who isn't allowed to carry a weapon. As for me, I
used to be a police officer who WAS allowed to carry a weapon. I am
STILL licensed to carry a concealed weapon. I just don't do it.


So tell us why were you a danger to society????


Oh boy, I see he is back to lying again. Not allowed to carry a
weapon?
Every one of us are qualified, we HAVE to be or else we don't have a

job.


You are a guard, not a police officer.


So are you going to do the JBT thing and claim only police officers are
qualified to carry handguns? By that criteria, alleged FORMER police
officer, you are not qualified to do so.



This is just one of the reasons why myself, and another state trooper said
that Barnes was never a police officer.

Who care what you or your state trooper friend think. Do you
understand that this is not up for opinion? It either is true or it is
not. Here, it is.

First off, he doesn't even understand the criminal justice field. He thinks
that correctional officers are the same
as mall security guards.

I never said that. I think YOU are the same as a Mall Security Guard.

Correctional Officers are the third part of what
makes up our criminal justice system and
mall security guards are not a part of that.

Mall Security Guards and YOU have similar educations, pay, and training.

Second, police officers have a great deal of respect for correctional
officers. Most will tell you, for no amount of money
would they do what we have to do.

Maybe the ones you know. We used to laugh about it. We saw people
like you as "hobby cops." Why do you think you are paid so poorly?

Third, he has absolutely no knowledge of the correctional system.

How would you know? I wiped the ground with you on that issue.

He
doesn't understand that correctional officers, like state police, municipal,
county, and other law enforcement agencies are to be trained on the use of
fire arms.

You are really proud of the idea that you can have a gun, aren't you?
I makes you feel more like a man.

Fourth, he thinks that if a correctional officers shoots an inmate who is
escaping from prison that correctional officer will be arrested. This was
one of the clinchers that convinced me he was never in law enforcement. A
correctional officer is bound to use deadly force if a level five inmate
(that is one who is incarcerated in a prison), escapes, attempts to harm
another officer or another inmate and no other recourse can be solved, or
destroying property.

You said ALL prisoners before, *****.

Just a few months ago, we had a hostage situation.

More war stories to try to convince people he isn't really just aguard.

An inmate took a
counselor hostage.

We have heard this story a hundred times. Life must be boring at the
prison. You will be trying to get mileage on this story for years to
come.

A correctional officer shot and killed the inmate.

How proud you must be. The High School graduate killed a person.

Now,
according to Barnes this officer should be arrested for shooting an unarmed
man.

Which, of course, isn't what I said.

This of course was not the case, the officer did what he had to do and
he saved the woman's life. If he had not taken that shot, the counselor
would have been killed.

Speculation.

He was just in the process of killing her, it was a
split second decision. According to Barnes, he said if an officer ever has
to fire his/her weapon it means they lost control.

I'd say you pretty much lost control of the situation at that point.
Perhaps you think everything was under control. ROFL!

That is the part that
convinced the state trooper he was never in law enforcement.

Who gives a damn what you sock puppet "state trooper" thinks?

I have been in Corrections for more than five years now,

How proud you must be.

it is unfortunate
that Barnes has such a low regard towards correctional officers.

Low regard for people like you. Why don't you tell everyone how you
were reprimanded for dereliction of duty.

Those of us in this field have a high respect for all those in law
enforcement...city, county, state, river and bay, and so forth.

You are kidding yourself. Real police officers think you are a joke.
I know. I was one of them.
.
User: "Al Klein"

Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You 24 Jan 2005 01:29:02 AM
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:32:43 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:

I never said that. I think YOU are the same as a Mall Security Guard.

Is that one step ABOVE a McDonald's hamburger flipper, or one step
BELOW a McDonald's hamburger flipper? I can never remember where
Kiddie Kops fall.
--
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education and social
ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he
had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
-Albert Einstein
(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 11:10:37 AM
Al Klein wrote:


On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:32:43 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:

I never said that. I think YOU are the same as a Mall Security Guard.


Is that one step ABOVE a McDonald's hamburger flipper, or one step
BELOW a McDonald's hamburger flipper? I can never remember where
Kiddie Kops fall.

You don't remember where you work?
.
User: "Al Klein"

Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You 24 Jan 2005 04:43:59 PM
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:10:37 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:

Al Klein wrote:

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:32:43 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:

I never said that. I think YOU are the same as a Mall Security Guard.

Is that one step ABOVE a McDonald's hamburger flipper, or one step
BELOW a McDonald's hamburger flipper? I can never remember where
Kiddie Kops fall.

You don't remember where you work?

I'm AT work, genius. Doesn't take much "memory" to know where I am
now.
--
If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones
- Carl Sagan, 1987.
(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 25 Jan 2005 10:13:04 AM
Al Klein wrote:


On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:10:37 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:

Al Klein wrote:

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:32:43 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:


I never said that. I think YOU are the same as a Mall Security Guard.


Is that one step ABOVE a McDonald's hamburger flipper, or one step
BELOW a McDonald's hamburger flipper? I can never remember where
Kiddie Kops fall.


You don't remember where you work?


I'm AT work, genius. Doesn't take much "memory" to know where I am
now.

Then it must be time to flip those burgers before they burn and you get
fired again.
.
User: "Al Klein"

Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You 25 Jan 2005 04:22:35 PM
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:13:04 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:

Then it must be time to flip those burgers before they burn and you get
fired again.

Sorry, my compiler doesn't have any 'burgers'. I can flip nibbles if
you like.
--
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him, the
spinal cord would fully suffice."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.




User: "David W. Barnes"

Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You 24 Jan 2005 07:11:05 AM
In article <fn89v0lp1mr0lc9knldi65spinudi7t5h7@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:32:43 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
said in alt.atheism:

I never said that. I think YOU are the same as a Mall Security Guard.


Is that one step ABOVE a McDonald's hamburger flipper, or one step
BELOW a McDonald's hamburger flipper? I can never remember where
Kiddie Kops fall.

In pay, *slightly* above. In social status, well below.
.




User: "David W. Barnes"

Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You 23 Jan 2005 10:32:42 PM
In article <41f45e18$0$13891$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net>, James H.
Hood <jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> wrote:

David W. Barnes <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051355052606%spam@aol.com...

In article <DfGdnaRDw6v9gWncRVn-qQ@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:rZGdnSxo58qzlGncRVn-3A@adelphia.com...


"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050939257794%spam@aol.com...

In article <jumdnanPgobJQm7cRVn-pA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:-KKdnRNICapNQ27cRVn-jQ@adelphia.com...


"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050923059003%spam@aol.com...

In article <10v7n48ooa9cp03@corp.supernews.com>, SaPeIsMa
<SaPeIsMa@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:cgu5v09ujgpej8p4ljo9k3v59e1brfq22l@4ax.com...

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:31:26 -0500, AH#49 writes
<GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:

Al Klein wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 09:18:12 -0500, AH#49 writes:


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.


Pardon me, but Mike Moore _DID_ say that he prefers to have
certain
items that he and the liberal front doesn't like BANNED!


Those certain items don't include all guns, so the response

was

unresponsive.

Tell us all again, why ANY particular weapon should be banned.


Lack of need? Danger to society?



1) Feel free to demonstrate that a "lack of need" is a valid
reason
for
banning anything.
By the way, you really don't "need" a car, since you can

use

public
transit
So let's ban cars.
You really don't need soap and deodorant, people have
survived
without them for millenia
So let's ban soap and deodorants
Your really don't "need" electric light bulbs, people

have

survived
without them for millenia
So let's do away with light bulbs and electricity

while

were
at
it.

2) Feel free to demonstrate that any particular weapon is a
danger to
society


All handguns are a danger to society.


How?


Scout,
Don't even waste your time, killfile that idiot. He is a nut, he

thinks

cops who have to use their weapons, do so because they lost control.
He doesn't believe in the second amendment.


Osprey is a guard who isn't allowed to carry a weapon. As for me, I
used to be a police officer who WAS allowed to carry a weapon. I am
STILL licensed to carry a concealed weapon. I just don't do it.


So tell us why were you a danger to society????


Oh boy, I see he is back to lying again. Not allowed to carry a weapon?
Every one of us are qualified, we HAVE to be or else we don't have a

job.


You are a guard, not a police officer.


So are you going to do the JBT thing and claim only police officers are
qualified to carry handguns? By that criteria, alleged FORMER police
officer, you are not qualified to do so.

I never said any such thing - but nice try.
.

User: "Al Klein"

Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You 23 Jan 2005 09:08:50 PM
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:31:59 -0600, "James H. Hood"
<jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> said in alt.atheism:

So are you going to do the JBT thing and claim only police officers are
qualified to carry handguns? By that criteria, alleged FORMER police
officer, you are not qualified to do so.

They are GRANTED that right (in most cases) - there's no such right
inherent in the law. (The government can grant all kinds of rights
it's not forbidden to grant.)
--
"The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but
moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically
false, and at the least an error of faith."
- Catholic Church's decision against Galileo Galilei
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
User: "James H. Hood"

Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You 23 Jan 2005 09:52:39 PM
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:dkp8v0p1ekhf2ac5rrc3i8edauu7p1q45p@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:31:59 -0600, "James H. Hood"
<jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> said in alt.atheism:

So are you going to do the JBT thing and claim only police officers are
qualified to carry handguns? By that criteria, alleged FORMER police
officer, you are not qualified to do so.


They are GRANTED that right (in most cases) - there's no such right
inherent in the law. (The government can grant all kinds of rights
it's not forbidden to grant.)

Show us the lines in the Constitution which simultaneously "grant" ALLEGED
former police officers with the right to carry a handgun while at the same
time denying that to the rest of us.
.
User: "Osprey"

Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You 23 Jan 2005 10:48:46 PM
"James H. Hood" <jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> wrote in message
news:41f47101$0$13892$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net...


Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:dkp8v0p1ekhf2ac5rrc3i8edauu7p1q45p@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:31:59 -0600, "James H. Hood"
<jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> said in alt.atheism:

So are you going to do the JBT thing and claim only police officers are
qualified to carry handguns? By that criteria, alleged FORMER police
officer, you are not qualified to do so.


They are GRANTED that right (in most cases) - there's no such right
inherent in the law. (The government can grant all kinds of rights
it's not forbidden to grant.)


Show us the lines in the Constitution which simultaneously "grant" ALLEGED
former police officers with the right to carry a handgun while at the same
time denying that to the rest of us.

Now you got him pinned, he will be unable to answer that one.
.
User: "David W. Barnes"

Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You 23 Jan 2005 10:52:00 PM
In article <Vu-dnWoMvs8L4GncRVn-hA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

"James H. Hood" <jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> wrote in message
news:41f47101$0$13892$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net...


Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:dkp8v0p1ekhf2ac5rrc3i8edauu7p1q45p@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:31:59 -0600, "James H. Hood"
<jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> said in alt.atheism:

So are you going to do the JBT thing and claim only police officers are
qualified to carry handguns? By that criteria, alleged FORMER police
officer, you are not qualified to do so.


They are GRANTED that right (in most cases) - there's no such right
inherent in the law. (The government can grant all kinds of rights
it's not forbidden to grant.)


Show us the lines in the Constitution which simultaneously "grant" ALLEGED
former police officers with the right to carry a handgun while at the same
time denying that to the rest of us.


Now you got him pinned, he will be unable to answer that one.

Stop hiding, you pathetic piece of *****.
.


User: "David W. Barnes"

Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You 23 Jan 2005 10:32:43 PM
In article <41f47101$0$13892$39cecf19@news.twtelecom.net>, James H.
Hood <jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> wrote:

Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:dkp8v0p1ekhf2ac5rrc3i8edauu7p1q45p@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:31:59 -0600, "James H. Hood"
<jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> said in alt.atheism:

So are you going to do the JBT thing and claim only police officers are
qualified to carry handguns? By that criteria, alleged FORMER police
officer, you are not qualified to do so.


They are GRANTED that right (in most cases) - there's no such right
inherent in the law. (The government can grant all kinds of rights
it's not forbidden to grant.)


Show us the lines in the Constitution which simultaneously "grant" ALLEGED
former police officers with the right to carry a handgun while at the same
time denying that to the rest of us.

Pull your head out of your ***** for once.
.

User: "Al Klein"

Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You 24 Jan 2005 01:19:57 AM
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:52:39 -0600, "James H. Hood"
<jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> said in alt.atheism:

Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:dkp8v0p1ekhf2ac5rrc3i8edauu7p1q45p@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:31:59 -0600, "James H. Hood"
<jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> said in alt.atheism:

So are you going to do the JBT thing and claim only police officers are
qualified to carry handguns? By that criteria, alleged FORMER police
officer, you are not qualified to do so.

They are GRANTED that right (in most cases) - there's no such right
inherent in the law. (The government can grant all kinds of rights
it's not forbidden to grant.)

Show us the lines in the Constitution which simultaneously "grant" ALLEGED
former police officers with the right to carry a handgun

The government can do all sorts of things not specifically granted it
in the Constitution.

while at the same time denying that to the rest of us.

The SCOTUS has interpreted the second to mean that the government can
deny firearms to anyone not part of the militia. Any firearms.
--
"The study of geology is ok-But not when it contradicts what is laid
out in the Bible that the earth is more than 10,000 years old."
- Doug Lee, Creationist
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
User: "Morton Davis"

Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You 24 Jan 2005 07:41:27 AM
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:2989v01qjkpsl716ni7udbt1hngic2rq3l@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:52:39 -0600, "James H. Hood"
<jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> said in alt.atheism:

Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:dkp8v0p1ekhf2ac5rrc3i8edauu7p1q45p@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:31:59 -0600, "James H. Hood"
<jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> said in alt.atheism:


So are you going to do the JBT thing and claim only police officers

are

qualified to carry handguns? By that criteria, alleged FORMER police
officer, you are not qualified to do so.


They are GRANTED that right (in most cases) - there's no such right
inherent in the law. (The government can grant all kinds of rights
it's not forbidden to grant.)


Show us the lines in the Constitution which simultaneously "grant"

ALLEGED

former police officers with the right to carry a handgun


The government can do all sorts of things not specifically granted it
in the Constitution.

while at the same time denying that to the rest of us.


The SCOTUS has interpreted the second to mean that the government can
deny firearms to anyone not part of the militia. Any firearms.

No; it has not.
-*MORT*-
.

User: "Scout"

Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You 24 Jan 2005 03:38:28 PM
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:2989v01qjkpsl716ni7udbt1hngic2rq3l@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:52:39 -0600, "James H. Hood"
<jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> said in alt.atheism:

Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:dkp8v0p1ekhf2ac5rrc3i8edauu7p1q45p@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:31:59 -0600, "James H. Hood"
<jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> said in alt.atheism:


So are you going to do the JBT thing and claim only police officers are
qualified to carry handguns? By that criteria, alleged FORMER police
officer, you are not qualified to do so.


They are GRANTED that right (in most cases) - there's no such right
inherent in the law. (The government can grant all kinds of rights
it's not forbidden to grant.)


Show us the lines in the Constitution which simultaneously "grant" ALLEGED
former police officers with the right to carry a handgun


The government can do all sorts of things not specifically granted it
in the Constitution.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or
to the people.
Sorry, but unless the Constitution specifically states the federal
government can do it, it can not.
.
User: "RD The Sandman"

Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You 24 Jan 2005 05:19:53 PM
Scout wrote:

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:2989v01qjkpsl716ni7udbt1hngic2rq3l@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:52:39 -0600, "James H. Hood"
<jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> said in alt.atheism:


Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:dkp8v0p1ekhf2ac5rrc3i8edauu7p1q45p@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:31:59 -0600, "James H. Hood"
<jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> said in alt.atheism:


So are you going to do the JBT thing and claim only police officers are
qualified to carry handguns? By that criteria, alleged FORMER police
officer, you are not qualified to do so.


They are GRANTED that right (in most cases) - there's no such right
inherent in the law. (The government can grant all kinds of rights
it's not forbidden to grant.)


Show us the lines in the Constitution which simultaneously "grant" ALLEGED
former police officers with the right to carry a handgun


The government can do all sorts of things not specifically granted it
in the Constitution.



Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or
to the people.



Sorry, but unless the Constitution specifically states the federal
government can do it, it can not.

It's not supposed to.......let's be realistic..
--
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: "Scout"

Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You 24 Jan 2005 07:30:21 PM
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:stydnZix0bsLH2jcRVn-3w@comcast.com...

Scout wrote:

"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:2989v01qjkpsl716ni7udbt1hngic2rq3l@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:52:39 -0600, "James H. Hood"
<jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> said in alt.atheism:


Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:dkp8v0p1ekhf2ac5rrc3i8edauu7p1q45p@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:31:59 -0600, "James H. Hood"
<jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> said in alt.atheism:


So are you going to do the JBT thing and claim only police officers
are
qualified to carry handguns? By that criteria, alleged FORMER police
officer, you are not qualified to do so.


They are GRANTED that right (in most cases) - there's no such right
inherent in the law. (The government can grant all kinds of rights
it's not forbidden to grant.)


Show us the lines in the Constitution which simultaneously "grant"
ALLEGED
former police officers with the right to carry a handgun


The government can do all sorts of things not specifically granted it
in the Constitution.



Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively,
or to the people.



Sorry, but unless the Constitution specifically states the federal
government can do it, it can not.


It's not supposed to.......let's be realistic..

Sad.....but true.
.



User: "James H. Hood"

Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You 24 Jan 2005 07:57:51 PM
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:2989v01qjkpsl716ni7udbt1hngic2rq3l@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:52:39 -0600, "James H. Hood"
<jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> said in alt.atheism:

Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:dkp8v0p1ekhf2ac5rrc3i8edauu7p1q45p@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:31:59 -0600, "James H. Hood"
<jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> said in alt.atheism:


So are you going to do the JBT thing and claim only police officers

are

qualified to carry handguns? By that criteria, alleged FORMER police
officer, you are not qualified to do so.


They are GRANTED that right (in most cases) - there's no such right
inherent in the law. (The government can grant all kinds of rights
it's not forbidden to grant.)


Show us the lines in the Constitution which simultaneously "grant"

ALLEGED

former police officers with the right to carry a handgun


The government can do all sorts of things not specifically granted it
in the Constitution.

We're not speaking of whatever misapplications a government might make,
we're speaking of the Constitution. Show us the lines in the Constitution
which simultaneously "grant" ALLEGED former police officers with the right
to carry a handgun while at the same time denying that to the rest of us.

The SCOTUS has interpreted the second to mean that the government can
deny firearms to anyone not part of the militia. Any firearms.

On your planet, maybe.....not on Earth.
.

User: "AH#49 writes"

Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You 24 Jan 2005 11:08:32 AM
Al Klein wrote:


On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:52:39 -0600, "James H. Hood"
<jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> said in alt.atheism:

Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:dkp8v0p1ekhf2ac5rrc3i8edauu7p1q45p@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:31:59 -0600, "James H. Hood"
<jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> said in alt.atheism:


So are you going to do the JBT thing and claim only police officers are
qualified to carry handguns? By that criteria, alleged FORMER police
officer, you are not qualified to do so.


They are GRANTED that right (in most cases) - there's no such right
inherent in the law. (The government can grant all kinds of rights
it's not forbidden to grant.)


Show us the lines in the Constitution which simultaneously "grant" ALLEGED
former police officers with the right to carry a handgun


The government can do all sorts of things not specifically granted it
in the Constitution.

Hey! I think Lil Al is getting the hang of it!But I think he really
meant to say:
"The government can do all sorts of things not specifically taken for
granted in the Constitution." :>
.

User: "RD The Sandman"

Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You 24 Jan 2005 01:17:43 PM
Al Klein wrote:

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:52:39 -0600, "James H. Hood"
<jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> said in alt.atheism:


Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:dkp8v0p1ekhf2ac5rrc3i8edauu7p1q45p@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:31:59 -0600, "James H. Hood"
<jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> said in alt.atheism:



So are you going to do the JBT thing and claim only police officers are
qualified to carry handguns? By that criteria, alleged FORMER police
officer, you are not qualified to do so.



They are GRANTED that right (in most cases) - there's no such right
inherent in the law. (The government can grant all kinds of rights
it's not forbidden to grant.)



Show us the lines in the Constitution which simultaneously "grant" ALLEGED
former police officers with the right to carry a handgun



The government can do all sorts of things not specifically granted it
in the Constitution.


while at the same time denying that to the rest of us.



The SCOTUS has interpreted the second to mean that the government can
deny firearms to anyone not part of the militia. Any firearms.

No, it hasn'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: "Bama Brian"

Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You 24 Jan 2005 12:57:02 PM
Al Klein wrote:

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:52:39 -0600, "James H. Hood"
<jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> said in alt.atheism:


Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:dkp8v0p1ekhf2ac5rrc3i8edauu7p1q45p@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:31:59 -0600, "James H. Hood"
<jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> said in alt.atheism:



So are you going to do the JBT thing and claim only police officers are
qualified to carry handguns? By that criteria, alleged FORMER police
officer, you are not qualified to do so.



They are GRANTED that right (in most cases) - there's no such right
inherent in the law. (The government can grant all kinds of rights
it's not forbidden to grant.)



Show us the lines in the Constitution which simultaneously "grant" ALLEGED
former police officers with the right to carry a handgun



The government can do all sorts of things not specifically granted it
in the Constitution.

That's not what the Constitution says.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively,
or to the people.


while at the same time denying that to the rest of us.



The SCOTUS has interpreted the second to mean that the government can
deny firearms to anyone not part of the militia. Any firearms.

The SCOTUS has NEVER ruled on private ownership of firearms. Even
including the Miller non-decision.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
.
User: "RD The Sandman"

Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You 24 Jan 2005 05:05:55 PM
Bama Brian wrote:

Al Klein wrote:

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:52:39 -0600, "James H. Hood"
<jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> said in alt.atheism:


Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:dkp8v0p1ekhf2ac5rrc3i8edauu7p1q45p@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:31:59 -0600, "James H. Hood"
<jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> said in alt.atheism:




So are you going to do the JBT thing and claim only police officers
are
qualified to carry handguns? By that criteria, alleged FORMER police
officer, you are not qualified to do so.




They are GRANTED that right (in most cases) - there's no such right
inherent in the law. (The government can grant all kinds of rights
it's not forbidden to grant.)




Show us the lines in the Constitution which simultaneously "grant"
ALLEGED
former police officers with the right to carry a handgun




The government can do all sorts of things not specifically granted it
in the Constitution.



That's not what the Constitution says.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively,
or to the people.


while at the same time denying that to the rest of us.




The SCOTUS has interpreted the second to mean that the government can
deny firearms to anyone not part of the militia. Any firearms.



The SCOTUS has NEVER ruled on private ownership of firearms. Even
including the Miller non-decision.

Correct.
--
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: "David W. Barnes"

Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You 24 Jan 2005 07:11:06 AM
In article <2989v01qjkpsl716ni7udbt1hngic2rq3l@4ax.com>, Al Klein
<rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:52:39 -0600, "James H. Hood"
<jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> said in alt.atheism:

Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:dkp8v0p1ekhf2ac5rrc3i8edauu7p1q45p@4ax.com...

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 20:31:59 -0600, "James H. Hood"
<jhhoodDIESPAMMERDIE@urdirect.net> said in alt.atheism:


So are you going to do the JBT thing and claim only police officers are
qualified to carry handguns? By that criteria, alleged FORMER police
officer, you are not qualified to do so.


They are GRANTED that right (in most cases) - there's no such right
inherent in the law. (The government can grant all kinds of rights
it's not forbidden to grant.)


Show us the lines in the Constitution which simultaneously "grant" ALLEGED
former police officers with the right to carry a handgun


The government can do all sorts of things not specifically granted it
in the Constitution.

The goose steppers think the government is the source of rights.


while at the same time denying that to the rest of us.


The SCOTUS has interpreted the second to mean that the government can
deny firearms to anyone not part of the militia. Any firearms.

They get it. They just think if they deny it long enough it will no
longer be true.
.