| 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: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
28 Jan 2005 11:01:53 AM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:27:27 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:23:01 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 25 Jan 2005 23:49:08 -0600, (Kate ) thought
hard and said:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:06:29 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:24:28 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
thought hard and said:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:45:30 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Lack of need? Danger to society?
Define need?
Required for life.
YOU don't "need" a car, a TV, etc.
Nope. Never said I did.
And what "danger to society" does my wanting any particular item present
to you?
Your carelessness in securing your firearm makes it a danger to me
when it falls into the wrong hands.
Or do you have a burglar-proof save imbedded into the bedrock beneath
your house? Or an armed guard on duty at all times?
VERY FEW civilians actually 'need' a firearm - of any kind - in the US
these days.
That very well may be true, but it does not justify banning any
firearm.
Where does one draw the line - nuclear warheads?
One does not defend oneself by tossing a nuke, Kate.
LOL, so why did the US toss one at Japan?
To stop a war. That was not self defense.
Ah, why else does one stop a war after being attacked?
At some point, we stopped acting in a defensive mode and became the
aggressor.
--
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: "AH#49 writes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
28 Jan 2005 11:12:17 AM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:27:27 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:23:01 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 25 Jan 2005 23:49:08 -0600, (Kate ) thought
hard and said:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:06:29 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:24:28 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
thought hard and said:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:45:30 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Lack of need? Danger to society?
Define need?
Required for life.
YOU don't "need" a car, a TV, etc.
Nope. Never said I did.
And what "danger to society" does my wanting any particular item present
to you?
Your carelessness in securing your firearm makes it a danger to me
when it falls into the wrong hands.
Or do you have a burglar-proof save imbedded into the bedrock beneath
your house? Or an armed guard on duty at all times?
VERY FEW civilians actually 'need' a firearm - of any kind - in the US
these days.
That very well may be true, but it does not justify banning any
firearm.
Where does one draw the line - nuclear warheads?
One does not defend oneself by tossing a nuke, Kate.
LOL, so why did the US toss one at Japan?
To stop a war. That was not self defense.
Ah, why else does one stop a war after being attacked?
At some point, we stopped acting in a defensive mode and became the
aggressor.
That's how war is supposed to work. Get the job done, and stop it.
Whomever wins, gets to have the losers surrender on the battleship of
their choice!
I personaly see the dropping of those bombs as a defensive move.
Of course it was an agressive move, but the US was under attack by
Japan, and those two lil cuties we dropped put the Japanese military on
hold.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
29 Jan 2005 10:48:23 AM |
|
|
AH#49 writes wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:27:27 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:23:01 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 25 Jan 2005 23:49:08 -0600, (Kate ) thought
hard and said:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:06:29 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:24:28 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
thought hard and said:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:45:30 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Lack of need? Danger to society?
Define need?
Required for life.
YOU don't "need" a car, a TV, etc.
Nope. Never said I did.
And what "danger to society" does my wanting any particular item present
to you?
Your carelessness in securing your firearm makes it a danger to me
when it falls into the wrong hands.
Or do you have a burglar-proof save imbedded into the bedrock beneath
your house? Or an armed guard on duty at all times?
VERY FEW civilians actually 'need' a firearm - of any kind - in the US
these days.
That very well may be true, but it does not justify banning any
firearm.
Where does one draw the line - nuclear warheads?
One does not defend oneself by tossing a nuke, Kate.
LOL, so why did the US toss one at Japan?
To stop a war. That was not self defense.
Ah, why else does one stop a war after being attacked?
At some point, we stopped acting in a defensive mode and became the
aggressor.
That's how war is supposed to work. Get the job done, and stop it.
Whomever wins, gets to have the losers surrender on the battleship of
their choice!
I personaly see the dropping of those bombs as a defensive move.
Of course it was an agressive move, but the US was under attack by
Japan,
And by that point, Japan had already been under attack by the US.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, basically, pre emptive strikes aimed at
ending the war quickly with minimal loss of American lives.
and those two lil cuties we dropped put the Japanese military on
hold.
--
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: "AH#49 writes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
29 Jan 2005 11:16:41 AM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
AH#49 writes wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:27:27 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:23:01 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 25 Jan 2005 23:49:08 -0600, (Kate ) thought
hard and said:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:06:29 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:24:28 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
thought hard and said:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:45:30 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Lack of need? Danger to society?
Define need?
Required for life.
YOU don't "need" a car, a TV, etc.
Nope. Never said I did.
And what "danger to society" does my wanting any particular item present
to you?
Your carelessness in securing your firearm makes it a danger to me
when it falls into the wrong hands.
Or do you have a burglar-proof save imbedded into the bedrock beneath
your house? Or an armed guard on duty at all times?
VERY FEW civilians actually 'need' a firearm - of any kind - in the US
these days.
That very well may be true, but it does not justify banning any
firearm.
Where does one draw the line - nuclear warheads?
One does not defend oneself by tossing a nuke, Kate.
LOL, so why did the US toss one at Japan?
To stop a war. That was not self defense.
Sure it was.
Ah, why else does one stop a war after being attacked?
At some point, we stopped acting in a defensive mode and became the
aggressor.
That's how war is supposed to work. Get the job done, and stop it.
Whomever wins, gets to have the losers surrender on the battleship of
their choice!
I personaly see the dropping of those bombs as a defensive move.
Of course it was an agressive move, but the US was under attack by
Japan,
And by that point, Japan had already been under attack by the US.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, basically, pre emptive strikes aimed at
ending the war quickly with minimal loss of American lives.
Bingo!
A strategic gamble(move) to defend ourselves from further aggression
from those nations that wanted "global domination" and the demise of our
way of life.
And of course we attacked Japan BACK!
But a "pre-emptive strike?" I don't believe so, or see it as such.
I like that "field testing" wording a lot better! :>
That's the game they call war.
They attacked us first, and we struck back with overwhelming and deadly
force.
It was said that the a Japanese Admiral or General said something akin
to "Uh oh!".. or, "we awoke a sleeping giant", or something along those
lines.
Had they or the Germans got da-bomb foist, I have now doubt that they
would have tried to eliminate and take over with the same means to us as
well.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
30 Jan 2005 12:09:41 PM |
|
|
AH#49 writes wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
AH#49 writes wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:27:27 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:23:01 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 25 Jan 2005 23:49:08 -0600, (Kate ) thought
hard and said:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:06:29 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:24:28 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
thought hard and said:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:45:30 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Lack of need? Danger to society?
Define need?
Required for life.
YOU don't "need" a car, a TV, etc.
Nope. Never said I did.
And what "danger to society" does my wanting any particular item present
to you?
Your carelessness in securing your firearm makes it a danger to me
when it falls into the wrong hands.
Or do you have a burglar-proof save imbedded into the bedrock beneath
your house? Or an armed guard on duty at all times?
VERY FEW civilians actually 'need' a firearm - of any kind - in the US
these days.
That very well may be true, but it does not justify banning any
firearm.
Where does one draw the line - nuclear warheads?
One does not defend oneself by tossing a nuke, Kate.
LOL, so why did the US toss one at Japan?
To stop a war. That was not self defense.
Sure it was.
Ah, why else does one stop a war after being attacked?
At some point, we stopped acting in a defensive mode and became the
aggressor.
That's how war is supposed to work. Get the job done, and stop it.
Whomever wins, gets to have the losers surrender on the battleship of
their choice!
I personaly see the dropping of those bombs as a defensive move.
Of course it was an agressive move, but the US was under attack by
Japan,
And by that point, Japan had already been under attack by the US.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, basically, pre emptive strikes aimed at
ending the war quickly with minimal loss of American lives.
Bingo!
A strategic gamble(move) to defend ourselves from further aggression
from those nations that wanted "global domination" and the demise of our
way of life.
And of course we attacked Japan BACK!
But a "pre-emptive strike?" I don't believe so, or see it as such.
I like that "field testing" wording a lot better! :>
Actually, so do I as it was an interesting turn of a phrase. ;)
That's the game they call war.
They attacked us first, and we struck back with overwhelming and deadly
force.
It was said that the a Japanese Admiral or General said something akin
to "Uh oh!".. or, "we awoke a sleeping giant", or something along those
lines.
Yes, he did. I believe it was Yamamoto.
Had they or the Germans got da-bomb foist, I have now doubt that they
would have tried to eliminate and take over with the same means to us as
well.
--
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: "AH#49 writes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
30 Jan 2005 12:35:34 PM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
AH#49 writes wrote:
I like that "field testing" wording a lot better! :>
Actually, so do I as it was an interesting turn of a phrase. ;)
OK then. No probs!
It was said that the a Japanese Admiral or General said something akin
to "Uh oh!".. or, "we awoke a sleeping giant", or something along those
lines.
Yes, he did. I believe it was Yamamoto.
May he rest assured that he was indeed correct!
Let us ALL hope that further and simular "field testing" never again
happens.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
28 Jan 2005 02:53:06 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:01:53 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:27:27 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:23:01 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 25 Jan 2005 23:49:08 -0600, (Kate ) thought
hard and said:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:06:29 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:24:28 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
thought hard and said:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:45:30 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Lack of need? Danger to society?
Define need?
Required for life.
YOU don't "need" a car, a TV, etc.
Nope. Never said I did.
And what "danger to society" does my wanting any particular item present
to you?
Your carelessness in securing your firearm makes it a danger to me
when it falls into the wrong hands.
Or do you have a burglar-proof save imbedded into the bedrock beneath
your house? Or an armed guard on duty at all times?
VERY FEW civilians actually 'need' a firearm - of any kind - in the US
these days.
That very well may be true, but it does not justify banning any
firearm.
Where does one draw the line - nuclear warheads?
One does not defend oneself by tossing a nuke, Kate.
LOL, so why did the US toss one at Japan?
To stop a war. That was not self defense.
Ah, why else does one stop a war after being attacked?
At some point, we stopped acting in a defensive mode and became the
aggressor.
And why would we do that? To stop Japan from continuing to attack us.
We didn't continue on to take over Japan or because we just wanted
their country flattened.
It was defence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
29 Jan 2005 10:49:13 AM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:01:53 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:27:27 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:23:01 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 25 Jan 2005 23:49:08 -0600, (Kate ) thought
hard and said:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:06:29 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:24:28 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
thought hard and said:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:45:30 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Lack of need? Danger to society?
Define need?
Required for life.
YOU don't "need" a car, a TV, etc.
Nope. Never said I did.
And what "danger to society" does my wanting any particular item present
to you?
Your carelessness in securing your firearm makes it a danger to me
when it falls into the wrong hands.
Or do you have a burglar-proof save imbedded into the bedrock beneath
your house? Or an armed guard on duty at all times?
VERY FEW civilians actually 'need' a firearm - of any kind - in the US
these days.
That very well may be true, but it does not justify banning any
firearm.
Where does one draw the line - nuclear warheads?
One does not defend oneself by tossing a nuke, Kate.
LOL, so why did the US toss one at Japan?
To stop a war. That was not self defense.
Ah, why else does one stop a war after being attacked?
At some point, we stopped acting in a defensive mode and became the
aggressor.
And why would we do that? To stop Japan from continuing to attack us.
We didn't continue on to take over Japan or because we just wanted
their country flattened.
It was defence.
But not personal or self defense which is what this NG is about.
--
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: "AH#49 writes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
29 Jan 2005 11:24:19 AM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:01:53 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:27:27 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:23:01 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 25 Jan 2005 23:49:08 -0600, (Kate ) thought
hard and said:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:06:29 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:24:28 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
thought hard and said:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:45:30 -0500, AH#49 writes <GRONK@BCComics.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Lack of need? Danger to society?
Define need?
Required for life.
YOU don't "need" a car, a TV, etc.
Nope. Never said I did.
And what "danger to society" does my wanting any particular item present
to you?
Your carelessness in securing your firearm makes it a danger to me
when it falls into the wrong hands.
Or do you have a burglar-proof save imbedded into the bedrock beneath
your house? Or an armed guard on duty at all times?
VERY FEW civilians actually 'need' a firearm - of any kind - in the US
these days.
That very well may be true, but it does not justify banning any
firearm.
Where does one draw the line - nuclear warheads?
One does not defend oneself by tossing a nuke, Kate.
LOL, so why did the US toss one at Japan?
To stop a war. That was not self defense.
Ah, why else does one stop a war after being attacked?
At some point, we stopped acting in a defensive mode and became the
aggressor.
And why would we do that? To stop Japan from continuing to attack us.
We didn't continue on to take over Japan or because we just wanted
their country flattened.
It was defence.
But not personal or self defense which is what this NG is about.
But it WAS self defense!
We saved ourselves, and we also saved the lives of countless tens of
thousands of Chinese and Russians who the Japanese were also
slaughtering at the time.
But I do agree that this topic moved away from individual personal
defense regarding hand held firearms.
Soooo, let me just say that abortion and atheism has nothing to do with
Mike Moores lard laden, hypocritical, lying fat *****.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bama Brian" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
22 Jan 2005 11:53:43 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 01:49:58 GMT, "PLMerite"
<stockade@smokebombhill.com> said in alt.atheism:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1106335804.458396.98220@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Sorry, but he is not moving to ban all guns in that quote as you
contend. He wants to ban guns that fire multiple rounds per trigger
pull (burst automatics and full automatics) and handguns. He does not
want to ban single shot rifles and shotguns, which are often used in
hunting. Therefore, he does not want to ban all guns. Therefore, your
cite does not support your point.
That's not what the quote said. Moore said "handguns."
"He does not want to ban single shot rifles and shotguns, which are
often used in hunting. Therefore, he does not want to ban all guns."
Banning handguns isn't banning all guns.
Do you even know the difference between semi- and full-automatic?
Banning semi- and fully-automatic weapons isn't banning all guns.
What part of "he is not moving to ban all guns" confuses you?
Really? After you ban the automatic weapons, the semi-automatic
weapons, and all handguns, then what, pray tell, is left? Single shot
rifles and single shot shotguns - neither of which is of much use to
anyone, including most hunters.
What part of Moore damn well is moving to ban all guns do you not
understand?
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
22 Jan 2005 05:15:25 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:53:43 GMT, Bama Brian
<bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
What part of "he is not moving to ban all guns" confuses you?
Really? After you ban the automatic weapons, the semi-automatic
weapons, and all handguns, then what, pray tell, is left? Single shot
rifles and single shot shotguns - neither of which is of much use to
anyone, including most hunters.
A hunter doesn't need an automatic weapon. Afraid that the deer are
going to shoot back? Or are you planning on hunting without being
able to hit the broad side of a barn from the inside? One well-placed
shot will b ring a deer down. Fifteen will turn it into inedible
hamburger.
What part of Moore damn well is moving to ban all guns do you not
understand?
The part about his not moving to ban ALL guns.
--
"Christianity has already had the chance to govern
the world according to its own ethical standards.
It was called the "Dark Ages".
- Bill, The Avender
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
22 Jan 2005 06:16:59 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:ogn5v0hrkh5rlqn07pfnoi9c3avmrigmgg@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:53:43 GMT, Bama Brian
<bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
What part of "he is not moving to ban all guns" confuses you?
Really? After you ban the automatic weapons, the semi-automatic
weapons, and all handguns, then what, pray tell, is left? Single shot
rifles and single shot shotguns - neither of which is of much use to
anyone, including most hunters.
A hunter doesn't need an automatic weapon.
Who cares? Are hunters the only ones that use guns? Shall we limit ourselves
to want a few people say we need. Heck, you don't need a car that does 75
either, but I bet you would get upset if I forced you to drive a shoebox on
wheels. After all, who really needs more than a Yugo?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
22 Jan 2005 07:14:54 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:16:59 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:ogn5v0hrkh5rlqn07pfnoi9c3avmrigmgg@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:53:43 GMT, Bama Brian
<bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
What part of "he is not moving to ban all guns" confuses you?
Really? After you ban the automatic weapons, the semi-automatic
weapons, and all handguns, then what, pray tell, is left? Single shot
rifles and single shot shotguns - neither of which is of much use to
anyone, including most hunters.
A hunter doesn't need an automatic weapon.
Who cares?
Evidently you do, or you wouldn't be part of this thread.
--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious
conviction."
- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
22 Jan 2005 07:30:56 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:tiu5v0drdblf3nk430d8o99c0suc8s8bne@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:16:59 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:ogn5v0hrkh5rlqn07pfnoi9c3avmrigmgg@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:53:43 GMT, Bama Brian
<bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
What part of "he is not moving to ban all guns" confuses you?
Really? After you ban the automatic weapons, the semi-automatic
weapons, and all handguns, then what, pray tell, is left? Single shot
rifles and single shot shotguns - neither of which is of much use to
anyone, including most hunters.
A hunter doesn't need an automatic weapon.
Who cares?
Evidently you do, or you wouldn't be part of this thread.
Not really. I don't care in the least whether a hunter needs an automatic
weapon or not. What a hunter needs, particularly as defined by you and/or
Mr. Moore is irrelevant. They shouldn't be limited to what a couple of
people determine is their "need". After all, I bet I would find that you
really don't "need" that fancy computer of yours, that big car in your
driveway, TV, cell phones, and a bunch of other stuff you probably own. Will
you allow me to go through you home and confiscate anything I decide you
don't "need"? Heck, let's make it closer to the fact. Let' me ban anything
that I decide isn't needed by some subgroup of the population. Yep, you can
kiss that central air conditioning good bye.
Our liberties aren't limited to our needs, particularly as determined by
others.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 11:43:58 AM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:ogn5v0hrkh5rlqn07pfnoi9c3avmrigmgg@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:53:43 GMT, Bama Brian
<bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
What part of "he is not moving to ban all guns" confuses you?
Really? After you ban the automatic weapons, the semi-automatic
weapons, and all handguns, then what, pray tell, is left? Single shot
rifles and single shot shotguns - neither of which is of much use to
anyone, including most hunters.
A hunter doesn't need an automatic weapon.
Who cares? Are hunters the only ones that use guns? Shall we limit ourselves
to want a few people say we need. Heck, you don't need a car that does 75
either, but I bet you would get upset if I forced you to drive a shoebox on
wheels. After all, who really needs more than a Yugo?
Or an electric golf cart. Even pollutes less.
--
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 |
23 Jan 2005 11:49:32 AM |
|
|
In article <e7OdnYfzePvGf27cRVn-pQ@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Who cares? Are hunters the only ones that use guns? Shall we limit
ourselves
to want a few people say we need. Heck, you don't need a car that does 75
either, but I bet you would get upset if I forced you to drive a shoebox on
wheels. After all, who really needs more than a Yugo?
Or an electric golf cart. Even pollutes less.
Osprey advocates just that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 03:16:51 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050949324226%spam@aol.com...
In article <e7OdnYfzePvGf27cRVn-pQ@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Who cares? Are hunters the only ones that use guns? Shall we limit
ourselves
to want a few people say we need. Heck, you don't need a car that does
75
either, but I bet you would get upset if I forced you to drive a
shoebox on
wheels. After all, who really needs more than a Yugo?
Or an electric golf cart. Even pollutes less.
Osprey advocates just that.
No, that is what you are advocating. Being limited to what you think we
need.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 03:56:06 PM |
|
|
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:TbSdnZFc_d3aiWncRVn-ig@adelphia.com...
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050949324226%spam@aol.com...
In article <e7OdnYfzePvGf27cRVn-pQ@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Who cares? Are hunters the only ones that use guns? Shall we limit
ourselves
to want a few people say we need. Heck, you don't need a car that does
75
either, but I bet you would get upset if I forced you to drive a
shoebox on
wheels. After all, who really needs more than a Yugo?
Or an electric golf cart. Even pollutes less.
Osprey advocates just that.
No, that is what you are advocating. Being limited to what you think we
need.
That's just it, you nailed it on the head. They think they have the right
to dictate to us what we need and how we should live our lives. Good call.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 03:58:20 PM |
|
|
In article <4aadnWo-n_xtgWncRVn-rA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:TbSdnZFc_d3aiWncRVn-ig@adelphia.com...
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050949324226%spam@aol.com...
In article <e7OdnYfzePvGf27cRVn-pQ@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Who cares? Are hunters the only ones that use guns? Shall we limit
ourselves
to want a few people say we need. Heck, you don't need a car that does
75
either, but I bet you would get upset if I forced you to drive a
shoebox on
wheels. After all, who really needs more than a Yugo?
Or an electric golf cart. Even pollutes less.
Osprey advocates just that.
No, that is what you are advocating. Being limited to what you think we
need.
That's just it, you nailed it on the head. They think they have the right
to dictate to us what we need and how we should live our lives. Good call.
Kind of like pro-lifers dictating that women be forced to give birth?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 04:44:18 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051358204297%spam@aol.com...
In article <4aadnWo-n_xtgWncRVn-rA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:TbSdnZFc_d3aiWncRVn-ig@adelphia.com...
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050949324226%spam@aol.com...
In article <e7OdnYfzePvGf27cRVn-pQ@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Who cares? Are hunters the only ones that use guns? Shall we limit
ourselves
to want a few people say we need. Heck, you don't need a car that
does
75
either, but I bet you would get upset if I forced you to drive a
shoebox on
wheels. After all, who really needs more than a Yugo?
Or an electric golf cart. Even pollutes less.
Osprey advocates just that.
No, that is what you are advocating. Being limited to what you think we
need.
That's just it, you nailed it on the head. They think they have the
right
to dictate to us what we need and how we should live our lives. Good
call.
Kind of like pro-lifers dictating that women be forced to give birth?
Change of subject noted. Seems you can't deal with what was said.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 05:29:56 PM |
|
|
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Z8SdnTu4eIBbtWncRVn-tQ@adelphia.com...
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051358204297%spam@aol.com...
In article <4aadnWo-n_xtgWncRVn-rA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:TbSdnZFc_d3aiWncRVn-ig@adelphia.com...
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050949324226%spam@aol.com...
In article <e7OdnYfzePvGf27cRVn-pQ@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Who cares? Are hunters the only ones that use guns? Shall we limit
ourselves
to want a few people say we need. Heck, you don't need a car that
does
75
either, but I bet you would get upset if I forced you to drive a
shoebox on
wheels. After all, who really needs more than a Yugo?
Or an electric golf cart. Even pollutes less.
Osprey advocates just that.
No, that is what you are advocating. Being limited to what you think
we
need.
That's just it, you nailed it on the head. They think they have the
right
to dictate to us what we need and how we should live our lives. Good
call.
Kind of like pro-lifers dictating that women be forced to give birth?
Change of subject noted. Seems you can't deal with what was said.
Bingo...
I tried a long time ago to be reasonable with Barnes, then he went on a long
rampage of making up accustions, lying about me, my family, my career.
After a while I just figured that he will never be a reasonable person, so
on the killfile he went.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 10:32:45 PM |
|
|
In article <W4-dnRfggudAr2ncRVn-iA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Z8SdnTu4eIBbtWncRVn-tQ@adelphia.com...
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051358204297%spam@aol.com...
In article <4aadnWo-n_xtgWncRVn-rA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:TbSdnZFc_d3aiWncRVn-ig@adelphia.com...
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050949324226%spam@aol.com...
In article <e7OdnYfzePvGf27cRVn-pQ@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Who cares? Are hunters the only ones that use guns? Shall we limit
ourselves
to want a few people say we need. Heck, you don't need a car that
does
75
either, but I bet you would get upset if I forced you to drive a
shoebox on
wheels. After all, who really needs more than a Yugo?
Or an electric golf cart. Even pollutes less.
Osprey advocates just that.
No, that is what you are advocating. Being limited to what you think
we
need.
That's just it, you nailed it on the head. They think they have the
right
to dictate to us what we need and how we should live our lives. Good
call.
Kind of like pro-lifers dictating that women be forced to give birth?
Change of subject noted. Seems you can't deal with what was said.
Bingo...
I tried a long time ago to be reasonable with Barnes, then he went on a long
rampage of making up accustions, lying about me, my family, my career.
Translation: I bloodied his nose.
After a while I just figured that he will never be a reasonable person, so
on the killfile he went.
He used to claim he never kill filed people. Now he has been so beat
up he can't help himself.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 04:50:40 PM |
|
|
In article <Z8SdnTu4eIBbtWncRVn-tQ@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051358204297%spam@aol.com...
In article <4aadnWo-n_xtgWncRVn-rA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:TbSdnZFc_d3aiWncRVn-ig@adelphia.com...
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050949324226%spam@aol.com...
In article <e7OdnYfzePvGf27cRVn-pQ@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Who cares? Are hunters the only ones that use guns? Shall we limit
ourselves
to want a few people say we need. Heck, you don't need a car that
does
75
either, but I bet you would get upset if I forced you to drive a
shoebox on
wheels. After all, who really needs more than a Yugo?
Or an electric golf cart. Even pollutes less.
Osprey advocates just that.
No, that is what you are advocating. Being limited to what you think we
need.
That's just it, you nailed it on the head. They think they have the
right
to dictate to us what we need and how we should live our lives. Good
call.
Kind of like pro-lifers dictating that women be forced to give birth?
Change of subject noted. Seems you can't deal with what was said.
Seems I'm bored with your inability to provide any proof of your
position.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 05:32:51 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051450402710%spam@aol.com...
In article <Z8SdnTu4eIBbtWncRVn-tQ@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051358204297%spam@aol.com...
In article <4aadnWo-n_xtgWncRVn-rA@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:TbSdnZFc_d3aiWncRVn-ig@adelphia.com...
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050949324226%spam@aol.com...
In article <e7OdnYfzePvGf27cRVn-pQ@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Who cares? Are hunters the only ones that use guns? Shall we
limit
ourselves
to want a few people say we need. Heck, you don't need a car
that
does
75
either, but I bet you would get upset if I forced you to drive a
shoebox on
wheels. After all, who really needs more than a Yugo?
Or an electric golf cart. Even pollutes less.
Osprey advocates just that.
No, that is what you are advocating. Being limited to what you think
we
need.
That's just it, you nailed it on the head. They think they have the
right
to dictate to us what we need and how we should live our lives. Good
call.
Kind of like pro-lifers dictating that women be forced to give birth?
Change of subject noted. Seems you can't deal with what was said.
Seems I'm bored with your inability to provide any proof of your
position.
Why, it's much more entertaining to show your position is without factual
basis.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 10:32:45 PM |
|
|
In article <vsidnQq4g8-6qWncRVn-3A@adelphia.co | | | | | | | | | | | | |
