| 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: "Bama Brian" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
22 Jan 2005 12:11:42 PM |
|
|
Mark Sebree wrote:
PLMerite wrote:
"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."
And the request was to prove that he wanted to ban ALL guns. He
doesn't. He wants to ban weapons that fire multiple rounds per pull of
the trigger and handguns. He does not want to ban rifles and shotguns.
Therefore, he does not want to ban all guns.
Do you even know the difference between semi- and full-automatic?
Yes. A semi-automatic is a modern gun, the mechanism for which was
invented shortly before WWII. One of the best known pistols of the
time, the German Luger, as a semi-automatic. Any clip-fed handgun sold
today is almost certainly a semi-automatic.
First, the semiautomatic was invented around the turn of the century,
not "shortly before WWII". The Colt 1911 was named for the first year
of its production. Go look up "broom-handle Mauser" also.
Second, semi-automatics do not typically accept a "clip". The rounds
here are typically housed in a spring-loaded magazine. A "clip" is a
piece of spring steel which holds several rounds by their base. Such a
clip can be used to quickly charge a firearm which may, or may not, also
accept a magazine. See the M1 and M14 rifles.
A semi-automatic has its bullets in a spring loaded clip. The bullets
feed into the firing chamber. To load the first round into the
chamber, the firer must pull back on the slide at the back of the
barrel.
And release the slide, which strips one round from the magazine and
forces the round into the firing chamber, while simultaneously bringing
the slide into battery.
This also cocks the hammer. When the trigger is pulled, the
recoil of the shot forces the slide back,
Except in gas operated semi-automatic rifles, such as the Ruger mini-14.
ejects the spent cartridge,
cocks the hammer, and loads a fresh round. This action is why is is
called a "semi-automatic". Also, a semi-automatic can only fire one
shot per pull of the trigger.
In contrast, a fully automatic weapon dates back to the Civil War, and
the Gatling Gun. It had multiple barrels, was belt-fed, and fired by
turning a hand crank.
No, it was magazine fed.
The multi-barrel design is still used for very
high rate of fire weapons, like the Vulcan Cannons, to prevent barrel
melt down.
The primary difference between modern automatic weapons and
semi-automatic weapons is that automatics can fire multiple rounds per
pull of the trigger. The difference in design from the semi is that
when the slide is reseated after reloading a round, if the trigger is
still pulled, the round is fired immediately.
And for the record, I agree with banning the civilian sale of
automatic
pistols and rifles (exception: antiques because of their historical
value), but I also think that handguns, rifles, and shotguns should
remain legal to own. With the exception of ownership of antiques
and
historical pieces, there is no reason that a civilian should own a
functional automatic weapon. And yes, I do know that with only
minor
modification, a semi-automatic can be changed to a full automatic,
but
that mod is illegal to do already, IIRC.
I also think that we have too many laws on the books dealing with
gun
ownership. (Over 20,000, I think) That entire body of laws should
be
scrapped, rewritten, and tightened up to that they are fairly
simple
and straightforward, with as few loopholes as possible, and as
universally applicable as possible as well, without cutting into
our
right to own and use firearms legally.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
.
|
|
|
| User: "FerdinandAkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
22 Jan 2005 08:35:37 PM |
|
|
Bama Brian wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
PLMerite wrote:
"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."
And the request was to prove that he wanted to ban ALL guns. He
doesn't. He wants to ban weapons that fire multiple rounds per pull of
the trigger and handguns. He does not want to ban rifles and shotguns.
Therefore, he does not want to ban all guns.
Do you even know the difference between semi- and full-automatic?
Yes. A semi-automatic is a modern gun, the mechanism for which was
invented shortly before WWII. One of the best known pistols of the
time, the German Luger, as a semi-automatic. Any clip-fed handgun sold
today is almost certainly a semi-automatic.
First, the semiautomatic was invented around the turn of the century,
not "shortly before WWII". The Colt 1911 was named for the first year
of its production. Go look up "broom-handle Mauser" also.
Second, semi-automatics do not typically accept a "clip". The rounds
here are typically housed in a spring-loaded magazine. A "clip" is a
piece of spring steel which holds several rounds by their base. Such
a clip can be used to quickly charge a firearm which may, or may not,
also accept a magazine. See the M1 and M14 rifles.
A semi-automatic has its bullets in a spring loaded clip. The bullets
feed into the firing chamber. To load the first round into the
chamber, the firer must pull back on the slide at the back of the
barrel.
And release the slide, which strips one round from the magazine and
forces the round into the firing chamber, while simultaneously
bringing the slide into battery.
This also cocks the hammer. When the trigger is pulled, the
recoil of the shot forces the slide back,
Except in gas operated semi-automatic rifles, such as the Ruger mini-14.
<sniped out some lines>
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
The Taurus PT22 can load the first round without racking the
slide. Also it is double action only, so racking the slide will NOT
***** the hammer.
http://www.taurususa.com/products/product-details.cfm?model=22B&category=Pistol
/sea/
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 12:06:31 PM |
|
|
FerdinandAkin wrote:
Bama Brian wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
PLMerite wrote:
"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."
And the request was to prove that he wanted to ban ALL guns. He
doesn't. He wants to ban weapons that fire multiple rounds per pull of
the trigger and handguns. He does not want to ban rifles and shotguns.
Therefore, he does not want to ban all guns.
Do you even know the difference between semi- and full-automatic?
Yes. A semi-automatic is a modern gun, the mechanism for which was
invented shortly before WWII. One of the best known pistols of the
time, the German Luger, as a semi-automatic. Any clip-fed handgun sold
today is almost certainly a semi-automatic.
First, the semiautomatic was invented around the turn of the century,
not "shortly before WWII". The Colt 1911 was named for the first year
of its production. Go look up "broom-handle Mauser" also.
Second, semi-automatics do not typically accept a "clip". The rounds
here are typically housed in a spring-loaded magazine. A "clip" is a
piece of spring steel which holds several rounds by their base. Such
a clip can be used to quickly charge a firearm which may, or may not,
also accept a magazine. See the M1 and M14 rifles.
A semi-automatic has its bullets in a spring loaded clip. The bullets
feed into the firing chamber. To load the first round into the
chamber, the firer must pull back on the slide at the back of the
barrel.
And release the slide, which strips one round from the magazine and
forces the round into the firing chamber, while simultaneously
bringing the slide into battery.
This also cocks the hammer. When the trigger is pulled, the
recoil of the shot forces the slide back,
Except in gas operated semi-automatic rifles, such as the Ruger mini-14.
<sniped out some lines>
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
The Taurus PT22 can load the first round without racking the slide.
Also it is double action only, so racking the slide will NOT ***** the
hammer.
http://www.taurususa.com/products/product-details.cfm?model=22B&category=Pistol
Only because the first round is already (or should already be) loaded by
hand. It is a tip up design. If one has not loaded that first round
the gun will not fire.
--
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: "FerdinandAkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 07:32:23 PM |
|
|
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
FerdinandAkin wrote:
Bama Brian wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
PLMerite wrote:
"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."
And the request was to prove that he wanted to ban ALL guns. He
doesn't. He wants to ban weapons that fire multiple rounds per
pull of
the trigger and handguns. He does not want to ban rifles and
shotguns.
Therefore, he does not want to ban all guns.
Do you even know the difference between semi- and full-automatic?
Yes. A semi-automatic is a modern gun, the mechanism for which was
invented shortly before WWII. One of the best known pistols of the
time, the German Luger, as a semi-automatic. Any clip-fed handgun
sold
today is almost certainly a semi-automatic.
First, the semiautomatic was invented around the turn of the
century, not "shortly before WWII". The Colt 1911 was named for the
first year of its production. Go look up "broom-handle Mauser" also.
Second, semi-automatics do not typically accept a "clip". The
rounds here are typically housed in a spring-loaded magazine. A
"clip" is a piece of spring steel which holds several rounds by
their base. Such a clip can be used to quickly charge a firearm
which may, or may not, also accept a magazine. See the M1 and M14
rifles.
A semi-automatic has its bullets in a spring loaded clip. The bullets
feed into the firing chamber. To load the first round into the
chamber, the firer must pull back on the slide at the back of the
barrel.
And release the slide, which strips one round from the magazine and
forces the round into the firing chamber, while simultaneously
bringing the slide into battery.
This also cocks the hammer. When the trigger is pulled, the
recoil of the shot forces the slide back,
Except in gas operated semi-automatic rifles, such as the Ruger
mini-14.
<sniped out some lines>
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
The Taurus PT22 can load the first round without racking the
slide. Also it is double action only, so racking the slide will NOT
***** the hammer.
http://www.taurususa.com/products/product-details.cfm?model=22B&category=Pistol
Only because the first round is already (or should already be) loaded
by hand. It is a tip up design. If one has not loaded that first
round the gun will not fire.
You could rack the slide if you wanted to. My wife likes it
because she can load it and start shooting without fiddling around with
the slide. It makes a good conversation piece, but I like my Taurus
Model 65 better.
/sea/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 11:48:00 AM |
|
|
Mark Sebree wrote:
That's not what the quote said. Moore said "handguns."
And the request was to prove that he wanted to ban ALL guns. He
doesn't. He wants to ban weapons that fire multiple rounds per pull of
the trigger and handguns. He does not want to ban rifles and shotguns.
Therefore, he does not want to ban all guns.
He wants to ban all of mine.
Do you even know the difference between semi- and full-automatic?
Yes. A semi-automatic is a modern gun, the mechanism for which was
invented shortly before WWII. One of the best known pistols of the
time, the German Luger, as a semi-automatic. Any clip-fed handgun sold
today is almost certainly a semi-automatic.
A semi-automatic has its bullets in a spring loaded clip. The bullets
feed into the firing chamber. To load the first round into the
chamber, the firer must pull back on the slide at the back of the
barrel. This also cocks the hammer. When the trigger is pulled, the
recoil of the shot forces the slide back, ejects the spent cartridge,
cocks the hammer, and loads a fresh round. This action is why is is
called a "semi-automatic". Also, a semi-automatic can only fire one
shot per pull of the trigger.
Whew, you finally got to it. All the other crap you had to quote
(because you really didn't know it) has little to do with the difference
in the terms full auto versus semi auto.
In contrast, a fully automatic weapon dates back to the Civil War, and
the Gatling Gun. It had multiple barrels, was belt-fed, and fired by
turning a hand crank. The multi-barrel design is still used for very
high rate of fire weapons, like the Vulcan Cannons, to prevent barrel
melt down.
The primary difference between modern automatic weapons and
semi-automatic weapons is that automatics can fire multiple rounds per
pull of the trigger. The difference in design from the semi is that
when the slide is reseated after reloading a round, if the trigger is
still pulled, the round is fired immediately.
Of course, this is just a summary of the differences. Someone with an
interest in firearms would be able to give you more information and in
more detail. However, this is not the forum (alt.abortion) for such a
discussion.
Then why are you cross posting from there?
--
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: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 11:19:09 AM |
|
|
Mark Sebree wrote:
Bama Brian wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
America is #1 wrote:
In article <41efcf87$0$28475$ee9da40f@news.wanadoo.nl>,
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote in
news:slrncuvjg2.1eer.generalpf@braids.ertw.com:
On 20 Jan 2005 15:27:17 GMT, Gactimus wrote:
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.
I missed the part in any of his films where he said you don't
have
the right to bear arms.
Michael Moore has expressed his desired to ban all guns.
Of course he has. Anyone who says anything else is a lying sack of
*****.
Do you have a cite?
Yes.
Donahue Interview 10/28/02
source: Michael Moore.com
DONAHUE: You're a member of the NRA and you went to Kmart and you
actually moved them to stop selling the ammunition, as we see on your
film.
MOORE: Yes.
DONAHUE: And that holds today?
MOORE: Yes, for handguns and for assault weapons. Hunting stuff, I
don't
care. They're still selling that. There's nothing against hunters
here.
I'm all for hunting.
DONAHUE: You're talking about long guns.
MOORE: Yes, I'm talking about stopping the selling of ammunition for
weapons that are specifically designed to kill human beings.
DONAHUE: And you see that as pistols, handguns.
MOORE: Handguns or weapons where you can fire multiple rounds at a
time.
You don't need to essentially spray the woods to get your deer. If
you
do, you should be, you know, doing needle point or some other sport.
DONAHUE: OK, so let's understand. You'd like a ban on the sale of
handguns.
MOORE: Yes. I believe that we don't need handguns.
DONAHUE: And a ban on the sale of brrr! That kind of gun.
MOORE: Anything that fires multiple rounds like that, absolutely.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
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.
As are many handguns.
Therefore, he does not want to ban all guns. Therefore, your
cite does not support your point.
Close enough. There's always tomorrow if he gets banned today what
wishes for today. It is a very slippery slope.
And for the record, I agree with banning the civilian sale of automatic
pistols and rifles
Exactly why? Do you think they will make honest people lawbreakers?
(exception: antiques because of their historical
value), but I also think that handguns, rifles, and shotguns should
remain legal to own.
Of course.
With the exception of ownership of antiques and
historical pieces, there is no reason that a civilian should own a
functional automatic weapon.
And just why do you feel that way? Do you feel that guns should only be
useful for hunting?
And yes, I do know that with only minor
modification, a semi-automatic can be changed to a full automatic, but
that mod is illegal to do already, IIRC.
And is only true with a very few semi auto weapons. Don't believe
everything you see on TV. Those weapons that can be easily converted
are already listed by the ATF.
I also think that we have too many laws on the books dealing with gun
ownership. (Over 20,000, I think) That entire body of laws should be
scrapped, rewritten, and tightened up to that they are fairly simple
and straightforward, with as few loopholes as possible, and as
universally applicable as possible as well, without cutting into our
right to own and use firearms legally.
This part we agree on except for the details and, as we all know, the
devil is in the details.
--
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 11:27:23 AM |
|
|
In article <YKadnRawWtkRQW7cRVn-iA@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
Bama Brian wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
America is #1 wrote:
In article <41efcf87$0$28475$ee9da40f@news.wanadoo.nl>,
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote in
news:slrncuvjg2.1eer.generalpf@braids.ertw.com:
On 20 Jan 2005 15:27:17 GMT, Gactimus wrote:
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.
I missed the part in any of his films where he said you don't
have
the right to bear arms.
Michael Moore has expressed his desired to ban all guns.
Of course he has. Anyone who says anything else is a lying sack of
*****.
Do you have a cite?
Yes.
Donahue Interview 10/28/02
source: Michael Moore.com
DONAHUE: You're a member of the NRA and you went to Kmart and you
actually moved them to stop selling the ammunition, as we see on your
film.
MOORE: Yes.
DONAHUE: And that holds today?
MOORE: Yes, for handguns and for assault weapons. Hunting stuff, I
don't
care. They're still selling that. There's nothing against hunters
here.
I'm all for hunting.
DONAHUE: You're talking about long guns.
MOORE: Yes, I'm talking about stopping the selling of ammunition for
weapons that are specifically designed to kill human beings.
DONAHUE: And you see that as pistols, handguns.
MOORE: Handguns or weapons where you can fire multiple rounds at a
time.
You don't need to essentially spray the woods to get your deer. If
you
do, you should be, you know, doing needle point or some other sport.
DONAHUE: OK, so let's understand. You'd like a ban on the sale of
handguns.
MOORE: Yes. I believe that we don't need handguns.
DONAHUE: And a ban on the sale of brrr! That kind of gun.
MOORE: Anything that fires multiple rounds like that, absolutely.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
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.
As are many handguns.
LOL! Sure thing.
Therefore, he does not want to ban all guns. Therefore, your
cite does not support your point.
Close enough. There's always tomorrow if he gets banned today what
wishes for today. It is a very slippery slope.
Slippery slope arguments are invalid.
And for the record, I agree with banning the civilian sale of automatic
pistols and rifles
Exactly why? Do you think they will make honest people lawbreakers?
They don't. They just make dishonest people mass killers.
(exception: antiques because of their historical
value), but I also think that handguns, rifles, and shotguns should
remain legal to own.
Of course.
Not handguns.
With the exception of ownership of antiques and
historical pieces, there is no reason that a civilian should own a
functional automatic weapon.
And just why do you feel that way? Do you feel that guns should only be
useful for hunting?
And yes, I do know that with only minor
modification, a semi-automatic can be changed to a full automatic, but
that mod is illegal to do already, IIRC.
And is only true with a very few semi auto weapons. Don't believe
everything you see on TV. Those weapons that can be easily converted
are already listed by the ATF.
I also think that we have too many laws on the books dealing with gun
ownership. (Over 20,000, I think) That entire body of laws should be
scrapped, rewritten, and tightened up to that they are fairly simple
and straightforward, with as few loopholes as possible, and as
universally applicable as possible as well, without cutting into our
right to own and use firearms legally.
This part we agree on except for the details and, as we all know, the
devil is in the details.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 11:40:11 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050927234485%spam@aol.com...
In article <YKadnRawWtkRQW7cRVn-iA@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
Bama Brian wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
America is #1 wrote:
In article <41efcf87$0$28475$ee9da40f@news.wanadoo.nl>,
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote in
news:slrncuvjg2.1eer.generalpf@braids.ertw.com:
On 20 Jan 2005 15:27:17 GMT, Gactimus wrote:
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.
I missed the part in any of his films where he said you don't
have
the right to bear arms.
Michael Moore has expressed his desired to ban all guns.
Of course he has. Anyone who says anything else is a lying sack of
*****.
Do you have a cite?
Yes.
Donahue Interview 10/28/02
source: Michael Moore.com
DONAHUE: You're a member of the NRA and you went to Kmart and you
actually moved them to stop selling the ammunition, as we see on your
film.
MOORE: Yes.
DONAHUE: And that holds today?
MOORE: Yes, for handguns and for assault weapons. Hunting stuff, I
don't
care. They're still selling that. There's nothing against hunters
here.
I'm all for hunting.
DONAHUE: You're talking about long guns.
MOORE: Yes, I'm talking about stopping the selling of ammunition for
weapons that are specifically designed to kill human beings.
DONAHUE: And you see that as pistols, handguns.
MOORE: Handguns or weapons where you can fire multiple rounds at a
time.
You don't need to essentially spray the woods to get your deer. If
you
do, you should be, you know, doing needle point or some other sport.
DONAHUE: OK, so let's understand. You'd like a ban on the sale of
handguns.
MOORE: Yes. I believe that we don't need handguns.
DONAHUE: And a ban on the sale of brrr! That kind of gun.
MOORE: Anything that fires multiple rounds like that, absolutely.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
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.
As are many handguns.
LOL! Sure thing.
Yep, a very sure thing.
http://www.handgunhunt.com/
Therefore, he does not want to ban all guns. Therefore, your
cite does not support your point.
Close enough. There's always tomorrow if he gets banned today what
wishes for today. It is a very slippery slope.
Slippery slope arguments are invalid.
On the contrary, slipper slope arguements are very valid, particularly when
all indications are such infringement would continue particularly when you
can't produce a reasonable explaination for this infringement.
And for the record, I agree with banning the civilian sale of automatic
pistols and rifles
Exactly why? Do you think they will make honest people lawbreakers?
They don't. They just make dishonest people mass killers.
Empty emotional rhetoric
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 11:49:12 AM |
|
|
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:_aWdnY6i1cbifG7cRVn-1g@adelphia.com...
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050927234485%spam@aol.com...
In article <YKadnRawWtkRQW7cRVn-iA@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
Bama Brian wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
America is #1 wrote:
In article <41efcf87$0$28475$ee9da40f@news.wanadoo.nl>,
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote in
news:slrncuvjg2.1eer.generalpf@braids.ertw.com:
On 20 Jan 2005 15:27:17 GMT, Gactimus wrote:
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.
I missed the part in any of his films where he said you don't
have
the right to bear arms.
Michael Moore has expressed his desired to ban all guns.
Of course he has. Anyone who says anything else is a lying sack of
*****.
Do you have a cite?
Yes.
Donahue Interview 10/28/02
source: Michael Moore.com
DONAHUE: You're a member of the NRA and you went to Kmart and you
actually moved them to stop selling the ammunition, as we see on your
film.
MOORE: Yes.
DONAHUE: And that holds today?
MOORE: Yes, for handguns and for assault weapons. Hunting stuff, I
don't
care. They're still selling that. There's nothing against hunters
here.
I'm all for hunting.
DONAHUE: You're talking about long guns.
MOORE: Yes, I'm talking about stopping the selling of ammunition for
weapons that are specifically designed to kill human beings.
DONAHUE: And you see that as pistols, handguns.
MOORE: Handguns or weapons where you can fire multiple rounds at a
time.
You don't need to essentially spray the woods to get your deer. If
you
do, you should be, you know, doing needle point or some other sport.
DONAHUE: OK, so let's understand. You'd like a ban on the sale of
handguns.
MOORE: Yes. I believe that we don't need handguns.
DONAHUE: And a ban on the sale of brrr! That kind of gun.
MOORE: Anything that fires multiple rounds like that, absolutely.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
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.
As are many handguns.
LOL! Sure thing.
Yep, a very sure thing.
http://www.handgunhunt.com/
Therefore, he does not want to ban all guns. Therefore, your
cite does not support your point.
Close enough. There's always tomorrow if he gets banned today what
wishes for today. It is a very slippery slope.
Slippery slope arguments are invalid.
On the contrary, slipper slope arguements are very valid, particularly
when all indications are such infringement would continue particularly
when you can't produce a reasonable explaination for this infringement.
And for the record, I agree with banning the civilian sale of
automatic
pistols and rifles
Exactly why? Do you think they will make honest people lawbreakers?
They don't. They just make dishonest people mass killers.
Empty emotional rhetoric
And that is your introduction to Barnes....:o)
I have owned a gun for most of my life, my father owned one, my
grandfather...both always stressed safety. When I entered the Department of
Corrections, it was my first introduction to handguns. Actually we have to
be qualified on .38 .40. 12 ga, and mini 14 rifle.
It took me a while to get used to the .38, now it is easy.
Actually I enjoy competition shooting, I am not as skilled as some of the
other officers but I am getting there. We have a few that have actually
gone on to national competition and won.
Owning a handgun is not done out of fear. There are many different reasons
a person chooses to own a handgun. The only thing I would like to see is
that it is mandatory that owners take safety courses and get qualified by a
certified instructor.
I hope, in my line of work, I never have to use one. There is always that
chance.
Last year we did have a situation where an officer did have to draw his
weapon. We had an escape, during a court run. First time we have had an
escape in more than a decade.
The officer had to holster his weapon, the inmate escaped. The reason was
because he was in an area where there were civilians. Thank God he was
trained and no one was hurt. The inmate was captured. My point is, he was
trained and knew not to fire...even though he was authorized. Anytime an
inmate escapes, it is justification for deadly force.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 11:54:34 AM |
|
|
In article <F8mdnTJWmsuafm7cRVn-2A@comcast.com>, Osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:_aWdnY6i1cbifG7cRVn-1g@adelphia.com...
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050927234485%spam@aol.com...
In article <YKadnRawWtkRQW7cRVn-iA@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
Bama Brian wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
America is #1 wrote:
In article <41efcf87$0$28475$ee9da40f@news.wanadoo.nl>,
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote in
news:slrncuvjg2.1eer.generalpf@braids.ertw.com:
On 20 Jan 2005 15:27:17 GMT, Gactimus wrote:
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.
I missed the part in any of his films where he said you don't
have
the right to bear arms.
Michael Moore has expressed his desired to ban all guns.
Of course he has. Anyone who says anything else is a lying sack of
*****.
Do you have a cite?
Yes.
Donahue Interview 10/28/02
source: Michael Moore.com
DONAHUE: You're a member of the NRA and you went to Kmart and you
actually moved them to stop selling the ammunition, as we see on your
film.
MOORE: Yes.
DONAHUE: And that holds today?
MOORE: Yes, for handguns and for assault weapons. Hunting stuff, I
don't
care. They're still selling that. There's nothing against hunters
here.
I'm all for hunting.
DONAHUE: You're talking about long guns.
MOORE: Yes, I'm talking about stopping the selling of ammunition for
weapons that are specifically designed to kill human beings.
DONAHUE: And you see that as pistols, handguns.
MOORE: Handguns or weapons where you can fire multiple rounds at a
time.
You don't need to essentially spray the woods to get your deer. If
you
do, you should be, you know, doing needle point or some other sport.
DONAHUE: OK, so let's understand. You'd like a ban on the sale of
handguns.
MOORE: Yes. I believe that we don't need handguns.
DONAHUE: And a ban on the sale of brrr! That kind of gun.
MOORE: Anything that fires multiple rounds like that, absolutely.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
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.
As are many handguns.
LOL! Sure thing.
Yep, a very sure thing.
http://www.handgunhunt.com/
Therefore, he does not want to ban all guns. Therefore, your
cite does not support your point.
Close enough. There's always tomorrow if he gets banned today what
wishes for today. It is a very slippery slope.
Slippery slope arguments are invalid.
On the contrary, slipper slope arguements are very valid, particularly
when all indications are such infringement would continue particularly
when you can't produce a reasonable explaination for this infringement.
And for the record, I agree with banning the civilian sale of
automatic
pistols and rifles
Exactly why? Do you think they will make honest people lawbreakers?
They don't. They just make dishonest people mass killers.
Empty emotional rhetoric
And that is your introduction to Barnes....:o)
Stop being such a coward.
I have owned a gun for most of my life, my father owned one, my
grandfather...both always stressed safety. When I entered the Department of
Corrections, it was my first introduction to handguns. Actually we have to
be qualified on .38 .40. 12 ga, and mini 14 rifle.
It took me a while to get used to the .38, now it is easy.
Notice how Osprey is always talking about him. He desperately wants to
be accepted.
Actually I enjoy competition shooting, I am not as skilled as some of the
other officers but I am getting there. We have a few that have actually
gone on to national competition and won.
Just not you.
Owning a handgun is not done out of fear.
Yeah - it is done out of bravery. LOL!
There are many different reasons
a person chooses to own a handgun.
Fear, fear, and fear.
The only thing I would like to see is
that it is mandatory that owners take safety courses and get qualified by a
certified instructor.
Why?
I hope, in my line of work, I never have to use one. There is always that
chance.
You don't carry one, monkey boiy.
Last year we did have a situation where an officer did have to draw his
weapon. We had an escape, during a court run. First time we have had an
escape in more than a decade.
Ohhhhh!
The officer had to holster his weapon, the inmate escaped. The reason was
because he was in an area where there were civilians.
And he would have gone to jail for killing an unarmed man.
Thank God he was
trained and no one was hurt. The inmate was captured.
So the weapon was UNNEEDED.
My point is, he was
trained and knew not to fire...even though he was authorized.
You are the one who needs to be trained.
Anytime an
inmate escapes, it is justification for deadly force.
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 11:44:11 AM |
|
|
In article <_aWdnY6i1cbifG7cRVn-1g@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050927234485%spam@aol.com...
In article <YKadnRawWtkRQW7cRVn-iA@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
Bama Brian wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
America is #1 wrote:
In article <41efcf87$0$28475$ee9da40f@news.wanadoo.nl>,
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote in
news:slrncuvjg2.1eer.generalpf@braids.ertw.com:
On 20 Jan 2005 15:27:17 GMT, Gactimus wrote:
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.
I missed the part in any of his films where he said you don't
have
the right to bear arms.
Michael Moore has expressed his desired to ban all guns.
Of course he has. Anyone who says anything else is a lying sack of
*****.
Do you have a cite?
Yes.
Donahue Interview 10/28/02
source: Michael Moore.com
DONAHUE: You're a member of the NRA and you went to Kmart and you
actually moved them to stop selling the ammunition, as we see on your
film.
MOORE: Yes.
DONAHUE: And that holds today?
MOORE: Yes, for handguns and for assault weapons. Hunting stuff, I
don't
care. They're still selling that. There's nothing against hunters
here.
I'm all for hunting.
DONAHUE: You're talking about long guns.
MOORE: Yes, I'm talking about stopping the selling of ammunition for
weapons that are specifically designed to kill human beings.
DONAHUE: And you see that as pistols, handguns.
MOORE: Handguns or weapons where you can fire multiple rounds at a
time.
You don't need to essentially spray the woods to get your deer. If
you
do, you should be, you know, doing needle point or some other sport.
DONAHUE: OK, so let's understand. You'd like a ban on the sale of
handguns.
MOORE: Yes. I believe that we don't need handguns.
DONAHUE: And a ban on the sale of brrr! That kind of gun.
MOORE: Anything that fires multiple rounds like that, absolutely.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
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.
As are many handguns.
LOL! Sure thing.
Yep, a very sure thing.
http://www.handgunhunt.com/
A handful isn't "many."
Therefore, he does not want to ban all guns. Therefore, your
cite does not support your point.
Close enough. There's always tomorrow if he gets banned today what
wishes for today. It is a very slippery slope.
Slippery slope arguments are invalid.
On the contrary, slipper slope arguements are very valid, particularly when
all indications are such infringement would continue particularly when you
can't produce a reasonable explaination for this infringement.
So we should allow people to own bazookas, too? Rocket launchers?
And for the record, I agree with banning the civilian sale of automatic
pistols and rifles
Exactly why? Do you think they will make honest people lawbreakers?
They don't. They just make dishonest people mass killers.
Empty emotional rhetoric
Really poor answer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 02:38:10 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050944114999%spam@aol.com...
In article <_aWdnY6i1cbifG7cRVn-1g@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050927234485%spam@aol.com...
In article <YKadnRawWtkRQW7cRVn-iA@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
Bama Brian wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
America is #1 wrote:
In article <41efcf87$0$28475$ee9da40f@news.wanadoo.nl>,
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote in
news:slrncuvjg2.1eer.generalpf@braids.ertw.com:
On 20 Jan 2005 15:27:17 GMT, Gactimus wrote:
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.
I missed the part in any of his films where he said you don't
have
the right to bear arms.
Michael Moore has expressed his desired to ban all guns.
Of course he has. Anyone who says anything else is a lying sack of
*****.
Do you have a cite?
Yes.
Donahue Interview 10/28/02
source: Michael Moore.com
DONAHUE: You're a member of the NRA and you went to Kmart and you
actually moved them to stop selling the ammunition, as we see on
your
film.
MOORE: Yes.
DONAHUE: And that holds today?
MOORE: Yes, for handguns and for assault weapons. Hunting stuff, I
don't
care. They're still selling that. There's nothing against hunters
here.
I'm all for hunting.
DONAHUE: You're talking about long guns.
MOORE: Yes, I'm talking about stopping the selling of ammunition for
weapons that are specifically designed to kill human beings.
DONAHUE: And you see that as pistols, handguns.
MOORE: Handguns or weapons where you can fire multiple rounds at a
time.
You don't need to essentially spray the woods to get your deer. If
you
do, you should be, you know, doing needle point or some other sport.
DONAHUE: OK, so let's understand. You'd like a ban on the sale of
handguns.
MOORE: Yes. I believe that we don't need handguns.
DONAHUE: And a ban on the sale of brrr! That kind of gun.
MOORE: Anything that fires multiple rounds like that, absolutely.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
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.
As are many handguns.
LOL! Sure thing.
Yep, a very sure thing.
http://www.handgunhunt.com/
A handful isn't "many."
Please define a "handful".
Is that 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000?
I shall simply note your concession that handguns are used in hunting and
despite your asserances do wish to ban guns used by hunters.
Therefore, he does not want to ban all guns. Therefore, your
cite does not support your point.
Close enough. There's always tomorrow if he gets banned today what
wishes for today. It is a very slippery slope.
Slippery slope arguments are invalid.
On the contrary, slipper slope arguements are very valid, particularly
when
all indications are such infringement would continue particularly when
you
can't produce a reasonable explaination for this infringement.
So we should allow people to own bazookas, too? Rocket launchers?
Yes, we should.....and we do.
And for the record, I agree with banning the civilian sale of
automatic
pistols and rifles
Exactly why? Do you think they will make honest people lawbreakers?
They don't. They just make dishonest people mass killers.
Empty emotional rhetoric
Really poor answer.
Yes it was, so why did you use it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 03:01:21 PM |
|
|
In article <Y5qdnbzSSsKqlmncRVn-2A@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050944114999%spam@aol.com...
In article <_aWdnY6i1cbifG7cRVn-1g@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050927234485%spam@aol.com...
In article <YKadnRawWtkRQW7cRVn-iA@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
Bama Brian wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
America is #1 wrote:
In article <41efcf87$0$28475$ee9da40f@news.wanadoo.nl>,
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote in
news:slrncuvjg2.1eer.generalpf@braids.ertw.com:
On 20 Jan 2005 15:27:17 GMT, Gactimus wrote:
It looks like Spike Lee was right. Mr. Michael "Bowling for
Columbine" Moore's bodyguards do carry guns,
"Filmmaker Michae | | | | | | |
