"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ct1l9q$1rj$1@bolt.sonic.net...

Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051457568843%spam@aol.com...

I have said it many times. Ban all handguns other than those used by
the government.

So much for the right of the people.

What "right" is that?

To keep and bear arms.

Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120051457568843%spam@aol.com...

I have said it many times. Ban all handguns other than those used by
the government.

So much for the right of the people.

What "right" is that?

Any of our other rights you would like to infringe while you're at it?

The right to own surface-to-air missiles? The right to own nuclear
weapons?

I have said it many times. Ban all handguns other than those used by
the government.

Oh, then you don't want to ban handguns since you don't want to ban guns
used by hunters.

Wrong. I do want to ban them. Including those used by "hunters."

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. Therefore, he does not want to ban all guns. Therefore, your
cite does not support your point.

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.

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.