| 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: "GreyCloud" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
26 Jan 2005 05:44:36 PM |
|
|
"james g. keegan jr." wrote:
GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in news:41F7D235.3D37A8C8@mist.com:
"james g. keegan jr." wrote:
GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in
news:41F6DECD.AE484277@mist.com:
General Protection Fault wrote:
On 25 Jan 2005 20:39:44 GMT, james g. keegan jr. wrote:
GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in
news:41F67B36.D003D3FE@mist.com:
"james g. keegan jr." wrote:
no need for you to apologize now that your claim has been
judged false.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
What a lamer.
no need for you to be so tough on yourself. most neocons don't
admit to their false claims as you did.
Dude, you're wasting your time. He'll just alternate posts
between insulting you and saying "BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!" and never
get to actually proving what he claimed was fact.
It's like arguing with a three-year old.
"Did not."
"Did too!"
"Did not!"
"Did too..."
Except a three-year old lies less often and has more computer
experience than Mme. Cloud.
So, chickenshit
but at least you admitted you posted a flase claim.
delusinal..
oh you weren't all that bad; I'm just a newbie in over his head.
I'm sure you are.
--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
26 Jan 2005 05:59:28 PM |
|
|
GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in news:41F82B64.CED672CC@mist.com:
"james g. keegan jr." wrote:
GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in
news:41F7D235.3D37A8C8@mist.com:
"james g. keegan jr." wrote:
GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in
news:41F6DECD.AE484277@mist.com:
General Protection Fault wrote:
On 25 Jan 2005 20:39:44 GMT, james g. keegan jr. wrote:
GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in
news:41F67B36.D003D3FE@mist.com:
"james g. keegan jr." wrote:
no need for you to apologize now that your claim has been
judged false.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
What a lamer.
no need for you to be so tough on yourself. most neocons
don't admit to their false claims as you did.
Dude, you're wasting your time. He'll just alternate posts
between insulting you and saying "BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!" and
never get to actually proving what he claimed was fact.
It's like arguing with a three-year old.
"Did not."
"Did too!"
"Did not!"
"Did too..."
Except a three-year old lies less often and has more computer
experience than Mme. Cloud.
So, chickenshit
but at least you admitted you posted a flase claim.
delusinal..
oh you weren't all that bad; just a newbie in over his head.
I'm sure
me too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "GreyCloud" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
26 Jan 2005 10:52:43 PM |
|
|
"james g. keegan jr." wrote:
GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in news:41F82B64.CED672CC@mist.com:
"james g. keegan jr." wrote:
GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in
news:41F7D235.3D37A8C8@mist.com:
"james g. keegan jr." wrote:
GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in
news:41F6DECD.AE484277@mist.com:
General Protection Fault wrote:
On 25 Jan 2005 20:39:44 GMT, james g. keegan jr. wrote:
GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in
news:41F67B36.D003D3FE@mist.com:
"james g. keegan jr." wrote:
no need for you to apologize now that your claim has been
judged false.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
What a lamer.
no need for you to be so tough on yourself. most neocons
don't admit to their false claims as you did.
Dude, you're wasting your time. He'll just alternate posts
between insulting you and saying "BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!" and
never get to actually proving what he claimed was fact.
It's like arguing with a three-year old.
"Did not."
"Did too!"
"Did not!"
"Did too..."
Except a three-year old lies less often and has more computer
experience than Mme. Cloud.
So, chickenshit
but at least you admitted you posted a flase claim.
delusinal..
oh you weren't all that bad; I'm just a newbie in over his head.
I'm sure
me too.
You seem to be.
--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
27 Jan 2005 10:47:38 AM |
|
|
GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in news:41F8739B.3373B886@mist.com:
"james g. keegan jr." wrote:
GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in
news:41F82B64.CED672CC@mist.com:
"james g. keegan jr." wrote:
GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in
news:41F7D235.3D37A8C8@mist.com:
"james g. keegan jr." wrote:
GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in
news:41F6DECD.AE484277@mist.com:
General Protection Fault wrote:
On 25 Jan 2005 20:39:44 GMT, james g. keegan jr. wrote:
GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in
news:41F67B36.D003D3FE@mist.com:
"james g. keegan jr." wrote:
no need for you to apologize now that your claim has
been judged false.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
What a lamer.
no need for you to be so tough on yourself. most neocons
don't admit to their false claims as you did.
Dude, you're wasting your time. He'll just alternate posts
between insulting you and saying "BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!" and
never get to actually proving what he claimed was fact.
It's like arguing with a three-year old.
"Did not."
"Did too!"
"Did not!"
"Did too..."
Except a three-year old lies less often and has more
computer experience than Mme. Cloud.
So, chickenshit
but at least you admitted you posted a flase claim.
delusinal..
oh you weren't all that bad; just a newbie in over his head.
I'm sure
me too.
You seem to be.
most probally are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "GreyCloud" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
27 Jan 2005 12:03:37 PM |
|
|
"james g. keegan jr." wrote:
GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in news:41F8739B.3373B886@mist.com:
"james g. keegan jr." wrote:
GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in
news:41F82B64.CED672CC@mist.com:
"james g. keegan jr." wrote:
GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in
news:41F7D235.3D37A8C8@mist.com:
"james g. keegan jr." wrote:
GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in
news:41F6DECD.AE484277@mist.com:
General Protection Fault wrote:
On 25 Jan 2005 20:39:44 GMT, james g. keegan jr. wrote:
GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in
news:41F67B36.D003D3FE@mist.com:
"james g. keegan jr." wrote:
no need for you to apologize now that your claim has
been judged false.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
What a lamer.
no need for you to be so tough on yourself. most neocons
don't admit to their false claims as you did.
Dude, you're wasting your time. He'll just alternate posts
between insulting you and saying "BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!" and
never get to actually proving what he claimed was fact.
It's like arguing with a three-year old.
"Did not."
"Did too!"
"Did not!"
"Did too..."
Except a three-year old lies less often and has more
computer experience than Mme. Cloud.
So, chickenshit
but at least you admitted you posted a flase claim.
delusinal..
oh you weren't all that bad; just a newbie in over his head.
I'm sure
me too.
You seem to be.
most probally are.
It seems you are.
--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
27 Jan 2005 12:59:23 PM |
|
|
GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in news:41F92CF9.930ED3F7@mist.com:
It seems you are.
kids like you always pretend
.
|
|
|
| User: "GreyCloud" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
27 Jan 2005 05:52:49 PM |
|
|
"james g. keegan jr." wrote:
GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in news:41F92CF9.930ED3F7@mist.com:
It seems you are.
kids like you always pretend
**Yawn**
--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
27 Jan 2005 06:41:27 PM |
|
|
GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in news:41F97ED1.E1436D2C@mist.com:
"james g. keegan jr." wrote:
GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in news:41F92CF9.930ED3F7@mist.com:
It seems you are.
kids like you always pretend
**Yawn**
kids like you always pretend
--
"That's not a forgery, stupid" moaned forger Frank Dwyer as
he tried to explain why he manufactured text and falsely
attributed it to me. <4Y8Kd.2254$Ty.1665@news02.roc.ny>
.
|
|
|
| User: "GreyCloud" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
27 Jan 2005 11:49:12 PM |
|
|
"james g. keegan jr." wrote:
GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in news:41F97ED1.E1436D2C@mist.com:
"james g. keegan jr." wrote:
GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in news:41F92CF9.930ED3F7@mist.com:
It seems you are.
kids like you always pretend
**Yawn**
kids like me always pretend
**Yawn**
--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
28 Jan 2005 09:24:17 AM |
|
|
GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in news:41F9D258.F3D12982@mist.com:
"james g. keegan jr." wrote:
GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in
news:41F97ED1.E1436D2C@mist.com:
"james g. keegan jr." wrote:
GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in
news:41F92CF9.930ED3F7@mist.com:
It seems you are.
kids like you always pretend
**Yawn**
kids like me always pretend
**Yawn**
it would be beter child, had you done your homework, as i told you to
to than for you to yawn at your thoughtless mistakes.
--
"That's not a forgery, stupid" moaned forger Frank Dwyer as
he tried to explain why he manufactured text and falsely
attributed it to me. <4Y8Kd.2254$Ty.1665@news02.roc.ny>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "General Protection Fault" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 03:28:06 PM |
|
|
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On 24 Jan 2005 21:13:50 GMT, james g. keegan jr. wrote:
General Protection Fault <generalpf@braids.ertw.com> wrote in
news:slrncvaodl.1hkm.generalpf@braids.ertw.com:
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On 24 Jan 2005 20:59:05 GMT, james g. keegan jr. wrote:
GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in
news:41F48FA6.85C0A297@mist.com:
No there isn't. There are more laws on guns than there are
on all vehicles.
unless you can provide credible evidence to back your unsupported
allegation, i'll conclude you were knowingly msirepresenting.
He won't,
of course he won't. that is why i asked.
Okay, I just didn't want you to wait around.
but then he does this all the time. He makes an allegation,
and when asked for a reference, he tells you it's *your* job to
provide it.
Which is funny, because whenever anyone else makes a claim that gets
his panties in a knot, he'll expect *them* to provide a reference.
The world is watching and waiting, Mme. Cloud.
and judging credibility
He has none with me, after concluding that since a crummy truckstop in
rural B.C. made a bad salad that Canadians can't make a salad.
A master logician, Mme. Cloud is.
--
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
3:25PM up 4 days, 4:23, 1 user, load averages: 0.01, 0.00, 0.00
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "GreyCloud" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 10:32:03 PM |
|
|
General Protection Fault wrote:
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On 24 Jan 2005 20:59:05 GMT, james g. keegan jr. wrote:
GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote in news:41F48FA6.85C0A297@mist.com:
No there isn't. There are more laws on guns than there are
on all vehicles.
unless you can provide credible evidence to back your unsupported
allegation, i'll conclude you were knowingly msirepresenting.
He won't, but then he does this all the time. He makes an allegation,
and when asked for a reference, he tells you it's *your* job to provide it.
Which is funny, because whenever anyone else makes a claim that gets his
panties in a knot, he'll expect *them* to provide a reference.
The world is watching and waiting, Mme. Cloud.
And here we see General Pecker Failure making an arse out of
himself.
But then, that's what sweaty Ballmer wanted in his wintroll
brigade.
--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 02:20:23 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"GreyCloud" <cumulus@mist.com> wrote
Yeah, but I heard that a Ford Escort ran over someones
brat in a crosswalk.
I can think of numerous school shootings, yet there are
more givernment-mandated controls on a car than a
gun.
No there aren't. Do you really want my gun treated like your car?
--
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 12:45:17 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote
I can't recall the last time a waiting period
was imposed upon me at a car dealership.
I can't recall the last time someone shot up
a school with a Ford Escort.
The grandfather of one of the kids who opened
fire on a school yard in Arkansas -- the man
who "secured" his deadly weapons behind an
entire pane of glass -- how much time did he
spend in prison?
That gun case was in his locked home where the kid had to break into it
through a basement window. The kid broke several laws just getting to
that gun case including the aforementioned breaking and entering, grand
theft auto ( he took the family van to drive to Granpa's house) and
driving without a license (he wasn't old enough to have one).
The kid first went for his Dad's guns, but his
Dad had properly secured them.
Which is why he had to commit all those other crimes to get the ones
owned by his grandfather.
If it was your child taking the bullet, how
much responsibility would you want to see
placed on the fuckhead who believed that
even if someone was willing to steal a gun &
use it to kill people, they'd never stoop to
breaking a window?
If I leave my keys in my car, in my driveway, on my private property,
and that car gets stolen, who do you think is the real criminal? Why?
Try to be honest. Gun owners who don't
properly secure their weapons should
be....
You are truly an idiot......Don't you ever think things through?
--
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: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 11:03:56 PM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote
The kid first went for his Dad's guns, but his
Dad had properly secured them.
Which is why he had to commit all those other
crimes to get the ones owned by his grandfather.
So we both agree that his Dad was a responsible
gun owner who secured his weapons, while without
his grandfather's negligence a community would
have been spared a tragedy of such magnitude that
it fully qualified as a life-altering event.
Look, I'll make a deal with you. If you can promise
that it'll only happen to you and your loved ones --
and you can make good on that promise -- I wouldn't
mind your insane defense of criminal negligence.
But you can't make that promise. It's always going
to be other people who suffer for your dogma.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 11:31:07 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote
The kid first went for his Dad's guns, but his
Dad had properly secured them.
Which is why he had to commit all those other
crimes to get the ones owned by his grandfather.
So we both agree that his Dad was a responsible
gun owner who secured his weapons, while without
his grandfather's negligence a community would
have been spared a tragedy of such magnitude that
it fully qualified as a life-altering event.
Nope, if the kid hadn't broken the law several times, we would not be
having this conversation about how Gramps stored his guns.
Look, I'll make a deal with you. If you can promise
that it'll only happen to you and your loved ones --
and you can make good on that promise -- I wouldn't
mind your insane defense of criminal negligence.
You don't even understand criminal negligence as a term.
But you can't make that promise. It's always going
to be other people who suffer for your dogma.
The only time you have to fear my guns is if you threaten me or my
family with violence. Other than that it is all paranoia.
--
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: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 05:13:21 PM |
|
|
"Retarded," defined:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote
Nope, if the kid hadn't broken the law several times,
we would not be having this conversation about how
Gramps stored his guns.
The kid's goal was to break the law.
I shouldn't have to explain this to you, but taking out
a school yard full of children is a crime.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 12:50:29 PM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0-WdnfbSB5cmbW7cRVn-2g@comcast.com...
JTEM wrote:
"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote
I can't recall the last time a waiting period
was imposed upon me at a car dealership.
I can't recall the last time someone shot up
a school with a Ford Escort.
The grandfather of one of the kids who opened
fire on a school yard in Arkansas -- the man
who "secured" his deadly weapons behind an
entire pane of glass -- how much time did he
spend in prison?
That gun case was in his locked home where the kid had to break into it
through a basement window. The kid broke several laws just getting to
that gun case including the aforementioned breaking and entering, grand
theft auto ( he took the family van to drive to Granpa's house) and
driving without a license (he wasn't old enough to have one).
The kid first went for his Dad's guns, but his
Dad had properly secured them.
Which is why he had to commit all those other crimes to get the ones owned
by his grandfather.
Good point. Myself, my weapons are locked, not loaded, and no one else but
my wife knows where they are.
If it was your child taking the bullet, how
much responsibility would you want to see
placed on the fuckhead who believed that
even if someone was willing to steal a gun &
use it to kill people, they'd never stoop to
breaking a window?
If I leave my keys in my car, in my driveway, on my private property, and
that car gets stolen, who do you think is the real criminal? Why?
Try to be honest. Gun owners who don't
properly secure their weapons should
be....
You are truly an idiot......Don't you ever think things through?
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
"The fatal attraction of government is that it allows busybodies to
impose decisions on others without paying any price themselves."
"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making
decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who
pay no price for being wrong" Author Thomas Sowell
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bama Brian" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
22 Jan 2005 12:20:31 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote
I can't recall the last time a waiting period
was imposed upon me at a car dealership.
I can't recall the last time someone shot up
a school with a Ford Escort.
There was a fellow down in LA who drove his Cadillac onto a pre-school
playground and killed two, while injuring several others. And, yes, he
did it delibertately.
The grandfather of one of the kids who opened
fire on a school yard in Arkansas -- the man
who "secured" his deadly weapons behind an
entire pane of glass -- how much time did he
spend in prison?
The kid first went for his Dad's guns, but his
Dad had properly secured them.
If his grandfather had not had guns, he would have finished cracking
open his father's gun safe. He started the job, but figured he was in
too much of a hurry so he went to Gramp's place instead, broke into the
house, and smashed in the door of his grandfather's gun case. Either
way, the guns were properly secured.
If it was your child taking the bullet, how
much responsibility would you want to see
placed on the fuckhead who believed that
even if someone was willing to steal a gun &
use it to kill people, they'd never stoop to
breaking a window?
Hopefully we don't make law based on kneejerk responses to one person's
tragedy.
Try to be honest. Gun owners who don't
properly secure their weapons should
be....
Define "properly secure". Then let's talk.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
22 Jan 2005 04:26:49 PM |
|
|
"Bama Brian" <bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> wrote
If his grandfather had not had guns, he would have
finished cracking open his father's gun safe. He
started the job, but figured he was in too much of a
hurry
So he didn't have the time to both open "crack open"
the safe, and take out a school yard with the guns...
Do you even think before you type?
And even this self-defeating "argument" of your's
relies entirely on your personal, completely biased
assurances.
What was he using to get at his Dad's guns? What
tools? What is it you base your claims that he
would have succeeded, if only there was time
enough to both get the weapons and shoot classmates?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bama Brian" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 02:27:10 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Bama Brian" <bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> wrote
If his grandfather had not had guns, he would have
finished cracking open his father's gun safe. He
started the job, but figured he was in too much of a
hurry
So he didn't have the time to both open "crack open"
the safe, and take out a school yard with the guns...
Do you even think before you type?
Sure. Do you prefer to use Ad Hominems instead of reason in your arguments?
And even this self-defeating "argument" of your's
relies entirely on your personal, completely biased
assurances.
What was he using to get at his Dad's guns? What
tools? What is it you base your claims that he
would have succeeded, if only there was time
enough to both get the weapons and shoot classmates?
Andrew Golden, aged 11, couldn't get at his own guns - yes, he had them.
But they were locked away in a family steel safe that he tried to open
with an electric drill. Since he couldn't get the safe open, he and his
13 year-old cousin, Mitchell Johnson - the real instigator of the
incident, stole a van and drove to Golden's grandfather's house where
they broke in through a basement door. Once inside, they went upstairs
and broke into his grandfather's locked gun case.
Yes, they were in a hurry. They had skipped school and time was running
out on the school day. Now it may not have occurred to you, since you
don't seem to know much about the incident, but power tools lying around
and scars on the family gun safe, with two cousins playing hooky and
dressed in camouflage is likely to set off a real fire storm in both
boy's families.
In any case, both the boy's family and his grandfather had done more
than enough to secure their firearms.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 10:56:53 PM |
|
|
"Bama Brian" <bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> wrote
So he didn't have the time to both open "crack open"
the safe, and take out a school yard with the guns...
Do you even think before you type?
Sure. Do you prefer to use Ad Hominems instead of
reason in your arguments?
Your "argument" defeated itself.
And if you though before you typed you would have
realized that.
Don't be a Bush, instead try to be man enough to
admit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bama Brian" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 12:13:58 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Bama Brian" <bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> wrote
So he didn't have the time to both open "crack open"
the safe, and take out a school yard with the guns...
Do you even think before you type?
Sure. Do you prefer to use Ad Hominems instead of
reason in your arguments?
Your "argument" defeated itself.
Whether true or not, does that justify your insults?
And if you though before you typed you would have
realized that.
Don't be a Bush, instead try to be man enough to
admit.
I "have saw" your logic - and your lack of English as a native language.
I say you've lost the argument through the lack of any ability to think.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
24 Jan 2005 05:11:15 PM |
|
|
"Bama Brian" <bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> wrote
Your "argument" defeated itself.
Whether true or not, does that justify your insults?
It wasn't an insult. Your article did defeat itself,
and if you approached this analytically instead of
emotionally, you would have realized that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Loose Cannon" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
21 Jan 2005 01:03:09 PM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:doWdnc1IJOrY1WzcRVn-3g@comcast.com...
JTEM wrote:
"Loose Cannon" <looseain't@this.com> wrote
No, because rightard half-wits have made threats on his
life. Pretty typical. But you knew that, of course, in light
of the fact that this thread is just a recycled troll of yours
from last summer.
He's either insane or a liar, because Michael Moore never
said that people shouldn't be allowed to own guns.
He stated that people should not be allowed to own handguns or assault
weapons. He said that hunting rifles, etc were OK. I happen to hunt with
a handgun....something that Moore would like to deny me.
I don't think Moore's intent is to advocate a ban on legitimate hunting
weapons, as idiot troll Gactipuss claimed in starting this thread. Otoh,
handgun hunting strikes me as a niche sport, at best. And I say that as the
owner of several pistols, rifles, and shotguns (although I gave up hunting
in my youth).
That said, I personally believe the Second Amendment is too deeply ingrained
in the American psyche to ever allow a gun grab, certainly in the sense that
the hardcore right likes to claim. Personally, I *would* like to see
considerable improvement in background checks, and 'toss 'em in the slammer
and throw away the key' laws for crimes committed with a handgun.
What he did say was that he is a long-time gun owner himself.
His handguns are only owned by his bodyguards. I don't have any of those,
so I have to carry my handgun myself.
Well, fortunately, I rarely find myself in circumstances where I would feel
any additional safety by packing a concealed weapon. I wouldn't oppose
tightly restricted licenses granted to a well-vetted few, however.
<snip>
LC~ Of course, now that I have my very own Usenet stalker, my views could be
subject to change.<g>
"People who feel the world is tilted against them will spawn the kind of
hatred that is very dangerous for all of us."~ Bill Gates
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 12:17:43 PM |
|
|
Loose Cannon wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:doWdnc1IJOrY1WzcRVn-3g@comcast.com...
JTEM wrote:
"Loose Cannon" <looseain't@this.com> wrote
No, because rightard half-wits have made threats on his
life. Pretty typical. But you knew that, of course, in light
of the fact that this thread is just a recycled troll of yours
from last summer.
He's either insane or a liar, because Michael Moore never
said that people shouldn't be allowed to own guns.
He stated that people should not be allowed to own handguns or assault
weapons. He said that hunting rifles, etc were OK. I happen to hunt with
a handgun....something that Moore would like to deny me.
I don't think Moore's intent is to advocate a ban on legitimate hunting
weapons, as idiot troll Gactipuss claimed in starting this thread. Otoh,
handgun hunting strikes me as a niche sport, at best.
So's archery, lacrosse, motorcycle hillclimbing, etc.. Do you also wish
to ban the equipment for those?
And I say that as the
owner of several pistols, rifles, and shotguns (although I gave up hunting
in my youth).
Good for you. Don't try to make that choice for me.
That said, I personally believe the Second Amendment is too deeply ingrained
in the American psyche to ever allow a gun grab, certainly in the sense that
the hardcore right likes to claim. Personally, I *would* like to see
considerable improvement in background checks, and 'toss 'em in the slammer
and throw away the key' laws for crimes committed with a handgun.
Not too nitpick but is the crime any more heinous because it was
committed with a handgun? Is the resulting death, if any, longer lasting?
What he did say was that he is a long-time gun owner himself.
His handguns are only owned by his bodyguards. I don't have any of those,
so I have to carry my handgun myself.
Well, fortunately, I rarely find myself in circumstances where I would feel
any additional safety by packing a concealed weapon. I wouldn't oppose
tightly restricted licenses granted to a well-vetted few, however.
<snip>
What do you consider being well vetted? Being a celebrity? Knowing the
local sheriff? Being a politician?
--
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: "Loose Cannon" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 02:30:23 PM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:wJCdnblZJ8jYd27cRVn-1w@comcast.com...
Loose Cannon wrote:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:doWdnc1IJOrY1WzcRVn-3g@comcast.com...
JTEM wrote:
"Loose Cannon" <looseain't@this.com> wrote
No, because rightard half-wits have made threats on his
life. Pretty typical. But you knew that, of course, in light
of the fact that this thread is just a recycled troll of yours
from last summer.
He's either insane or a liar, because Michael Moore never
said that people shouldn't be allowed to own guns.
He stated that people should not be allowed to own handguns or assault
weapons. He said that hunting rifles, etc were OK. I happen to hunt
with a handgun....something that Moore would like to deny me.
I don't think Moore's intent is to advocate a ban on legitimate hunting
weapons, as idiot troll Gactipuss claimed in starting this thread. Otoh,
handgun hunting strikes me as a niche sport, at best.
So's archery, lacrosse, motorcycle hillclimbing, etc..
Whatcha hunting, presumably with the intent to kill, in these sports?
Do you also wish to ban the equipment for those?
I'm sorry, but you'll have to point out where I said anything about banning
equipment.
And I say that as the owner of several pistols, rifles, and shotguns
(although I gave up hunting in my youth).
Good for you. Don't try to make that choice for me.
Please point out where I did.
That said, I personally believe the Second Amendment is too deeply
ingrained in the American psyche to ever allow a gun grab, certainly in
the sense that the hardcore right likes to claim. Personally, I *would*
like to see
considerable improvement in background checks, and 'toss 'em in the
slammer and throw away the key' laws for crimes committed with a handgun.
Not too nitpick but is the crime any more heinous because it was committed
with a handgun? Is the resulting death, if any, longer lasting?
Nope.
However, relative to shotguns, bow&arrow, and sledge hammer, for example,
handguns are pretty easy to conceal. Not to mention used with much greater
frequency in robberies and deadly assaults. You've taken notice of that,
yes?
What he did say was that he is a long-time gun owner himself.
His handguns are only owned by his bodyguards. I don't have any of
those, so I have to carry my handgun myself.
Well, fortunately, I rarely find myself in circumstances where I would
feel any additional safety by packing a concealed weapon. I wouldn't
oppose tightly restricted licenses granted to a well-vetted few, however.
<snip>
What do you consider being well vetted? Being a celebrity? Knowing the
local sheriff? Being a politician?
How about a clean police record, competency certification, and a defined
reason for needing to carry around a concealed handgun? Is that
unreasonable?
--
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: "loose cannon is a lying, forging, stalking scumbag" |
|
| Title: Re: Loose Cannon: Stalking and Harassment Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 05:01:13 PM |
|
|
Loose Cannon wrote:
How about a clean police record, competency certification, and a
defined
reason for needing to carry around a concealed handgun? Is that
unreasonable?
That eliminates you for consideration.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Loose Cannon" |
|
| Title: Re: IBenAsswipeJYoung: Stalking and Harassment instead of watching playoffs. |
23 Jan 2005 10:04:20 PM |
|
|
<superasswipe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1106521273.620293.276390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Loose Cannon wrote:
How about a clean police record, competency certification, and a
defined reason for needing to carry around a concealed handgun? Is that
unreasonable?
That eliminates you for consideration.
'zat so, IBen? I suppose requesting some proof would be out of the question?
<BFG>
Based on your post's NNTP, it looks like you and your socks are having a
gathering, eh? One nut, 20 identities. What a p-a-r-t-y!
This post:
From: "loose cannon is a lying, forging, stalking scumbag"
<superasswipe@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.radio.talk,alt.abortion,alt.world,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Loose Cannon: Stalking and Harassment Are Okay For Me, But Not
For You
Date: 23 Jan 2005 15:01:13 -0800
Message-ID: <1106521273.620293.276390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
****NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.163.100.203
Recent posts from your imaginary friends:
From: "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
Newsgroups: tx.politics, alt.politics.usa, alt.politics.homosexuality,
soc.culture.jewish, talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Justice Thomas remains front-runner for Rehnquist's job
Date: 2 Jan 2005 19:22:17 -0800
Message-ID: <1104722537.471438.121210@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
****NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.163.100.203
From:
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: "Congress Shall Make No Law......"
Date: 11 Dec 2004 22:37:09 -0800
Message-ID: <1102833429.592463.254980@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
****NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.163.100.203
From: "Loose Cannon" <Findingis@aol.com>
Newsgroups:
uk.politics.misc,alt.gossip.royalty,alt.talk.royalty,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Public Toilets
Date: 15 Jan 2005 02:46:31 -0800
Message-ID: <1105785991.473897.156480@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
****NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.163.100.203
No football party at your trailer this afternoon, Ms. *****? Pity.
As always, sucks to be you.
LC~ Run, IBen, run!: http://tinyurl.com/6fllq
"You've been outted, idiot. Take your lumps like a man. Sock puppeting
troll." ~IBen/Jon's lame trolls leads to another whuppin',
From: "Mister Charlie" <smokerdudeTROL...@myway.com>
Newsgroups: rec.music.beatles
Subject: Re: Troll alert!
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 08:15:09 -0800
Message-ID: <c4c6em$2h3fkf$1@ID-63206.news.uni-berlin.de>
.
|
|
|
| User: "loose cannon is a lying, forging, stalking scumbag" |
| | | | | | | |
