| 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: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
28 Jan 2005 06:14:13 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:280120051010378881%spam@aol.com...
In article <QpudneSF15Vz6mfcRVn-hw@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
According to Maryland law warming up the car is illegal
http://198.187.128.12/maryland/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0
§ 21-1101. Unattended motor vehicle.
(a) Duty of driver upon leaving unattended vehicle.- Except as
provided
in subsection (c) of this section, a person driving or otherwise in
charge of a motor vehicle may not leave it unattended until the engine
is stopped, the ignition locked, the key removed, and the brake
effectively set.
(b) Procedure for vehicles on grades.- A person driving or otherwise
in
charge of a motor vehicle may not leave the motor vehicle unattended
until, if the vehicle is on a grade, the front wheels are turned to the
curb or side of the highway.
(c) Animals left in vehicles.- When a cat or dog is left in the
unattended vehicle of an on-duty law enforcement officer or an animal
control officer, the provisions of subsection (a) of this section do
not
apply to the law enforcement officer or the animal control officer.
When I lived in Maryland I was told that this law was to protect
the police from being responsible for a car stolen with the keys in it.
As I've told these idiots - many states have this type of law. Their
response is the same as always. Denial.
Nope, I even thanked Al for his cite and will thank Ferdinand for his.
Yours is the one I have trouble with. Read it through.
As I have said, I don't really care to do a bunch of research to prove
you are full of *****. I already KNOW you are full of *****. As others
point out statutes to prove you are full of *****, that proves my point.
Yes, and let's remind ourselves of that point and ask ourselves did the
statutes provided really prove your point?
"In many states it is illegal to leave the keys to your car in the car."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
29 Jan 2005 11:17:30 AM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <QpudneSF15Vz6mfcRVn-hw@comcast.com>, The Sandman
<rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote:
According to Maryland law warming up the car is illegal
http://198.187.128.12/maryland/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0
§ 21-1101. Unattended motor vehicle.
(a) Duty of driver upon leaving unattended vehicle.- Except as provided
in subsection (c) of this section, a person driving or otherwise in
charge of a motor vehicle may not leave it unattended until the engine
is stopped, the ignition locked, the key removed, and the brake
effectively set.
(b) Procedure for vehicles on grades.- A person driving or otherwise in
charge of a motor vehicle may not leave the motor vehicle unattended
until, if the vehicle is on a grade, the front wheels are turned to the
curb or side of the highway.
(c) Animals left in vehicles.- When a cat or dog is left in the
unattended vehicle of an on-duty law enforcement officer or an animal
control officer, the provisions of subsection (a) of this section do not
apply to the law enforcement officer or the animal control officer.
When I lived in Maryland I was told that this law was to protect
the police from being responsible for a car stolen with the keys in it.
As I've told these idiots - many states have this type of law. Their
response is the same as always. Denial.
Nope, I even thanked Al for his cite and will thank Ferdinand for his.
Yours is the one I have trouble with. Read it through.
As I have said, I don't really care to do a bunch of research to prove
you are full of *****.
Why? Because your cites usually show the opposite? ;)
I already KNOW you are full of *****. As others
point out statutes to prove you are full of *****, that proves my point.
No, they haven't. They have shown a couple of cites that show I was
wrong, but their cites give specific mention of cases for leaving the
keys in the car, just not in the ignition or they simply say not in the
ignition. Your cite on the other hand, seems to be directed toward
parking in some park. Have you noticed that none of the other have
rushed to your aid on that one, Tweety bird?
You have offered NO proof of you claims and now criticize me for not
search Lexis or Westlaw for you? No thanks.
Don't need either one of those facilities. Most state statutes are
easily accessible with normal internet access. Not much experience
required which is why it is so amusing that you can't find them. ;)
--
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: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
28 Jan 2005 08:05:25 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:58:22 -0800, FerdinandAkin
<FerdinandAkin@comcast.net> wrote:
Osprey wrote:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:35tlmjF4qqk29U1@individual.net...
"Daniel Kolle" <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ds7jv097m9jlh41bnp789ct274qvpj347t@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 07:05:55 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
thought hard and said:
snip
Wisconsin:
LEAVING KEYS IN CAR. No person may leave the ignition
key in the ignition lock of any unattended motor vehicle, except
a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in s. 340.01 (8), Stats.,
while the vehicle is parked in the park.
History: Renum. from SFP 3.01 (3) Register, September, 1996, No. 489,
eff.
10196; correction in (3) made under s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 7., Stats.,
Register,
August, 1999, No. 524.
What a ***** law. So I cannot go outside and warm up my car and
retreat to the warm inside of my house, if I were in Wisconsin?
Thanks, AL.
Damn! I do this every morning so I don't have to hear my kid ***** about
how cold the car is.
Tell me about it, it is too cold here in Delaware. I always go out about 15
minutes prior, start up my truck, and let it warm up.
According to Maryland law warming up the car is illegal
http://198.187.128.12/maryland/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0
§ 21-1101. Unattended motor vehicle.
(a) Duty of driver upon leaving unattended vehicle.- Except as provided
in subsection (c) of this section, a person driving or otherwise in
charge of a motor vehicle may not leave it unattended until the engine
is stopped, the ignition locked, the key removed, and the brake
effectively set.
(b) Procedure for vehicles on grades.- A person driving or otherwise in
charge of a motor vehicle may not leave the motor vehicle unattended
until, if the vehicle is on a grade, the front wheels are turned to the
curb or side of the highway.
(c) Animals left in vehicles.- When a cat or dog is left in the
unattended vehicle of an on-duty law enforcement officer or an animal
control officer, the provisions of subsection (a) of this section do not
apply to the law enforcement officer or the animal control officer.
When I lived in Maryland I was told that this law was to protect
the police from being responsible for a car stolen with the keys in it.
Um, how in the heck would the police be responsible for a car owner's
irresponsibility?
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
28 Jan 2005 07:53:55 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:17:55 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Daniel Kolle" <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ds7jv097m9jlh41bnp789ct274qvpj347t@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 07:05:55 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
thought hard and said:
snip
Wisconsin:
LEAVING KEYS IN CAR. No person may leave the ignition
key in the ignition lock of any unattended motor vehicle, except
a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in s. 340.01 (8), Stats.,
while the vehicle is parked in the park.
History: Renum. from SFP 3.01 (3) Register, September, 1996, No. 489,
eff.
10196; correction in (3) made under s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 7., Stats.,
Register,
August, 1999, No. 524.
What a ***** law. So I cannot go outside and warm up my car and
retreat to the warm inside of my house, if I were in Wisconsin?
Thanks, AL.
Damn! I do this every morning so I don't have to hear my kid ***** about
how cold the car is.
Simple solution is to have two sets of keys. Lock the car when its
warming up and unlock and drive away.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
28 Jan 2005 07:58:57 PM |
|
|
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:34rlv0dtd7gfrbjheaonr61eogeardgg5p@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:17:55 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Daniel Kolle" <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ds7jv097m9jlh41bnp789ct274qvpj347t@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 07:05:55 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
thought hard and said:
snip
Wisconsin:
LEAVING KEYS IN CAR. No person may leave the ignition
key in the ignition lock of any unattended motor vehicle, except
a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in s. 340.01 (8), Stats.,
while the vehicle is parked in the park.
History: Renum. from SFP 3.01 (3) Register, September, 1996, No. 489,
eff.
10196; correction in (3) made under s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 7., Stats.,
Register,
August, 1999, No. 524.
What a ***** law. So I cannot go outside and warm up my car and
retreat to the warm inside of my house, if I were in Wisconsin?
Thanks, AL.
Damn! I do this every morning so I don't have to hear my kid ***** about
how cold the car is.
Simple solution is to have two sets of keys. Lock the car when its
warming up and unlock and drive away.
Well, it's also not against the law in NJ, so it's not a problem.
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
29 Jan 2005 07:45:56 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:58:57 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:34rlv0dtd7gfrbjheaonr61eogeardgg5p@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:17:55 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Daniel Kolle" <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ds7jv097m9jlh41bnp789ct274qvpj347t@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 07:05:55 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
thought hard and said:
snip
Wisconsin:
LEAVING KEYS IN CAR. No person may leave the ignition
key in the ignition lock of any unattended motor vehicle, except
a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in s. 340.01 (8), Stats.,
while the vehicle is parked in the park.
History: Renum. from SFP 3.01 (3) Register, September, 1996, No. 489,
eff.
10196; correction in (3) made under s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 7., Stats.,
Register,
August, 1999, No. 524.
What a ***** law. So I cannot go outside and warm up my car and
retreat to the warm inside of my house, if I were in Wisconsin?
Thanks, AL.
Damn! I do this every morning so I don't have to hear my kid ***** about
how cold the car is.
Simple solution is to have two sets of keys. Lock the car when its
warming up and unlock and drive away.
Well, it's also not against the law in NJ, so it's not a problem.
True. It's also not a problem for someone to 'get in and go,' either.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
28 Jan 2005 09:32:09 PM |
|
|
In article <34rlv0dtd7gfrbjheaonr61eogeardgg5p@4ax.com>, stoney
<stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 21:17:55 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Daniel Kolle" <DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ds7jv097m9jlh41bnp789ct274qvpj347t@4ax.com...
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 07:05:55 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
thought hard and said:
snip
Wisconsin:
LEAVING KEYS IN CAR. No person may leave the ignition
key in the ignition lock of any unattended motor vehicle, except
a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in s. 340.01 (8), Stats.,
while the vehicle is parked in the park.
History: Renum. from SFP 3.01 (3) Register, September, 1996, No. 489,
eff.
10196; correction in (3) made under s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 7., Stats.,
Register,
August, 1999, No. 524.
What a ***** law. So I cannot go outside and warm up my car and
retreat to the warm inside of my house, if I were in Wisconsin?
Thanks, AL.
Damn! I do this every morning so I don't have to hear my kid ***** about
how cold the car is.
Simple solution is to have two sets of keys. Lock the car when its
warming up and unlock and drive away.
Which would still be illegal.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
28 Jan 2005 11:28:51 AM |
|
|
Daniel Kolle wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 07:05:55 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
thought hard and said:
In article <unggv01c5vlko3sgfn5blh7ujsdslq4hqk@4ax.com>, Daniel Kolle
<DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 02:53:36 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
thought hard and said:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:12:58 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:02:41 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
thought hard and said:
In article <jdOdnbASctYelmncRVn-ow@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050940583410%spam@aol.com...
In some states it means exactly that. In many states it is illegal to
leave the keys to your car in the car.
Please list the statutes here.
Certainly I'm not aware of any such laws.
I am.
Then how about listing them?
There's such a law in New York. Sorry, but my copy of the VTL is in
the car, and I'm not going out in this weather to get it.
It is another day, Al. So hows about showing us the law?
Wisconsin:
LEAVING KEYS IN CAR. No person may leave the ignition
key in the ignition lock of any unattended motor vehicle, except
a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in s. 340.01 (8), Stats.,
while the vehicle is parked in the park.
History: Renum. from SFP 3.01 (3) Register, September, 1996, No. 489,
eff.
10196; correction in (3) made under s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 7., Stats.,
Register,
August, 1999, No. 524.
What a ***** law. So I cannot go outside and warm up my car and
retreat to the warm inside of my house, if I were in Wisconsin?
Thanks, AL.
Al didn't post that one, that was Barney. Why does everyone keep missing
that part about "...while the vehicle is parked in the park." That
certainly isn't describing your driveway one would assume.
--
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: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
28 Jan 2005 06:42:02 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:28:51 -0700, "RD (The Sandman)"
<rdsandman@comcast.net> thought hard and said:
Daniel Kolle wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 07:05:55 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
thought hard and said:
In article <unggv01c5vlko3sgfn5blh7ujsdslq4hqk@4ax.com>, Daniel Kolle
<DKolle@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 02:53:36 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
thought hard and said:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:12:58 -0600, Daniel Kolle <DKolle@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:02:41 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
thought hard and said:
In article <jdOdnbASctYelmncRVn-ow@adelphia.com>, Scout
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:230120050940583410%spam@aol.com...
In some states it means exactly that. In many states it is illegal to
leave the keys to your car in the car.
Please list the statutes here.
Certainly I'm not aware of any such laws.
I am.
Then how about listing them?
There's such a law in New York. Sorry, but my copy of the VTL is in
the car, and I'm not going out in this weather to get it.
It is another day, Al. So hows about showing us the law?
Wisconsin:
LEAVING KEYS IN CAR. No person may leave the ignition
key in the ignition lock of any unattended motor vehicle, except
a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in s. 340.01 (8), Stats.,
while the vehicle is parked in the park.
History: Renum. from SFP 3.01 (3) Register, September, 1996, No. 489,
eff.
10196; correction in (3) made under s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 7., Stats.,
Register,
August, 1999, No. 524.
What a ***** law. So I cannot go outside and warm up my car and
retreat to the warm inside of my house, if I were in Wisconsin?
Thanks, AL.
Al didn't post that one, that was Barney.
You detected no amount of sarcasm in the post?
Why does everyone keep missing
that part about "...while the vehicle is parked in the park." That
certainly isn't describing your driveway one would assume.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
Head of EAC Denial Department and Madly Insane Scientist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "James H. Hood" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 08:39:54 PM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:tku5v0lldoum8h1615dvdulifeujdrdhf2@4ax.com...
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:18:20 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
On the contrary, removal of anything is a reduction of what's there. A
gun
complete is worth considerably more than a gun which is incomplete.
DO try to get your priorities straight. You right to own an automatic
weapon doesn't outweigh my right to not get shot.
You have no such "right".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AH#49 writes" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 01:50:25 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
DO try to get your priorities straight. You right to own an automatic
weapon doesn't outweigh my right to not get shot.
No right to not get shot exists, you moron.
Or are you saying that it perfectly acceptable to get shot by somebody
that has a single shot firearm?
Seems to me that it is indeed your "priorities" that are shot to hell.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 11:30:16 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:18:20 -0500, "Scout"
<4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> said in alt.atheism:
On the contrary, removal of anything is a reduction of what's there. A gun
complete is worth considerably more than a gun which is incomplete.
DO try to get your priorities straight. You right to own an automatic
weapon doesn't outweigh my right to not get shot.
Excuse me, but just where is the right not to get shot in the
Constitution? I agree with you that getting shot is a very bad thing,
but I don't know where it is listed. Who granted you that right? What
makes you think that just because he has an automatic weapon that he
will shoot you? He probably doesn't even know you.
--
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: "General Protection Fault" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
21 Jan 2005 01:40:03 PM |
|
|
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:13:54 GMT, 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.
That still doesn't say he wants to remove your right to bear arms.
--
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
1:35PM up 1 day, 2:33, 1 user, load averages: 0.02, 0.02, 0.00
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David K. Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
20 Jan 2005 09:45:01 AM |
|
|
In article Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> writes:
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.
Which is different than your first claim. Even if your second
claim is true, what does that have to do with anything?
A polution control person may believe we should ban cars due
to their emmisions, but if that doesn't happen still drive
a car realizing their single car won't make a difference
(but the ban would).
Similarly, even if his desire is to ban guns, until that
happens he may very well feel safer guarded by one or more
guns.
Before you think I'm a biased liberal (I'm not), I've never
seen *any* of his films, nor do I support or care what any
of his positions are (don't even know what they are or even
if your claim he wants all guns banned is true).
As always any opinions I may have written above are mine and mine alone.
Dave.
.
|
|
|
| User: "chrisv" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
20 Jan 2005 11:05:39 AM |
|
|
David K. Lewis wrote:
Similarly, even if his desire is to ban guns, until that
happens he may very well feel safer guarded by one or more
guns.
Of course, that would not make any sense, because banning buns will
not make anyone safer. The criminals, the people who you really want
to take the guns away from, will still have them. The only people who
would be disarmed are the law-adibing citizens.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
20 Jan 2005 11:08:42 AM |
|
|
"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:f4pvu09tnro0fgao9qu0vtpooqlotqbhb1@4ax.com...
David K. Lewis wrote:
Similarly, even if his desire is to ban guns, until that
happens he may very well feel safer guarded by one or more
guns.
Of course, that would not make any sense, because banning buns will
not make anyone safer.
LOL! Couldn't agree with you more. Damn those evil buns! :)
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
20 Jan 2005 12:28:03 PM |
|
|
on 20 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Robibnikoff dropped trou, farted, whirled,
then shouted:
"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:f4pvu09tnro0fgao9qu0vtpooqlotqbhb1@4ax.com...
David K. Lewis wrote:
Similarly, even if his desire is to ban guns, until that
happens he may very well feel safer guarded by one or more
guns.
Of course, that would not make any sense, because banning buns will
not make anyone safer.
LOL! Couldn't agree with you more. Damn those evil buns! :)
Especially the Cinnabuns! They make my buns evil.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are the kind of
people you wouldn't want to ***** in the first place?
--George Carlin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
20 Jan 2005 12:33:03 PM |
|
|
"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E46AAF7291Cvicman@127.0.0.1...
on 20 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Robibnikoff dropped trou, farted, whirled,
then shouted:
"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:f4pvu09tnro0fgao9qu0vtpooqlotqbhb1@4ax.com...
David K. Lewis wrote:
Similarly, even if his desire is to ban guns, until that
happens he may very well feel safer guarded by one or more
guns.
Of course, that would not make any sense, because banning buns will
not make anyone safer.
LOL! Couldn't agree with you more. Damn those evil buns! :)
Especially the Cinnabuns! They make my buns evil.
I'm not really sure how to take that! :)
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
20 Jan 2005 12:38:24 PM |
|
|
on 20 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Robibnikoff dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E46AAF7291Cvicman@127.0.0.1...
on 20 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Robibnikoff dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:f4pvu09tnro0fgao9qu0vtpooqlotqbhb1@4ax.com...
David K. Lewis wrote:
Similarly, even if his desire is to ban guns, until that
happens he may very well feel safer guarded by one or more
guns.
Of course, that would not make any sense, because banning buns will
not make anyone safer.
LOL! Couldn't agree with you more. Damn those evil buns! :)
Especially the Cinnabuns! They make my buns evil.
I'm not really sure how to take that! :)
Tongue in cheek will do...
Oh no...
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are the kind of
people you wouldn't want to ***** in the first place?
--George Carlin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
20 Jan 2005 12:47:03 PM |
|
|
"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E46C70C1C62vicman@127.0.0.1...
on 20 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Robibnikoff dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
"Vic Sagerquist" <address@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95E46AAF7291Cvicman@127.0.0.1...
on 20 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Robibnikoff dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
"chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:f4pvu09tnro0fgao9qu0vtpooqlotqbhb1@4ax.com...
David K. Lewis wrote:
Similarly, even if his desire is to ban guns, until that
happens he may very well feel safer guarded by one or more
guns.
Of course, that would not make any sense, because banning buns will
not make anyone safer.
LOL! Couldn't agree with you more. Damn those evil buns! :)
Especially the Cinnabuns! They make my buns evil.
I'm not really sure how to take that! :)
Tongue in cheek will do...
Oh no...
Oh my! I don't think my husband would approve! :)
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
20 Jan 2005 11:34:43 AM |
|
|
chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
David K. Lewis wrote:
Similarly, even if his desire is to ban guns, until that
happens he may very well feel safer guarded by one or more
guns.
Of course, that would not make any sense, because banning buns will
not make anyone safer.
Depends if the buns were baked with butter or not? And filled with thick,
double cream laced with processed sugar... with chocolate chips...
Sorry. Gotta go, feeling a bit peckish.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "GreyCloud" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
20 Jan 2005 03:01:17 PM |
|
|
chrisv wrote:
David K. Lewis wrote:
Similarly, even if his desire is to ban guns, until that
happens he may very well feel safer guarded by one or more
guns.
Of course, that would not make any sense, because banning buns will
not make anyone safer. The criminals, the people who you really want
to take the guns away from, will still have them. The only people who
would be disarmed are the law-adibing citizens.
Very true. Remember that L.A. drugger shoot out with the
police??
The crook was better armed than the police and the arms he
had were already illegal to own.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Pegel" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
21 Jan 2005 02:27:00 PM |
|
|
GreyCloud wrote:
chrisv wrote:
David K. Lewis wrote:
Similarly, even if his desire is to ban guns, until that
happens he may very well feel safer guarded by one or more
guns.
Of course, that would not make any sense, because banning buns will
not make anyone safer. The criminals, the people who you really want
to take the guns away from, will still have them. The only people who
would be disarmed are the law-adibing citizens.
Very true. Remember that L.A. drugger shoot out with the
police??
The crook was better armed than the police and the arms he
had were already illegal to own.
Practicallty all handguns have been banned here in the UK for years. Gun
crime is up. Law-abiding people have nothing to defend themselves with
against gun -toting criminals
--
Ian
The Onion Man
.
|
|
|
| User: "GreyCloud" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
21 Jan 2005 08:21:52 PM |
|
|
Ian Pegel wrote:
GreyCloud wrote:
chrisv wrote:
David K. Lewis wrote:
Similarly, even if his desire is to ban guns, until that
happens he may very well feel safer guarded by one or more
guns.
Of course, that would not make any sense, because banning buns will
not make anyone safer. The criminals, the people who you really want
to take the guns away from, will still have them. The only people who
would be disarmed are the law-adibing citizens.
Very true. Remember that L.A. drugger shoot out with the
police??
The crook was better armed than the police and the arms he
had were already illegal to own.
Practicallty all handguns have been banned here in the UK for years. Gun
crime is up. Law-abiding people have nothing to defend themselves with
against gun -toting criminals
That's why crime is up... the criminals are taking advantage
of this.
I remember a while back when Louisiana passed their "Kill a
Burglar Law".
The only belly-aching that was heard was from the criminal
element.
And... crime diminished significantly.
--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JEDIDIAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
21 Jan 2005 11:05:51 PM |
|
|
On 2005-01-22, GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote:
Ian Pegel wrote:
GreyCloud wrote:
chrisv wrote:
David K. Lewis wrote:
Similarly, even if his desire is to ban guns, until that
happens he may very well feel safer guarded by one or more
guns.
Of course, that would not make any sense, because banning buns will
not make anyone safer. The criminals, the people who you really want
to take the guns away from, will still have them. The only people who
would be disarmed are the law-adibing citizens.
Very true. Remember that L.A. drugger shoot out with the
police??
The crook was better armed than the police and the arms he
had were already illegal to own.
Practicallty all handguns have been banned here in the UK for years. Gun
crime is up. Law-abiding people have nothing to defend themselves with
against gun -toting criminals
That's why crime is up... the criminals are taking advantage
of this.
Nah... the real causes of crime are on the rise. It just
so happens (by coincidence) that respectable civilians are now
less able to to defend themselves.
I remember a while back when Louisiana passed their "Kill a
Burglar Law".
The only belly-aching that was heard was from the criminal
element.
And... crime diminished significantly.
--
If you think that an 80G disk can hold HUNDRENDS of |||
hours of DV video then you obviously haven't used iMovie either. / | \
.
|
|
|
| User: "GreyCloud" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
22 Jan 2005 12:50:44 PM |
|
|
JEDIDIAH wrote:
On 2005-01-22, GreyCloud <cumulus@mist.com> wrote:
Ian Pegel wrote:
GreyCloud wrote:
chrisv wrote:
David K. Lewis wrote:
Similarly, even if his desire is to ban guns, until that
happens he may very well feel safer guarded by one or more
guns.
Of course, that would not make any sense, because banning buns will
not make anyone safer. The criminals, the people who you really want
to take the guns away from, will still have them. The only people who
would be disarmed are the law-adibing citizens.
Very true. Remember that L.A. drugger shoot out with the
police??
The crook was better armed than the police and the arms he
had were already illegal to own.
Practicallty all handguns have been banned here in the UK for years. Gun
crime is up. Law-abiding people have nothing to defend themselves with
against gun -toting criminals
That's why crime is up... the criminals are taking advantage
of this.
Nah... the real causes of crime are on the rise. It just
so happens (by coincidence) that respectable civilians are now
less able to to defend themselves.
That's because the criminals are becoming more bolder due to
'lenient' judges.
There is no deterrent to crime. Here, most everybody has a
concealed weapons permit,... not much theft here as the
criminals know they'd get lead poisoning.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
22 Jan 2005 05:00:47 PM |
|
|
"GreyCloud" <cumulus@mist.com> wrote
That's because the criminals are becoming more
bolder due to 'lenient' judges.
Here on Earth, violent crime is down. Yes, it's
up from the lows seen under Clinton, but only
because Bush wrecked the economy. Even then,
violent crime is still well below historical
highs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
22 Jan 2005 05:07:30 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:wKCdnTmZp4fERG_cRVn-qg@comcast.com...
"GreyCloud" <cumulus@mist.com> wrote
That's because the criminals are becoming more
bolder due to 'lenient' judges.
Here on Earth, violent crime is down. Yes, it's
up from the lows seen under Clinton,
Uh oh...here we go....Clinton probably saved the U.S. from crime.
but only
because Bush wrecked the economy. Even then,
violent crime is still well below historical
highs.
Oh my...Bush did this, Bush did that...Clinton was great...I worship Michael
Moore.
And he called others a freak!!!
LOL
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 10:45:53 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote
Here on Earth, violent crime is down. Yes, it's
up from the lows seen under Clinton,
Uh oh...here we go....Clinton probably saved the U.S.
from crime.
Yet, we all get the sense that you would be crowing
from the highest roof top if Bush managed even half
the success of Bill Clinton...
The economy did much better under Clinton than
it did under Ronald Reagan, yet you morons are
still crowing about him..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Michael Moore: Guns Are Okay For Me, But Not For You |
23 Jan 2005 11:04:06 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tM-dnexT6qEn5mncRVn-vg@comcast.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote
Here on Earth, violent crime is down. Yes, it's
up from the lows seen under Clinton,
Uh oh...here we go....Clinton probably saved the U.S.
from crime.
Yet, we all get the sense that you would be crowing
from the highest roof top if Bush managed even half
the success of Bill Clinton...
I credit Clinton as well as the "republican" controlled senate...the part
you seem to forget about.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
