Posted on 01/31/2005 3:59:45 PM PST by Dan from Michigan
That poodle worked well too. I saw that EVERYWHERE in my county.
Will those dogs ever learn to hunt?
No. And the reason comes down to the money. The BIG DONORS to the party have gun grabbing as part of their religion. George Soros was well known as a gun grabber before 2004. He hired Rebecca Peters out of Australia to push the same thing here.
Hollywood is well known to be anti-freedom. Same with the trial lawyers lobby, and the editoral pages of the newspapers, particulary the Slimes. It's partly an arrogance factors on the coasts against us "rednecks" in flyover country.
Maybe, just maybe, if a Dem. candidate had a photo op of himself at a range wearing eye and ear protection and firing a Glock from a Weaver-stance, he MIGHT resonate with gun owners. But these clowns still believe that gun ownership is all about hunting game.
The 2nd Amendment is NOT about shooting deer. It's about protecting your family from violent thugs.
Just remember that to Bwarney, every handgun with a barrel lenghth of less than six inches, no matter how high its quality, is a Saturday night special.
Just the thought of a world re-invented by a flaming fag from Massachusetts brings chills.
"Saturday Night Specials" weren't a bad thing. First, their low cost allowed decent hardworking poor people access to firearms for personal protection. The elite didn't like that so they used their political clout to put an end to their production and sale. Second, the thugs weren't hurting or killing as many people with .22,.32. or even .38 calibre revolvers as they are able to now with their new street "weapons of choice". That part falls under the "Law of Unintended Consequences", I think.
Something that Freepers should keep in mind when they think about "President Giuliani."
Actually, the 2nd amendment is about protecting ourselves from tyranny. The ability to defend ourselves from thugs is just a fortunate byproduct.
Unfortunately, I disagree with you. I have met and talked with far too many hunters who support gun control for handguns. Just as long as the candidates stay away from their shotgun or rifle, they will vote for anti-gun candidates.
In fact, about 12-15 years ago the President of the State Rifle and Pistol Assn. refused to come out against a state bill that Sarah Brady was supporting. He said to me that if everyone was target shooters or hunters, there would not be any gun banners out there. They just wanted handguns and he did not have a problem with that.
I just love the smell of gunpowder in the morning.
Hi Dan,
Thought you might like this!
The story is a bit complex, but not undecipherable. Some
people have already conceded that Moore was not involved in
any way or that the incident never happened--both points are
untrue, based upon best available evidence. The most
probable facts are that Moore's bodyguard was in fact in
violation of the law. The bodyguard may have even been in
NYC that week to cover Moore (not certain at this time), and
was then preparing to fly home.
There are three major issues (and dozens of sub-issues)
regarding this story: 1. Did a current or former bodyguard
who guarded Moore violate NY firearms laws and get arrested?
2. If Moore has currently or previously hired bodyguards
who carry firearms, does that indicate that he is an immoral
elitist? 3. Is the NY legal situation regarding firearms
and legal transportation immoral, un-Constitutional, and
arranged or allowed to operate to act as a trap? The short
answer to all 3 questions is "Yes". The issue regarding
Burke's employment status is relatively trivial, but to
state the facts simply, he was a firearm-armed employee of a
company that was hired by Moore for bodyguard protection--so
he did not technically "work for" Moore, but was an agent or
employee of a company that did work for Moore. Note how the
employer tries to evade or obscure this basic fact in the
letters he sent to media outlets.
I'd suggest that anyone who is interested, go to this web
site and read all the links and all the "corrections",
"updates", all the comments, and the "summary" before making
a snap decision:
http://www.moorewatch.com/
Is the news story, "Michael Moore's bodyguard arrested on
Airport Gun Charge" incorrect, as some are now claiming?
Not incorrect, so much as subject to various "parsings".
And you know what it means when you have to resort to
parsing--there is usually a cover up going on. The issue of
whether Burke was "Moore's bodyguard" or whether he had ever
been employed by others to protect Moore is relatively
unimportant, and a technical legal matter rather than an
issue of substance (technically, he was an employee or agent
of Gavin De Becker's bodyguard company, who has assigned
employees to guard Moore, apparently many times.). Note
that the claim that Burke was "Moore's bodyguard" apparently
came from Burke himself, probably to use the power of
celebrity to avoid arrest. Otherwise, how would the
reporter have known? Do reporters have any way to follow
every arrest made at airports? How would they even know
that they might want to check the bodyguard's employment
history, and how could they do so even if that is what they
wanted?
The original moral point of the story was that Moore is,
was, and always will be an elitist hypocrite who doesn't
like average Americans who believe they have a right to
defend themselves. That is an independently verifiable
fact--and it is correct, no matter what the details of the
story. The moral issue is absolutely about Moore. There is
no moral basis for arrogating for yourself, the rights that
you would deny to other decent citizens. Or do you agree
with Moore on this? If Moore were right (that would be
novel!), he would not hire bodyguards of any type, so that
he could live like the little people he claims to love. And
if he gave up that moral high ground, then he would at least
be morally required to hire only unarmed bodyguards to
conform with his statist condemnation of firearms in the
hands of citizens. There is no evidence that he has ever
exercised that moral imperative. He apparently engaged the
services of Burke/De Becker often enough that Burke felt
comfortable using Moore as a reference in an arrest. It
wasn't any of us who made the claim that Burke was Moore's
bodyguard. Some people are directing their unjustified
anger at the wrong people. File your complaint with Moore
and De Becker and AP. And always remember that Moore could
take the moral high ground and refuse to have bodyguards--or
at least refuse bodyguards armed with firearms. There would
be no story here if Moore had not previously bought armed
bodyguard services, while demanding that the serfs be
disarmed.
If you read the demand for retraction from Gavin De Becker
(employer of "Moore's bodyguard"), you may notice some very
clever evasions and phraseology (it makes me wonder if that
cleverly worded manipulation of perceptions was requested by
and possibly even written by Moore). For example, he
claims, "Patrick Burk’s firearm is legally registered to
Patrick Burk - it is not 'unlicensed.' "--but in fact the
gun was NOT IN ANY WAY licensed in New York, where the
arrest took place--so it is UNLICENSED AS A MATTER OF LAW.
There is no indication that Burke was personally licensed by
New York, either. Anyone on this list knows that under
existing morally-and-Constitutionally-defective laws you
can't just claim to have a CCW in one state and
automatically carry elsewhere. Logically, you should be
able to carry under the "full faith and credit" clause, but
that has not yet been implemented. If a bad law applies to
us "mere citizens", it should also apply to, and embarrass,
the most arrogant of the elite.
De Becker also makes the deceptive claim that, "Patrick Burk
is not Michael Moore’s bodyguard, and has never been
employed by Michael Moore." But De Becker never actually
denies that Burke was at one time (or multiple times)
assigned by De Becker to cover Moore. The rest of De
Becker's message studiously avoids any specific mention of
whether or not Burke was ever assigned by De Becker's firm
to work with, or protect, Michael Moore. Since that was one
of the main points in the news story, wouldn't you think it
would be necessary to address the issue explicitly? Not if
you are trying to deceive people or misdirect people. Maybe
De Becker isn't exactly lying, but he is certainly muddying
the waters.
I'll have to look it up, but I recall reading that Gavin De
Becker, owner of the bodyguard firm that employs Burke, does
not believe that people should own or use firearms for
self-defense. Possibly an elitist being paid huge sums of
money to protect a rich elitist. I'd be very, very, very,
very, very skeptical about taking his word on anything,
especially after his actions in this controversy.
When analyzing this incident, it is wise to treat the 3
major issues as entirely separate issues, rather than
letting one issue mislead you on the others.
There are many more interesting issues regarding this
incident, and I would be happy to provide more information
if you want it.
________________________________
________________________________
Randall N. Herrst, President
The Center For The Study Of Crime
"JOIN NOW! The Premier Resource for Innovative Activists!"
www.studycrime.org
President@StudyCrime.org
(310) 715-2812
I thought he was talking about the gay outcall service his boyfriend was running out of Barney's basement!
Can someone post the picture? I actually haven't seen it!
Those violent thugs are usually the spawn of idiotic liberal social policy. Liberals subsidize dysfunctional subcultures and then howl when the functional mainstream seeks to protect itself.
"Hokie religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side."
So THAT's where CHUCK CUNNINGHAM went! Does the fact that his name wasn't mentioned after the first season of Crappy Days mean that Howard and Marion were gun grabbers?
(In real life, Tom Bosley is a BIG TIME pinko, although he did campaign for a Republican once. Of course, the Republican was John Lindsey).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.