Posted on 11/30/2005 8:35:54 AM PST by dead
This line of logic suggests that if we would only pass laws that outlawed guns, bad people would obey that law in the commission of roberies, assaults, rapes and murders. The criminals would think, "Oh wait, I can't use a gun to rob this bank, it is illegal."
Noting the headline order, at least they have their priorities right.
Guns kill.
My keys cause me too mispel wurds.
Cars cause accidents.
Hot dogs made Michael Moore fat.
We can play this game all day . . .
I still can't believe they used Andrew Cuomo, of all people, to write their daily anti-gun op-ed the other day.
The Post has made a career of (deservedly) bashing him up to now.
If the Post thinks that this campaign will help reverse its circulation losses, they are way off.
I haven't read that rag for several years now -- mainly because I have no patience for big-government globalists masquerading as "conservatives" just to prop up the circulation figures for one small part of Rupert Murdoch's media empire.
NYC Mayor Bloomberg has already stated that he will not support the death penalty in this, or any other case.
Mental illness.
The price we must pay for living in a free society.
Now if the NY Post would only post the miriad tales of how owning a gun has saved peoples lives.....
Why don't they ban crack and other illicit drugs, and . . O h wait, I guess they already do. Gee, doesn't that work well.
If only murder were against the law, it wouldn't happen.
December 22nd of this year will be the 21st anniversary of one of the defining moments in New York City history -- and certainly the defining moment in the life of New York's most celebrated "illegal gun owner" -- the honorable, heroic Bernhard Goetz.
If idiotliberals want to see and experience death and destruction, let them try to take away our God given rights.
Rupert Murdoch certainly isn't a reliable conservative. The Post came out in favor of Al Gore in 2000, because they expected him to win and they wanted to get clinton's regulators of their backs. They only switched over to Bush after the election day results came in.
Murdoch is also unreliable on China, because they want access to the Chinese communications market.
But the Post usually is conservative, I suspect for financial reasons. All things being equal, Murdoch usually favors the conservative side unless he has reasons to do otherwise.
So, I too am curious why they are doing this. Do they expect hillary to win in 2008? Are they starting to hedge their bets?
Actually, gun control appeals to the leftist Democrat base, but it lacks popularity with the electorate. Possibly Gore would have won in 2000 if he hadn't riled all the hunters and gun owners. Which makes this campaign even more of a mystery. Maybe Murdoch is just trying to appeal to New Yorkers. I expect a large majority of city dwellers probably favor gun control, and that's his main audience.
LOL. Where'd you get that one from?
Menace is an understatement. Why, last night on my way home from work I had a gun nearly run me off the road. Damned guns. I can't tell you how many times I've had to scare off a pack of wild guns who were menacing my family. And, admit it, who hasn't been afraid to encounter a gun at night while alone on a dark street.
The Post has a conservative editorial page sure to piss off liberals. I would therefore assume that only conservatives buy it. Now they are pissing off conservatives. That's is the most stupid stunt they could do.
I mentioned to the branch manager of my bank just how much safer I felt seeing the "No Cencealed Weapons of any type allowed" sign in the window, knowing that no bank robber would dare to use a gun while robbing the bank. For some reason, he wasn't amused.
Mark
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.