Conceal-Carry Passes Handgun Bill in Minnesota by Channain

You want to talk propaganda? Just look at the people Michael Moore is critizing.

The evil terrorists are out there! We are not safe!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 11:45 AM

SARAHETC

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:

The evil terrorists are out there! We are not safe!

It is true. Best to take a gun safety class and arm yourself according to the laws of your municipality.

Sarah

I'm a dying breed who still believes, haunted by American dreams. ---Neko Case

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 12:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
You want to talk propaganda? Just look at the people Michael Moore is critizing.

The evil terrorists are out there! We are not safe!

I have to say that's a very non-productive reply. Rather than answer any points or rebut the accusations against Moore, well...

As for the terrorists:
Just last week, I found out the reason one of my favorite restaurants closed was because the owner is on the lam, alleged to be an Al Quaeda financer. He went on the dodge last year, split the country.

I probably dumped a couple of grand in that place over the years. (Being a lousy cook and tending to eat out a lot and all.) Just when I think I'm settled down and cool about the events of 2001, now I want to kill somebody all over again.

Off topic anyway. Apologies.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 12:15 PM

And to get back to the topic of Michael Moore, he's a sneering twit who lives on the Upper East Side in New York City and pretends to be, well, a guy like me.

He's a liar and he milks tragedies for publicity.

If I saw him, I'd step on him. Then buy a new pair of boots.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 12:41 PM

I have mixed emotions, as I said earlier. I never said guns should be banned. I do think that the majority of Americans are very stupid and I do not trust them.

I think Michael Moore makes some very good points. We are constantly told we have to conform. Get rid of pimples, have a perfect body, have a great haircut, women need to wear makeup -- and so everyone runs around like a chicken buying the fancy clothes, Rogain, getting plastic surgery, blah blah. It's a madness to consume out of fear of rejection.

The news media is no exception. They try to scare the hell out of us all the time. In a city in Moore's movie (not sure which) the murder rate fell 20%, but there was a 600% increase of murder stories on the news.

Our dear never-elected President Bush is the King of Fear. He is scaring the shit out of us,so he can play his war games. Instead of uniting us after 9/11, he told us to turn in our neighbors who act strange. Americans are so scared we are happily giving up our rights.

His 2004 presidential campaign is scheduled to start on the anniversary of 9/11. That is so lame to use that tragedy to stir up fear and call for more violence. His message is going to be that "Evil" is still out there, and he may get re-elected because everyone is so damn scared.

I'm not opposed to hand guns, but I wish everyone wasn't so afraid. Yeah, I know, if wishes were horses....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 1:10 PM

To talk more specifically about guns, here's how I see it.

More guns cause more gun deaths. More cars cause more car crashes. More births cause more deaths.

It's just a simple fact. I wish everybody didn't need a gun and wasn't so afraid. As the world gets scarier, more people will buy guns, and more people will die. And that sucks.

But taking away the right to own a gun is not the answer, because it's not the problem.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 1:23 PM

I saw a lot more fear-mongering out of the media than I did out of the administration. Every night, it was fear fear fear. Endless speculation on all the vectors of attack that we were vulnerable to, all sorts of panicky postulations ruled the day. Which of course is good copy for the bloodsuckers of the press. "Dirty Bomb Attack! We're more vulnerable than you might think!"

Junior catches it from Senator JFK for not doing enough to squash Al Quaeda, and he catches it from Moore for doing too much. There's no happy medium for him. But then, he volunteered to accept the demotion for governor to go ride boss herd in Sodom on the Potomac, so catching flak is part of the job. I got my own issues with him... (*cough* steel tarriffs *cough* Canadian lumber and violations of NAFTA provisions.)

Quote:

We are constantly told we have to conform. Get rid of pimples, have a perfect body, have a great haircut, women need to wear makeup -- and so everyone runs around like a chicken buying the fancy clothes, Rogain, getting plastic surgery, blah blah. It's a madness to consume out of fear of rejection.

This is not exactly a new thing, y'know. Every generation that has ever lived has been constantly under pressure to conform. We actually live in one where you don't particularly have to. I used to be quite the rebel myself. (Thank god there are no surviving pictures of the hair-down-to-the-middle-of-my-back, cammie jacket, gold peace sign and red beret days...) You can pay a price for not going with the flow, but hey, that's the price of living free. These days if I don't particularly care about an issue, I'm not going to rebel over it. If I do, well, then I'll do as I damn well see fit and avoid making a big "Look at me, I'm so rebellious!" thing out of it.

The public as idjits who can barely put the right shoe on the right foot consistantly... well, I do tend to cleave to the "Always bet on stupidity" line of thinking. Where I differentiate from the modern liberal/populist/progressive/whatever line of thought is in not using that as an excuse to try to herd people like cattle. I won't get in the way of people's potential to overcome their current limitations and turn into something special. Freedom is a dangerous, scary thing oftentimes, and I revel in that. I think that most people can be heroes in the right situation- it's hardwired into our genetic code. I think the human race is a glorious thing and I'm proud to be a part of it.

Even if most people bore the hell out of me and drive me stark raving up the wall half the time. Hey, I love 'em, but I don't have to like 'em all the time.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 1:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
To talk more specifically about guns, here's how I see it.

More guns cause more gun deaths. More cars cause more car crashes. More births cause more deaths.

It's just a simple fact. I wish everybody didn't need a gun and wasn't so afraid. As the world gets scarier, more people will buy guns, and more people will die. And that sucks.

But taking away the right to own a gun is not the answer, because it's not the problem.

My mother grew up in backwoods Oklahoma. No electricity, no running water, and of course an outhouse. (If only she'd condescended to go into politics... growing up with an outhouse is such a status symbol these days.)

As she puts it, she grew up 'crawling over guns.' Every house had 'em, generally stored near to hand by propping them up in the near corner.

My father went to a high school where on Fridays half the pickups had guns in gun racks because the students were heading out after school straight to hunting trips.

I went to high school at a time when they were warning us we couldn't just stash our guns in the trunks for that very purpose, because by golly they were having to actually enforce the law at this point.

Common denominator? School shootings were unheard of events in all three situations. Yet anywhere from ninety percent to fifty percent of the student body had easy access to firearms, depending on which era you're looking at.

Guns do not equal more killing. Possession of a gun is not necessarily an expression of fear. As Wulfhawk pointed out, Switzerland is awash with legally owned weapons, up to and including heavy machine guns and light artillery pieces.* Obviously they're not knee-deep in blood over there.

There is fear out there, and mistakes are made on the basis of that fear, agreed. But none of us get out of this life alive, and those are the risks that the majority of the public seem willing to run.

*reference to the light artillery comes from a magazine article I read over a decade ago. Cannot source the quote.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 1:43 PM

CaesarI wrote:
"I won't even go into the other claims in the cartoon, but I can't watch 15 seconds of it without wanting to point out the inaccuracy."

Just curious, but was there a law created, after the NRA was founded, that banned black people from owning guns? I'd like to know.

Inaccuracy... are you referring to the part about white people wiping out Indians, or how America became rich from slavery? The witch hunts? Making blacks sit in the back of the bus?

Am I missing something? Besides the KKK/NRA connection, what is inaccurate?

Seriously, I'd like to hear anyone's thoughts.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 1:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
Just curious, but was there a law created, after the NRA was founded, that banned black people from owning guns? I'd like to know.

Inaccuracy... are you referring to the part about white people wiping out Indians, or how America became rich from slavery? The witch hunts? Making blacks sit in the back of the bus?

Seriously, I'd like to hear anyone's thoughts.

Issues, issues... starting out, a lot of Southern legislation was aimed at the fear of blacks acquiring weaponry. Two specific circumstances I can speak to... prior to concealed carry in Texas you could legally carry a gun if you were a small business owner with a certain amount of cash on your person (believe it was 230$)

Specifically allowing the 'better folks' to pack heat and keep it out of the hands of them lesser types. The situation is better than that now, though I for one still think the cost of concealed carry in most states is still too damn high to make it readily available to those who need it most.

Secondly, the United States did NOT grow rich on chattel slavery. It was the growing wealth of the industrial north that made slavery obsolete, which allowed an abolitionist movement to take root and push the end of slavery through. I disagree with the means that were used, and will argue that 'ending slavery' was in no way the Union's primary objective in invading the Confederacy. But that is neither here nor there for the sake of the original question.

One other thing that might interest you, because it's not commonly known. The British Empire, in one of the most supremely powerful moral statements ever made by a major power, basically said "We will not tolerate slavery." and was the driving force behind the end of slavery in the Western world. They drove the trans-Atlantic slavery business into virtual non-existance. They applied severe military and political pressure to Brazil, among others, to end the practice. More commonly known, it was Prince Albert's opposition to slavery that kept them from offering recognition and perhaps support to the Confederacy, which went a long way toward dooming the revolution.

You asked for thoughts, and there you have it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 2:04 PM

Er. I meant to leave off my second example about blacks and guns, so I could revisit it here. Yeah, meant it that way all along.

Goes like this. My father was a cop when the Black Panthers were in the early throes of being born. At this point in California, there were a lot of our esteemed guardians of order who found their jollies in bouncing nightsticks and flashlights off the heads of folks in the poor sides of town down in SoCal. At this point, open carry of firearms was allowed in California. So what happened was that black folks, many of them recently returned veterans, started slinging up rifles and holstering pistols, and just following cop cars around their part of town. No confrontations, no threats. Just following them around.

Well damn, suddenly open carry is a bad thing, and shortly thereafter, becomes prohibited. The Black Panthers go on to bigger and better things.

(And my father got out of the police business when he mulled over the fact that he could shoot a brown person for any particular reason and probably not have to sweat it, but if he had occasion to have to shoot the wrong white perpetrator under the most justified of circumstances, he'd be staring at a stretch of time in Federal housing. The situation rather offended his innate sense of justice.)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 2:26 PM

WULFHAWK

I'm sorry, Succatash...in advance.

Your elitism concerns me. Your fellow Americans are stupid? You probably don't mean me. But do you mean my kids? My grandkid?

I gotta tell ya, there are many smart folks I wouldn't trust behind me with a gun...or a knife...or a strong rubber band. Some of the folks I would be sure to recruit into my militia I'm sure you wouldn't regard as smart.

And talkin about fear, lemme tell ya a tale.

There's a little woman, several years my senior, who carries the mail on the route next to mine. By little, I mean little...if she is over 5'1", it ain't by much. Couple of years ago, a convict on her route dumps his Rotties in his mother's backyard when he leaves for prison. You know what comes next.
One day the dogs, each one as large as this woman, jump the fence, chase her down, and attack her. She clearly remembers being on the ground with both dogs biting her, and has the scars to prove it. Was she afraid? Of course, but when the dogs started fighting with each other over her, she escaped, and ran bleeding to her truck, blocks away.
I chat with her every day. She is still carrying the mail, every day. Fear? Damn right, every day. Does it stop this near 50 woman? In no way or fashion.

Your perception of all the fear and paranoia seems exaggerated. Of course, I have a great example right beside me every day of courage.

tanstaafl

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 3:05 PM

I admit I sure can be an asshole. I am smart, and yes, I admit that I find most people stupid. I'm talking about things we bitch about on this site. I find the mainstream American Idol and Reality TV mentality to be STUPID. Sorry, I'm working on my attitude.

That's a great story about the old lady and the dogs. Thanks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 4:09 PM

LERXST

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfhawk:
Lerxst, I still owe you a Tequila challenge, don't I? I really own only one gun, a nice 12ga extended mag. However, my collection of swords and knives can bring visitors to a dead stop. 8)
And thanks to years of Medieval sword training, I like to think my Kukri is a match for any handgun...so long as we are in the same dark room.
I learned tanstaafl from Robert A. Heinlein's works of science fiction. Worth your time, if you got the time.

Glock 9mm, AR-15 with a decent scope & 30-shot mag, coupla swords, a machete, and a bolo knife.

Shoulda known that was Heinlein, must be too long since I read him last. If you like Starship Troopers (the book), check out Joe Haldeman's "The Forever War".

_________________________________________________
Raspberry! Only one man would dare give me the raspberry...LONESTAR!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 6:12 PM

WULFHAWK

Don't worry, Succatash Dude...you're one of my very most favorite assholes.

Lersxt, a bolo knife? forward curve, heavy in the tip? If so, that's also called a Kukri, after the knives carried by the awesome and much feared Ghurka troops. Very cool.

tanstaafl

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 6:18 PM

LERXST

Oh, yeah, saw R. Lee talking about it. Very cool indeed. Dad brought it back from Burma.

_________________________________________________
Raspberry! Only one man would dare give me the raspberry...LONESTAR!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 9:23 PM

CAESARI

I used to be elitist too. While I think there are a few people who are beyond help from an intellectual standpoint, it's been my experience that just about anyone can become intelligent and educated.

But you wanted me to pick apart Moore's portrayal of US history for you. You've woken a sleeping dragon my friend. In short, Moore's brief summary of US history is a distorted view which subjagates accuracy to achieving its aims, based upon Moore's correct assumption that most people in the audience don't know history as well as I do, and would therefore not be disgusted by it. Moore's movie is called a documentary, and won the Oscar for best documentary, but it is not a documentary in any sense of the word.

Pardon my sarcasm here, but I really resent that you'd even ask me to do this after I said I didn't want to get into it. ::sigh:: Oh well, I'll teach you what your American History teacher should have I guess.

So let's go with the history bit, piece by piece.
#1, we have our guide as "Mr Bullet" automatically causing the audience to have firearms on the brain, as if they didn't have it in there enough already. Brilliant propaganda.
#2, the Pilgrims, were afraid of being persecuted, and all hopped on a boat. They didn't all hope on a boat, they came over in a variety of waves. Initially based in England, they moved to Holland which was rather a Libertarian paradise, and the country was too morally bankrupt for the Pilgrims, who wanted to found "A Citty Upon a Hill" for their civilization. They were afraid of persecution in England (justly so), but were not afraid of it in Holland, they were afraid their kids would become morally corrupt.
#4, They landed and got scared by savages, and killed them all. Uh huh... the pilgrims didn't do much "Indian" killing. Most of the Native Americans were wiped out in the millions by disease brought by the Spanish before the arrival of the Pilgrims. The exact numbers vary... and no one can know for sure, some say the pre-European population was 100 million, others less. In either case, no one blames the Chinese for killing millions of Europeans in the black plague, so blaming the Pilgrims, or the Spanish for killing the Native Americans is disingenuous at best, and dishonest propaganda at worst. Most of the intentional killing of Native Americans wasn't done till much later after the formation of the United States. Oh, and they didn't "wipe out a race of people" that would be genocide. I know a lot of Native Americans who are very insulted by Moore's implication here. They survived an attemptd genocide perpetrated upon them by the United States government due to the Native's having inferior arms to the United States government. We had laws forbidding the sale of certain weapon to Native Americans, I wonder why...
#5, The reasons for the Witch Hunts were numerous, and the matter is still debated in historical circles. None of the reasons cited is "they got scared of each other". Moore threw that explanation in cause it fits his preconceived theory.
#6, "they started killing the british" the revolutionary war was precipitated by a LOT of crap. A WHOLE lot. I'm not EVEN going to go into that one, that's a whole book right there. One of the events however, was the British attempt to seize colonial's weapons. Hmm...
#7, "but they still didn't feel safe" yeah... that's why the 2nd amendment was passed alright. That's exactly why. I know all sorts of scholars who say that's exactly why it was passed. Yup, I just can't remember any of their names, or where they were educated, or where i saw them. You might even say they don't exist. The 2nd amendment was passed because the founders of the United States feared a standing army. There are other reasons, like Mr Henry's belief in the need for a bill of rights, but that's an essay... actually a collection of essays, they're called the "Federalist Papers" and the "Anti Federalist Papers".
#8, "kidnapped thousands of black people" try millions, and they often weren't kidnapped by the Americans. Funny story, the Black slaves were largely enslaved by other Africans. Slavery is older than recorded history, and has existed in every society that comes to mind prior to say 1500AD. That doesn't mean it's right. It's being practiced in the Sudan and the world ignores it, the only people worrying about it are the Christians.
#9, as another poster mentioned slavery didn't make the US the richest country in the world. There are many, many reasons why the US became the richest country in the world, but we were never the richest when we practiced slavery. Some reasons are: a free market, free trade, and industrialization, this is one of those things you could write a book about. If you want a book I'll write it for you, you just gotta pay me. I want $100,000 now, and 10% of all royalties.
#10, "after 200yrs of slavery the black people outnumbered the white people" the slaves always outnumbered their masters. It is to the credit of the United States, that we did not follow Sparta's path to slave control. They made slaves of their entire population. Those who were not property were bound to the state as soldiers. If anyone was afraid of their slaves, it was the Spartans, in almost every treaty signed with other City-States, they included a clause about assisting Sparta in putting down a slave uprising. The primary reason for their lack of engaging in more wars was due to their fear from being away from their lands for very long. So then Moore tells us there were all these uprisings. Funny... I missed out on those. Maybe Moore read a different history book than i did.
#11, "Samuel Colt's revolver 1836, but it was too late, the North won the civil war" K, number one, Colt's revolver was a military weapon. Any historian claiming it had a thing to do with slavery please raise your hand.... What? none of you? funny... Nice segueway to the civil war there. Don't get me started on the War of Northern Aggression either. First kid to tell me the war was fought over slavery gets sent to detention for being too stupid (woops, elitism there). No seriously, I know college educated people who think that. They also think Columbus discovered the world was round, that's another pet peeve.
#12, "just wanted to live in peace, but you couldn't convince the white people of this" K... the KKK wasn't about being afraid of freed slaves, it was about a belief in their race being superior... you might say they were elitist. Whoops, did I just do that? Yeah I guess so. You've got something in common with the KKK. The KKK did no doubt support the various racist gun control laws passed in the South. Racism exists today in states which have "may-issue" concealed carry. Try getting a permit to carry a concealed weapon if you're a poor, young, black male, in LA. You have the greatest probability of being shot and killed with a gun, and they won't let you carry a gun to protect yourself. Why? Cause they're racist. Yeah, that's right, hippy filled CA, save the whales, CA, they don't like poor black people.
#13, Suppose racist gun control laws get passed after the NRA is founded... meaning... that you're going to commit a post hoc fallacy? Say it ain't so! And you think you're smart too, dontcha? K, here's why the NRA doesn't have a THING to do with the KKK: if they did the anti-gun organizations would jump ALL OVER IT. As I said, the NRA was not originally founded with a political purpose. Buncha guys who like to shoot guns, decided to get together. Just like guys who like to fish, or bowl, or play tennis.
Look, I'll give you links to pro-gun sites discussing the racist roots of gun control if you like OK? Racism and gun control ARE connected, the NRA and racism are not. There's historical evidence for the former, and none for the latter.
#14 Rosa Parks, was not just a little old lady who happened to get tired. She was a political activist fully aware of what she was doing.
#15 "White Flight" was caused by a variety of factors, chief among them the cultural desire to own a home, and the lack of land for homes in the city, combined with the rising crime in urban areas, which coincided with the passing of gun control laws in those urban areas... hmm.... Oh, that whole cheap pre-fab housing that came about post WWII, when there were a bunch of GI's coming back from the war who hadn't had sex in a while, and wanted families might have had a thing or two to do with it too.
#16 "locks on their doors" Americans do not fail to lock their doors as often as the Canadians do, but they did once upon a time. Americans are not as security conscious as Moore would have us believe. If we were, we'd all own guns, and know how to use'em. Locks on doors can be picked, and broken.
#17, Suburbanites, are often unarmed, and support gun-control. The primary bastion of the gun rights side is rural, hence the decline in power.

Oh, and your gun supply nonsense:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvsupp.html

Racism and Gun Control:
http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/cramer.racism.html
The author is a friend of mine, and the man largely responsible for uncovering Michael Belleseiles fraud. Despite not being an historian in the professional sense, he's familiar with the techniques, language, and the material.

There ya go. Normally I charge money for providing an education, you're lucky I'm feeling charitable.

-Morgan

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 10:20 PM

CaesarI, I think we are all very appreciative of your vast knowledge, but I bet most people were hoping you'd take Moore's movie with a grain of salt. (you didn't) Of course, you are correct, Moore's points weren't totally accurate, he was trying to make a point. When the pilgrims showed up on the beach and shot the indians, Moore wasn't trying to say that's how it happened. He was trying to portray the long period of time that the pilgrims and native americans spent with each other in a short segment. Brevity is the key, and he couldn't use it and tell the complete story you may want him to. He was trying to make a point, not tell the whole history of the U.S. His portrayal of the shooting of the indians was meant to say..."this is the gist of the americans treatment to the native americans." I suspect that the same method was used throughout the cartoon to convey a quick meaning without hearing a long lecture.

I'd love to add my view on the gun thing if you all aren't done yet... I love guns. They are fun to shoot. I think everyone (within age limits) who wants a gun should be able to buy one. I also think that guns kill people. Of course, some of you are thinking, "no, no, people kill people, not guns" Well that's true to a point, but people often use guns to kill people. And in America, land of the exceptionally free, more people are killed with guns than all other countries in the world combined. That doesn't mean americans have more guns, neccessarily. (americans do, by the way, Switzerland is no where close.) It just means we are more likely to act violently with those guns. Why? Some here have suggested that more guns equates to more gun violence. While that has not been proven, I subscribe to that notion. I have no proof. How could I? What I do have, however, is infallible logic. See if you can beat this...
Only a gun can cause death by gunshot.
If you don't have a gun, you can't kill anybody by gunshot.

That's it. If we can't see that, we are all blind.

I am gonna go a little further, but my argument will no longer be completely sound if you apply these thoughts to the others I just mentioned.

We can likely assume that not everyone who owns a gun is going to use it to kill someone.
We can also likely assume that no one person or one specific group is causing all the gunshot deaths.
So it seems very likely that gunshot deaths are caused by the entire gun-carrying population, in general. Everybody happy so far?

Now this is the part that many of you are going to disagree with, but that's ok with me.
Taking all into account, if there are more guns in a certain area, that would likely lead to more deaths by gunshot in that gun-saturated area. Having no guns in an area would lead to no deaths by gunshot in that area. Columbine is a good example. (lets leave out people who bring in outside guns shall we?)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 12:26 AM

Oooooooooooooooooh Succatash, I'm sorry, you're too open-minded to be a proper elitist asshole. Back of the room, you fail, hang your head in shame. Don't come back 'round 'till you can type in all caps with full conviction "I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG!"

Even better, type it in l337 if you really want to get the act over.

Caesari- Uhm. Hell. That clears something up. Namely why my 'Flat Earth Geographical Squares' never took off in the supermarkets. I thought the appeal of these... these 'globes' was purely in the appeal of spinning them around to pass the time. If this Columbus villain is not the one who poisoned the general consciousness with this 'round world' concept, who, oh pray, did?

(Above is purely a rhetorical question. Excellent and educational work there, friend.)

Maniac, you flat lost me. Gone. I'm hanging out here in LEO, and you're off to the stars. I mean, technically all forms of death result from cessation of brain function.

So if none of us have brains, well, nobody will ever die from gunshot wounds either. Now as far as I can see, both concepts are about equally relevant to the state of affairs in the world. There was this magical time when no guns existed and nobody ever died from gunshot wounds. That was called all of history prior to the invention of matchlock rifles.

Strangely enough, people found plenty of other ways to kill each other. Knives, arrows, javelins, and would you believe they even had occasion to use rocks, both large and small? Greek Fire, though, now that's how I wanna go.

On the subject of Mr. Michael Moore, the incredible human cockroach.

I'm sick of postmodern nihilism. I'm sick of this mea culpa "The whole world is screwed up, life is pointless, and everbody out there is just so STUPID!" viewpoint. I resent the holy hell out of this narrowminded batch of twits who spend their time circle-jerking themselves into ecstatics over how cool and enlightened they are in comparison to the 'common man', especially 'common man' in flyover country, those barely sentient creatures who reside between the coasts and spend their weekends at the monster truck shows.

What really offends me to the core is that the most common and blatant purveyors of this bigoted blather, the ones who can casually drop terms like 'white trash' with vindictive relish, claim for themselves the mantle of being liberals.

By god, I'm a friggin' liberal, thank you kindly. I don't care what church you go to, I don't particularly care what sort of recreational chemicals you choose to fry your brains on, I could care less if you like men, women, or hamsters. Don't do it in my backyard without my consent, and damn well stop that swing of your arm short of my nose, and while I may not like you or respect you, I'll let you go your way through life unmolested.

Top it all off, I think we have come a hell of a long way in a damn short time. It's just been barely the blink of a historical eyebrow to come from an era of commonly accepted chattel slavery, virtual subjugation of women, total inability to redress our grievances against the ruling powers without resorting to the guillotine and any assorted varieties of man's inhumanity to man. My father had a very small piece of the Civil Rights movement in a very localized fashion, and all I can say about it is "Damn, too bad I wasn't in on that show."

I look around me and I see people, with all the flaws they carry with them, bodies and instincts still finely tuned to hunt bison, sleep in caves and root for berries and grubs. I see them transcending that, building, creating, protecting, giving themselves over to great works, thoughts and ideals. I see things I like. I see things I don't like. I see myself living in a world where I can disagree with my neighbor without having to club him senseless.

Then I see these sneering little Moores, Springers, and any number of journalists waxing fat on tragedy, fattening themselves like so many ticks on human suffering so they can chuckle and say "See? We're still animals, people. This whole show is for nothing. We're just kidding ourselves. The world would be better off if the human race had never come along."

If you feel that way, I can advise you on any number of methods by which you can make the world a slightly better place, both painful and painless depending on how much penance you want to suffer before you do your suicide.

For my part, I'm going to keep enjoying my life as long as it lasts. The meek may well inherit the Earth, but in the meantime the strong will be making a pretty comfortable living.* Along the way, I'm gonna take as many people with me as I can, because the show's no good if you're just watching it by yourself.

The best answer I ever saw for Moore came on Slashdot the day the second Gulf War started. Somebody posted his loudmouthed email to Junior, and a wonderfully sage soul posted a response in the form of "Mr. Moore, please shut up. Your juvenile ranting only damages the credibility of serious and intellectual antiwar dissenters."

While I supported the war, I can respect dissent on the matter, and would hope that any time before something so vile and destructive as a war is undertaken by a nation there will be those who stand up and question the motives and necessity of unleashing the power of one nation upon another. Dissent is a vital necessity, but give me an Upton Sinclair any day. He might have hit the stomach of the public, but at least he was aiming for the hearts and minds. Everything I've seen of Moore suggests that at best, he's looking to be a cut-rate Saul Alinsky- and Alinsky probably is spinning in his grave even as I type this.

Must pause to take a breath and lower my blood pressure a bit here. Michael Moore and his ilk get me worked up. I rarely make earnest macho statements about 'stepping on people' because I prefer action to bluster. But that pissant tends to bring it right out of me.

*Must make sure to properly attribute that one to the eternally wise Garfield the Cat.

----------------------------------------------------

I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ooops. Gotta do it right.

I'M RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG!!!!!1!!!!11!!!!!!!!1

MUCH BETTER, RIGHT?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 12:33 AM

/\
/\
/\
/\
/\
/\
/\
/\

Diagnosis confirmed. Subject is only one prozac prescription away from being a well-adjusted citizen.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 3:55 AM

Archer, it is clear I'm not the only asshole here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 4:57 AM

HARDWARE

Quote:
Originally posted by Archer:

Caesari- Uhm. Hell. That clears something up. Namely why my 'Flat Earth Geographical Squares' never took off in the supermarkets. I thought the appeal of these... these 'globes' was purely in the appeal of spinning them around to pass the time. If this Columbus villain is not the one who poisoned the general consciousness with this 'round world' concept, who, oh pray, did?

(Above is purely a rhetorical question. Excellent and educational work there, friend.)

Ask a rhetorical question, get a rhetorical answer. Eratosthenes proved the Earth was round using math. What's more, he also accurately measured the size of the planet, if you factor in the margin of error of his tools.

http://www.jimloy.com/astro/columbus.htm

http://astrosun.tn.cornell.edu/courses/astro201/eratosthenes.htm

A little more background on the experiment.
http://www.phys-astro.sonoma.edu/observatory/eratosthenes/

And Caesari, let's not forget that the founding father's rational fears against a standing army, based on the fact that they had redcoats forcibly garrisoning the colonies not only resulted in the 2nd ammendment, but also the 3rd anf 4th.

(And shame on all of you if you don't know what those ammendments are!)

http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/bill_of_right
s/amendments_1-10.html

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 9:16 AM

Succatash- But... I was trying to compliment... ah... well, okay. Works for me.

I get that a lot. I get a lot of packages in the mail that tick, too. C'est la vie.

Hardware- I knew it. Name a problem of global proportions, somewhere down at the deep, dark heart of it the Greeks are to blame.

I'm so glad the Assyrians or whoever took care of them for us. But geez, it's taken us like five thousand years to even begin to address all the havoc they created. This democracy mess, making giant wooden horses into pop culture items that every hip and with it person has to have in the backyard, and pouring an innocent cup of hemlock down some over-talkative geezer's throat, man...

The fifty years or so that they ran the world after conquering China were just hell.

I do vow to look up those links and further my education on those matters when I get back to the house this evening.

Except for the Bill of Rights, because hey... 4th is search and seizure, and the third is one of my favorites- if you roast a redcoat, you are constitutionally required to QUARTER him and share him with your neighbors. While I used to resent the socalist implications of it, nowadays I appreciate the sense of community spirit it engenders.

---------------------------------------------------

Offending Okies, vegetables, and the entire nation of Greece all in the space of less than a week. I must be slowing down in my old age.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 9:27 AM

"The fifty years or so that they ran the world after conquering China were just hell."

Ahh, I remember that like it was yesterday. I wish I could share my insanity with you all, so you could see it as clearly as I do.

Oh, by the way, Whoever it was that posted that you only die from brain death - wow! You are almost as crazy as I am! What a great tangent! I'll have to work hard to make less sense than you do.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 9:33 AM

I couldn't stand it. I had to look 'em up before leaving.

Fascinating stuff. I'd heard the name and the basics of the story but never looked up the particulars.

Now that I know the particulars of Eratosthenes calculations, how will the ladies ever resist my charms?

---------------------------------------------------
Mortal fool! Your naive honesty has given me the means to take over the world!

Forgive my ebulliance, y'all. I had a good day yesterday. Still flyin', as it were.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 9:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ManiacNumberOne:
"The fifty years or so that they ran the world after conquering China were just hell."

Ahh, I remember that like it was yesterday. I wish I could share my insanity with you all, so you could see it as clearly as I do.

Oh, by the way, Whoever it was that posted that you only die from brain death - wow! You are almost as crazy as I am! What a great tangent! I'll have to work hard to make less sense than you do.

That would be me. Keep working.

Unless you're happy with being number 2.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 9:56 AM

I believe my status as top crazy-man has just been called into question.
I respond to that with... avocado, avocado, avocado, avocado.
Say it real fast with a group of people. From a short distance away it sounds like a real conversation.
top that!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 12:22 PM

According to the old book of world records I have laying around here, the hardest tongue twister in the world is "The sixth sheik's sixth sheep's sick."

Chug a bottle of Juarez's finest Chamucos and then practice that one in a loud tone at the local Starbucks. Convert words into their obvious profane near-equivalents as you continually screw it up. When your inevitable ejection from the premises comes, announce that you will be returning with your Royal Guard to teach these miserable peasants a lesson.

Stand in front of a convenience store on New Year's eve, with no shirt and snow coming down, a sword in each hand hanging idly over each shoulder and announcing to frightened passerby "Fear not, good citizens, I am here to protect you from DRAGONS."

Did I mention being barefoot as well?

Your move.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 12:59 PM

WULFHAWK

When folks call me an asshole, I usually thank them.

Thanks, Succatash.

I am proudly a member of that club. In fact, I've considered becoming a card-carrying member of Unrepentantly Rectal Associated Assholes. As a member of U. R. A. Asshole, I would share that august privilege with an incredible number of famed historical figures.

Honestly, where would we be without those opinionated, stubborn, argumentative curmudgeons? Always insisting on being right, forcing everyone else to exercize their gray matter to prove otherwise? Often in vain?

Crazy? You decide.

Wrap a large segment of rattan in a layer of duct tape (3 to 5 feet is sufficient). Don medieval style clothing, add protective armor segments to joints and head. Stand in the middle of a field with others similarly outfitted. When the Marshal cries, "Lay on," bash your friends with your stick until only one of you remain standing. Repeat several times through the day. Revel all nite, then repeat the next day. Recover at work.

tanstaafl

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 1:06 PM

Wulfhawk wrote:
"When folks call me an asshole, I usually thank them.

Thanks, Succatash."

LOL, I did not call you an asshole. I was speaking to Archer. But it's funny you assumed. I can tell you are one of those happy assholes, like me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 1:07 PM

If I wanted to be beaten with rattan sticks, I'd load up on spraypaint and head for Singapore.

Madman.

----------------------------------------------------
"I've always said the Chinese don't know how to handle a crisis. Have you ever seen one of their fire drills?"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 22, 2003 8:09 AM

I only speak from past actuality -
Climb many assorted building throughout your town, (free climb, that is) ensuring that most are movie theaters. There is a law somewhere that says they must have a roof access for emergencies. (most schools have the same thing) Do this any time, day or night. Go in through the roof access in one of the movie theaters. Climb across the the inside of the roof of the theater until you are behind the screen. (be quiet- there are movie-watchers below) Climb down (in the dark) til you reach floor level then - POP OUT, with whoever you are with, and yell in a loud voice - "WE ARE THE CURTAIN PEOPLE!!" then run out. Either enjoy a different movie or just sit and watch that one if no one's in there. (which has happened)

your turn.
We'll need an impartial judge to say who is the winner.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 22, 2003 11:06 AM

KENWOOD

Quote:
Originally posted by Archer:
If I wanted to be beaten with rattan sticks, I'd load up on spraypaint and head for Singapore.

Yeah but in Singapore you don't get to fight back.

Later,

ME.

Don't look back, som'thin' might be gainin' on ya.
Who let the pigs play poker?
Evo Shander was right!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 22, 2003 1:12 PM

Maniac- Well, since you've shown me yours and I've shown you mine, we could just skip straight to the headbutting contest.

Kenwood- Good point, good point. All the same, I've done a perfectly fine job of abusing my own body, so I'll pass on any professional assistance.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 22, 2003 5:18 PM

CAESARI

First I'd like to thank Hardware for covering my pedantic self, while I ditched ya'll.

Next I'm gonna get this thread back into the bellicose nature it had enjoyed before we started called each other assholes, and smiling about it.

I don't take "documentaries" with a grain of salt, neither does anyone else who knows what a documentary is. Borrowing from Webster's online dictionary: "of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE "a documentary film of the war"" and, btw, I really, really HATE using dictionary quotes in arguments, you forced my hand. You can do brevity without presenting the history in a distorted view to prove your pre-conceived conclusion. The British largely treated the Natives a lot better than the Spanish, but not as well as the French. The relationship between the British colonials and the natives was not as hostile or one-sided as Moore portrayed it. He didn't sacrafice depth for the sake of brevity, he sacraficed accuracy for the sake of his conclusion.

Guns = gun deaths?!?! Did you bother to read the links at all? Shall we discuss Washington D.C.? The city has the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation, firearms are practicaly illegal within city limits, and up until last year Washington DC had been the murder capital of the country, and has held that title for some years now. Only recently has Chicago surpassed it due to the immense (and long term) efforts of Mayor Richard Daley.

The issue isn't even whether more guns or less guns help. You can't wave a magic wand and reduce the number of them. You can pass laws outlawing their ownership, and try and enforce them. The issue then, is whether gun-control laws reduce gun homicides. Washington D.C. is a case in point demonstrating that gun-control laws do no such thing.

Suppose hypothetically gun-control reduced gun deaths, but lead to an even greater rise in the overall homicide rate. Would it make you feel any better if those murder victims were pushed out of windows? In Japan, where guns are rare as hen's teeth, the suicide rate is significantly greater than our own. Taiwan, the Phillipines, and Mexico have a higher non-gun murder rate than our total murder rate. The U.S. has a higher non-gun murder rate than many European countries total murder rates.

Here's another one for you. Prisons are about as gun-free an environment as it comes (excluding guards), how safe would you feel, in terms of physical safety in a prison?

-Infallible Logic
Maybe I didn't mention my background in Philosophy either. Ya'll ain't gettin' nothin' by this gun nut.
S1: "NOT All who own guns, commit murder with guns." T
S2: "There does not exist one person or specific group of people who commit ALL of the set of 'murders with firearms' " T
Conclusion: "gunshot deaths are caused by the entire gun-carrying population, in general."

Your conclusion does not follow from your arguments. If you like I'll present your arguments and conclusion from those arguments to the professor of logic at the University of Puget Sound, who's a good friend of mine.

In fact in state correctional facilities, fully 90% of felons convicted for weapons offenses had prior convictions. For the past decade FBI Uniform Crime Statistics have found that ~90% of firearms used in crimes were illegally acquired. The law was broken to acquire them. The people using them in crimes were criminals before they killed anyone with a gun. People who have concealed carry permits are significantly less likely than the general population to commit murder. Through 1997, only one permit holder in the state of Florida out of the over 350,000 permits issued, was convicted of homicide. If the rest of the country were so law abiding the U.S. would have the lowest homicide rate on earth.

Rural areas in the US have a higher gun ownership rate, and a lower murder rate. Gun-homicide rates are highest in cities, where gun ownership rate is lowest.

-Morgan

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 22, 2003 5:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
To talk more specifically about guns, here's how I see it.

More guns cause more gun deaths. More cars cause more car crashes. More births cause more deaths.

But taking away the right to own a gun is not the answer, because it's not the problem.

This is the last time I will post on this thread. All I can do is repeat myself, at this point. It's really easy to get a gun. Seems to me the right to conceal a gun only makes criminals wonder who might be packing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 22, 2003 6:36 PM

TALRIUS

Y'all are getting evil again. Does this thread need to be nominated for The Thread That Shall Not Be Named status?

__________________________________________________
DOBSON: I'm supposed to be meeting my wife's sister. I've only got a few days to see her...

ZOE: I wish there was another way...

DOBSON: Oh, no, no. That woman is like a dragon. I mean, I believe she has a tail. If there's any other moons we need to visit, or if we could just fly very slowly...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 22, 2003 7:13 PM

Hey, other than some senseless violence between Maniac and myself, totally consensual I might add, and a bit of threatened violence between me and Wulfhawk, totally a regional thing, we've been mostly well-behaved.

To get serious for a moment- The matter of statistics. Now, the old canard about lies, damn lies, and damn statistics has been run into the ground. Mostly, it's a matter of not working through them and understanding them. BUT. I don't like framing moral issues in terms of statistics. Once you go that direction, you're basically doing a cost/benefit analysis. The way I look at it, weapons are one of the three main elements of self-determination. Guns, money, and wheels, to my way of thinking. With those three, I can be five hundred miles away in eight hours or so, get myself dinner and a room, and keep my money safe from undesired donations. When a buddy of mine's wife died a while back, that's pretty much the formula I followed to get over to him. Take the utopian world of the 'progressive', I'd be spending my tokens on some Amtrak affair that makes United Airlines look efficient, get mugged enroute, and arrive three days after he threw himself off the bridge.

Live free or die, way I look at it.

---------------------------------------------------
Now if everyone will excuse me, I gotta get back to bonking noggins with Maniac. That boy has got one HARD head. Damn.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 22, 2003 8:29 PM

Quote:
-Infallible Logic
Maybe I didn't mention my background in Philosophy either. Ya'll ain't gettin' nothin' by this gun nut.
S1: "NOT All who own guns, commit murder with guns." T
S2: "There does not exist one person or specific group of people who commit ALL of the set of 'murders with firearms' " T
Conclusion: "gunshot deaths are caused by the entire gun-carrying population, in general."

Your conclusion does not follow from your arguments. If you like I'll present your arguments and conclusion from those arguments to the professor of logic at the University of Puget Sound, who's a good friend of mine.

-Morgan

If you do send it to him, quote the whole thing m'kay? You took right from the middle of what I was saying -

"Only a gun can cause death by gunshot.
If you don't have a gun, you can't kill anybody by gunshot.

I am gonna go a little further, but my argument will no longer be completely sound if you apply these thoughts to the others I just mentioned."

- then I proposed an already admittedly unsound argument.

...and I don't think I should argue philosophy with you until you pronounce me insane. I have learned a very important lesson from philosophy and logic and reason. You can use them to prove anything you want, even contradictory statements. It is dangerous to rely only on them if you wish to arrive at the truth.

----------------------------------
Who's winning?
I can't really tell, they don't seem to be playing by any civilized rules that I know.
----------------------------------

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 18, 2003 1:39 PM

This is what happens when people are allowed to buy guns!!

Rated R
"Guns"
14 MB - Quicktime
http://craptv.com/shorts/guns.mov

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 18, 2003 7:40 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

There are some people in the wide world who are vehemently opposed to guns or any other sort of legal weapon ownership.

But I don't know anyone who, when confronted with deadly violence, would not wish for a chance to escape it.

Even if it was only one chance in a thousand.

Even if that chance was a gun.

On the subject of more guns = more gun violence...

If everyone might be carrying a gun, the rate of gun violence would spike momentarily. This is called the Learning Curve.

After that, criminals get less bold, and ordinary citizens become a bit more tolerant and polite. The wackos who beat the shit out of people due to road rage... they're likely to get weeded out early on.

Consequences breed a better society.

I am a CCW holder in Florida. I don't carry all the time, but I cherish the fact that I can.

And the bad guys... out there in the wide world... they know I can.

Maybe there's one chance in a thousand that gun will come in handy. Maybe there's one chance in a thousand I can draw it out and make use of it in time.

I'll take those odds. After all, I bet on the lottery, and I don't stand under trees when it rains.

--Anthony

"Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn't." - Ben Franklin

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 18, 2003 7:41 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, September 18, 2003 10:14 PM

DRAKON

Not only that, but didn't Florida have a rash of attacks on tourists, because the criminals knew the tourists did not carry? Why go against a local when they might be armed, one could get hurt doing that?

I like the way Florida dealt with the situation, start issuing temporary permits to tourists.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 4, 2003 8:53 PM

Great thread folks just read the whole thing. Way better than most political sites I visit. It seems interesting that almost everyone who posted here is pro-gun to a greater or lesser extent wich suggests to me that authoritarian leftists don't like Firefly and are thus under represented here,this of cource is fine by me.

Special thanks to Caesari for the history lesson
it's not the type of thing you get to here too often these days. Sadly enough history in this country when it's taught at all is usually sort of an elaboration on Michael Moore's cartoon. In fact if you were a history professor at many schools today and said what you said you'd probably be run off campus on a rail.

And thanks Hardware for the great links printed out a copy of The Bill of Rights and I recommend anyone a little fuzzy on what Amendment is wich do the same.

As for you Succatash or anyone who even for a second thinks Michael Moore is anything other than a propaganda artist of the worst sort I'm going to share some facts about the lies in Bowling for Columbine.

First off the first time you see Charleton Heston speak he uses not one not two but seven edits to make him sound like he said someting wich he never said. This is not how an honest man operates but thats Micheal Moore.

Second when Micheal Moore goes to the "missle factory" in Littleton and talks about trucks driving through town in the middle of the night with "pentagon payloads" he lies twice. First off that Lockheed Martin plant isn't a missle factory it's a plant that makes rockets for launching satellites. And when he talks about them being driven through town with "pentagon payloads" this is also a lie since they have no payloads when they leave the plant pentagon or otherwise.

Third the whole Klan and the N.R.A. thing about how they have always secretly worked together is a load of bull. First off the N.R.A. was founded by Union soldiers. The eighth president of the N.R.A. was Ulysess S. Grant. Back before being president of the N.R.A. he was president of the United States. As the U.S. president he signed into law The Federal Ku Klux Klan Act and Enforcement Act. This empowered the president to use troops to suppress the Klan. His leadership led to over 5000 arrests.

And finally during the civil rights era the N.R.A. had all black southern chapters.

You know I used to be a big fan of Michael Moore
until I saw Bowling for Columbine and what I saw didn't jibe with my understanding of reality I started asking questions and found out he's a total goreram liar. And if he full of it in this movie he's full of it in his other stuff too wich means I wasted a lot of money over the years on his BS nearly two hundred dollars by my reconing. Wich is why he's not a very popular person with me.

Anyway if anyones interested in finding out more about whats wrong with Mr.Moore's "documentary" check out Truth about Bowling for Columbine
I'd post a link but I'm not good with high tech gizmos just drop it in a search engine and you'll get there.

Also of interest www.moorelies.com

Also you might be interested in checking out Michael Moore Hates America

Michael Moore Hates America is a documentary that is currently being made that largely focuses on the fat man himself and the quest to sit down with Mr.Moore to convince him to return the Oscar for Best Documentary since bowling isn't a documentary at all.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 4, 2003 8:53 PM

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 4, 2003 8:54 PM

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 4, 2003 9:09 PM