Someone here at Bush protest?

.

 

What the piss do Canadians care what our president does?

bah... politics are frickin retarded...

Oh yeah, to stay on topic, it wasn't me

 

They don't want him in their country. Can you blame em?

I thank thats freakin' awesome

 

I dont think much of ANY countries want him in their land and for good reason, cuz they dont wanna be stuck with that guy for the next 4 years like we have to be and have to watch as he screws up this country and watch as he makes idiotic speech after speech about how bad these other countries are and how much we need to fight and blah blah blah, im just sick of his rantings.

 

hey man thats radical! bare feet not arms...hehe

 

It's kind of a stupid sign since if we were talking about arms (weapons) the term used would be "BEAR," not "bare."

All this sign is advocating is bare feet as opposed to unclothed arms.

And there is nothing wrong with peacably bearing arms, anyway. People who own guns frequently defend themselves and their families, morally and legally, from criminal predation.

To be unarmed is to be subject to the will of the strong.
Slaves are unarmed.
Free people are armed.

-Jeffrey

 

Hey bro, there's nothing really stupid about that sign at all. It's certainly not advocating "bare arms" though, as it's merely a play on words Also, as used in this Canadian anti -war protest it was specifically refering to "arms" on a global scale, as used by Bush in his war against Iraq. Say, did you happen to catch "Bowling For Columbine" which accurately showed how ridiculously easy it is for people in the U.S. to obtain guns, like at that bank? Oh and by the way... is Charleton Heston dead yet?

 

I know, it's just that I think the play on words doesn't work that well because of the difference between "bare" and "bear," that's all.

By the way, there are loads of websites that utterly shred the propaganda, inaccuracies, and outright deceptions of "Bowling for Columbine." I'm not going to list all the stuff here -- it's enough to warrant a huge thread all its own, there's so much of it.

ONE example, since you raised it: The Bank.

It was STAGED.
This is KNOWN.
Arrangements were already made between the bank and M.Moore. The bank does not stock, nor hand out, the guns that people get by opening an account.

What Moore also neglects (refuses) to inform the viewer of is the fact that there is no difference between taking possession of the gun from the bank and taking possession of a gun from a gun shop: the account owner must pass the federal background check via the FBI just like any other gun purchaser.

Obviously, you've been taken-in by Moore's cynical lies and misrepresentation of how gun purchases are done. For dramatic effect, he makes the viewer think that one can just walk into the bank and walk out with a rifle. That was for dramatic effect. In reality, you get a voucher and have to go to a GUN SHOP to get the gun. Moore is probably the only one to ever walk out of that bank with an actual rifle.

Now, since an account owner would have to open an account with at least $1000 in order to get a rifle, how dangerous would this situation be even IF the bank handed people rifles? You're talking about a person who BRINGS $1000 to the bank to get a rifle worth a few hundred dollars, tops -- and certainly less than $1000. He will not be given a rifle until and unless he passes an FBI background check. And he will not be given ammunition.

Moore's implication is that it's "dangerous" to give out rifles at the bank (which they DON'T, anyway) but if they did, it would be to people who deposited $1000 and passed a background check, and also of course provided all kinds of documentation of their identity.

Now, if this person who is so dangerous to give a rifle to simply took his $1000 minimum deposit and his ability to pass the background check to a GUN SHOP, he could get two or more rifles for his money.

By the way, your crack about Charlton Heston is pretty diseased. I hope you never have to see a loved one decline due to Alzheimer's disease or some similar dementia. To glory in that because you don't like him is pretty sick of you. You obviously know he's sick, and if you know he's sick, you know with what. If you think that's laughable or something, maybe I should say something about how that piece of shit Clinton should have died of a big fuckin' cardiac arrest, or that Janet "Baby Killer" Reno should wobble her car right off a bridge. I mean, you may be a barefooter and all, and I like ya for that, but this other shit is juvenile. I hope you learned something about M.Moore's lies, btw.

-Jeffrey

 

It's a pun; and the promotion is suggesting that people should learn to coexist rather than resort to stealing/killing.

 

I am sure anyone understands what the sign mean even though the word is different.

And its knocking Bush, not people who own guns. Its just Bush is so trigger happy and prone to use guns on anyone instead of talking so that sign makes very much sence relating to him.

 

The "bank was staged"?! It is "known"? Who says... a bunch of conservative pro-Bush websites? Why believe THEM? So the bank says that they were only giving out rifles to Michael Moore and nobody else? Hmmmmmmm.... Personally, I don't care about Charleton Heston and his Alzheimers or Reagan's for that matter, they are both dead conservatives that represent the past and outmoded thinking. I suggest you lighten up a little and listen to the 1980 song by Millions Of Dead Cops "John Wayne Was A Nazi"... you'd love it! What's that about "piece of shit" Clinton? Well, looks like we got a BIGGER piece of shit now, and if he died tomorrow for whatever reason, the world would be a much happier place My "shit " is "juvenile"? Your "shit" sounds kinda conservative and redneck to me... Yeeeee Hawww!!!
Peace brother and happy barefootin'
P.S. - If you can handle it, check out "Kissinger Is Dead" from the band Twisted Nixon, it's a classic

 

I don't think I'll be checking out your "music" any time soon. If it at all reflects the ignorant "MY bigotry is okay but YOUR alleged bigotry is not" attitude that you have, I sure as hell would not like it. See, you think it's okay to call me "redneck," which you're using of course as a pejorative term, an insult. (Forget about the fact that I am nothing like a "redneck" in any sense of the word. Shows what little you know.)

I don't give a flying fuck if you believe what I KNOW is true about Moore's bullshit bank scene.

I notice how you didn't go within a hundred miles of responding to the factual stuff I said about how the gun purchases work, or why it would not be dangerous at all to give out a rifle at the bank (disregarding the fact that they don't do it). I guess you don't have anything to offer on that account.

BTW, if my "shit sounds kinda conservative," what universal truth states that conservative is wrong and leftist is right?

-Jeffrey

 

"Happiness is a warm gun.. bang bang , shoot shoot" - The Beatles. Much peace and love to you my conservative brother

 

Because his stupidity affects them. No nation is an island anymore.

 

Have you seen the movie clown ballon. That is most certainly implied in the film. The camera even shows moore filling out the background check form and struggling to spell "caucasian."

That changes nothing. Of course he was going to call he place and make such arangements. How would you feel about a guy walking in with a camera crew and filming a movie in the middle of you business. There was nothing deceptive about that.

The whole movie was peppered with examples demonstrating legally purchaced firearms being used in dangerous ways, such as it falling into the hands of kids or stolen guns winding up on the inner-city black market so yes it would be dangerous to give away firearms at a bank.

Shut up.

 

The "arrangements" they made utterly distorted the nature of how the gun-giveaway transaction occurs with regular customers. Moore deliberately leaves his viewers the false impression that customers are handed an actual rifle in the bank. He then implies that there is such danger in that. Well, where is the danger? The person has passed the background check, has forked over at least $1000 to open an account, has provided multiple forms of identification, is on camera... and yet we're supposed to think that giving the rifle to such a person in the bank (which, of course, does not happen if you're not Michael Moore with prearrangements) is a risky, dangerous thing to do. Why? Even IF the bank gave away rifles, which they don't, if a person wanted to rob the bank, you really think he's going to go in there without a rifle, bring his own ammunition, open an account, pass the background check, get the rifle, LOAD the rifle in front of people (while they let him get it done) and then stick up the bank with the rifle?

You really are naive.

It's already illegal to provide anyone a gun if that person is prohibited from owning one, or has indicated a desire to use it in a crime. Your statement here does not make any argument about the supposed increased danger of giving a gun away at the bank (which, of course, does not happen if you're not Michael Moore with prearrangements and film editing, anyway).

Care to articulate why it's any more dangerous than the guy taking his $1000 to a gun shop?

Ah. You'd like me to shut up because you can't refute what I've said. Your only hope is for me to stop giving my side. Nice. I guess you concede defeat, then.

-Jeffrey

 

[QUOTE= "Even IF the bank gave away rifles, which they don't, if a person wanted to rob the bank, you really think he's going to go in there without a rifle, bring his own ammunition, open an account, pass the background check, get the rifle, LOAD the rifle in front of people (while they let him get it done) and then stick up the bank with the rifle?" No, actually nobody implied that at all, you just made it up as you went along

"You really are naive". Ah, don't feel bad man, he only told me I was "sick"

"Care to articulate why it's any more dangerous than the guy taking his $1000 to a gun shop?" Why no , not at all! I heard they're going to be "giving" them away at McDonald's next year, like whenever you order a "Happy Meal", yummmmmm...

"Ah. You'd like me to shut up because you can't refute what I've said. Your only hope is for me to stop giving my side. Nice. I guess you concede defeat, then." What is this... a boxing match or something? Concede defeat? Is he under some time constraints for responding back? My... we certainly are the arrogant one aren't we Jeffrey? Let's all play nice and share now and debate in an intelligent cordial manner. Let's refrain from indulging in personal name calling. Telling someone they are "naive" or "sick" doesn't win debates, it has nothing to do with the issue and is just a personal insult ... no fighting or bad posts allowed... OK friend? PEACE

 

My guns have killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's cars.

 

Yes both could be considered deadly weapons. But guns were specifically designed for killing, whereas Ted's '66 Olds was originally intened mainly for transportation purposes only... but that was before he got hold of it.

 

Fine, even if we agree that "all guns were specifically designed for killing," (which is actually not true, but it's beside the point), is all killing wrong?

The implication here is that guns are bad because they're designed for killing, but that is predicated on a premise that no killing should ever take place; that all killing is wrong.

Well, that's a fallacy.

For one thing, if all killing was wrong, and guns are just for killing, why would cops have them? Why would militaries have them? Why would we support both?

For another thing, if a woman is alone in her house, and two thugs come to her door with the intent to rob, rape, beat, and maybe kill her, it's not bad if she kills them in self defense. She may have to do so with a gun, because not every 67-year-old lady sitting alone in a house can take on two 20-something males at hand-to-hand combat.

Or should she just submit, give them what they want, and then hope they're noble enough to not kill her?

-Jeffrey