She basically ambushed him when he came on her show to talk about his newest movie "The Love Letter".

Use the URL below.

http://www.tcsn.net/doncicci/selleck.htm

Classic emotion & half-truths (anti-gun) vs. fact (pro-gun).

-- Dr. No (no@no.no), January 18, 2000

Answers

My stomach couldn't take it this early in the morning, Doc, but thanks anyway...

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), January 18, 2000.

Yeah and he turned around and let her have one (wholly justified) right between the eyes. Too many people think that, just because he turned down Indiana Jones, he's stupid. He AIN'T.

C

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), January 18, 2000.

At one point Rosie O'Donnell(sp) stated that the purpose of the second amendment was for the colonists to have MUSKETS in 1800 when the British were coming and NOT for us to have rapid firing assault weapons in 2000.

I am astonished at the AMZING level of ignoirance that she displays. It is truly breathtaking.

Number one: She bases her arguement on the level of technological difference between then and now, when that is not the issue at all. The issue was the level of technology of the fromer day citizens as opposed to their government and our present day level of technology as opposed to OUR government.

The British had muskets, the colonists had muskets. Wehave assault weapons our government has WILDLY more technologically advanced weapons.

The colonists were in a dead heat with the British. We are at a distinct disadvantage.

Second: O'Donell does not understand that the second amendment was not inserted to protect the rights of hunters. It was put in to recognize that citizens have a right to take up arms against their own government when it becaome tyrannical. They must have the capability to stop the tyranny by force of arms if necessary.

Third: It is clear that O'Doneel has a typical liberal view of government; that government is basically good and does good things for people. This is false. While for the most part, well meaning, government is always an evil. It will always tend to usurp more and more power. And every time it takes upon another power it reduces personal liberty. It does not do this wholesale, or sub-moronic liberals would also se it. It does it by stealthy encraohments that are hardly seen at all and always with wonderful well-meaning excuses. "For the children". "For the homeless". "For the poor". All along it is NOT the functiuonof civil governemtn to address these things.

The sole end of ANY legitimate government is for the protection and safety of the liberties of the citizens.

It is NEVER the end of any legitimate governmentot see that there is full employment, of that citizens are fed or that any particular interest group has their demands met.

It is NOT the legitimate business of government. because every time they meet the 'need' of one particular group they AUTOMATICALLY infringe upon the liberty of another.

Well meaning or not, when the Federal government undertakes to 'feed' certain people, they MUST ***TAKE*** that money from another citizen. That is stealing. The government has NO resources of its own. Its resources are taken from the people. Itis wholly inapropriate for any number of people to think it is a good idea to feed hungry peopleby passing a law taking money away from one man who has earned it and givingg it to another man who has not.

This is not to be un-compassionate. It is to recognize that charity is to come from society freely and not legislated and enforced at the point of a gun.

The more that a government legislates social action the more that freely undertaken social actions disappear. If one were to argue that if the government did not undertake it then we would fall apart.....then I say that we were morally bankrupt and DESERVE to fall apart.

Every single government action that is not expressly in line with delegated constitutional authority usurps personal liberty.

And THAT was the whole reason behind the second amendement. It recognized that the government is a machine that WILL incontrovertibly usurp all personal liberty. It is only a matter of time.

And that is exactly why we must never have our rights to firearm ownership challenged.

Paul Milne

-- Paul Milne (feinfo@halifax.com), January 18, 2000.

DUMB IS DUMB Almost no one speaking against 2nd Amendment wants to understand it just interpert it to their own use. The Founding Fathers put it there for a reason.

http://www.guntruths.com/Myths/ truth_about_myths.htm

enough said

-- AW Dragon (awdragon@yahoo.com), January 18, 2000.