# Guns are good for me, bad for you.



## MisterMike (Jan 20, 2005)

Says Michael Moore (oh and Rosie O'D.)

'Bodyguard Bust' Proves Michael Moore Is Less Than Honest about Gun Laws, Says Second Amendment Foundation



> BELLEVUE, Wash., Jan. 20 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The arrest of a man identified by Fox News as a bodyguard for anti-gun film director Michael Moore by New York Port Authority Police Wednesday evening proves that Moore is an elitist who thinks it is fine for him to have armed security, while he has endeavored to disarm other law- abiding Americans, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) said today.
> 
> 
> Adding to the irony, said SAF Founder Alan M. Gottlieb, is the fact that bodyguard Patrick Burke was arrested for violating the kind of Draconian gun law that Moore and his extremist gun control contemporaries would support. Burke was reportedly arrested at JFK International Airport when he declared his firearm at the ticket counter, as required by law when traveling.
> ...


----------



## AC_Pilot (Jan 20, 2005)

The same thing has happened to other ardent anti-gunners, exposed as hypocrites:

Rosie O'Donnel (armed bodyguards)

Senator Diane Fienstein (concealed weapons permit and owns handguns)

Carl Rowe, columnist who wrote many anti-gun ownership articles in the 1980s and used a handgun in WA DC to scare away a home intruder.. (illegal ownership of handgun)

And a bunch of other hypocrites. here's the scoop.. they all think of themselves as our "elite ruling class" and as such, they are *more equal* than us mere citizens. It's always been this way, some people want absolute power and they think *they* are better suited to rule us.. we have to recognize these people and strip them of that power, or *we* lose our liberties!


----------



## modarnis (Jan 20, 2005)

Add Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry to this list of anti-gun elite who have armed guards or use guns for their own purposes (John Kerry hunting geese with one of the semi auto shotguns  he proposed to ban).  I'm sure there are many who post here who will cite valid excuses for these hypocrites.  In another thread the Bush inauguration was compared to Hitler's rise to power.  That power was facilitated through disarming free people.  (See multiple legislative proposals from Schumer, Feinstein, Kennedy, Kerry, and Pelosi)


----------



## Zepp (Jan 20, 2005)

It seems that none of the posters on this thread, or the author of the article have actually seen _Bowling for Columbine_, or they might have some vague idea as to what Michael Moore's beliefs about guns really are.  He does explain in the film that he is (or at least, was at the time) a card-carrying member of the NRA.  I can't ever remember when I've heard or seen him advocate "disarming people."

Would actually renting and watching the movie be such a painful experience?  You just might find out what it's really about.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 20, 2005)

Documentary???

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html


----------



## Zepp (Jan 20, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Documentary???
> 
> http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html



Seen it before.  I think it's Mr. Hardy who doesn't understand what a documentary is.  I didn't know it was a secret that documentary filmmakers put their own spin on their work.  Besides, Mr. Hardy proves my earlier point.



> 10. Guns (supposedly the point of the film). A point worth making (although not strictly on theme here): Bowling's theme is, rather curiously, not opposed to firearms ownership.



The movie is about American culture and the part guns play.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 20, 2005)

Piecing together unrelated clips and presenting them as a historic moment is a little beyond the bounds of "spin" IMHO.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 20, 2005)

modarnis said:
			
		

> John Kerry hunting geese with one of the semi auto shotguns  he proposed to ban


 Was Kerry hunting geese with a semi-auto shotgun that held more than five rounds?  I couldn't tell from the photographs.


----------



## AC_Pilot (Jan 20, 2005)

There are quite a few NRA members who are not pro second amendment. They belong as *"sportsmen"* which has no relevance to the 2nds intent to keep an armed citizenry, armed and trained with current military weaponry in order to keep the peace and keep our freedoms and defend us from foreign invasion.


There are quite a few Americans out here who do not belong to the NRA (like me, former member) who feel the NRA is *not sufficiently pro second amendment. *Don't judge public sentiment by membership in a mostly sporting arms group, the NRA, which has actually written many gun control laws for the government, such as the *1934 National firearms Act. *The NRA has taken some positive steps lately but they have a long way to go to get me back.. they need to totally support the *original civilian militia intent*.

Mikey is not pro second amendment.. he is a socialist who simply wants his guy (Kerry) in office, which would have been an even worse choice than George B. Mikey might let you keep your duck gun, which has nothing to do with the second amendment.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 20, 2005)

> Mikey might let you keep your duck gun, which has nothing to do with the second amendment.



Neither does anything you are talking about.


----------



## modarnis (Jan 20, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Was Kerry hunting geese with a semi-auto shotgun that held more than five rounds?  I couldn't tell from the photographs.



I suppose that would depend on whether they were 2 3/4" or 3" shells.  Of course if you read Senate Bill 1431 as proposed: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.1431: ,  fixed magazine capacity is only one criteria.  The pistol grip that the browning he is holding  fits the ban, as does the catch all:

"A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event."

since virtually every semi auto shotgun design was originally developed for military use.


----------



## modarnis (Jan 20, 2005)

Zepp said:
			
		

> It seems that none of the posters on this thread, or the author of the article have actually seen _Bowling for Columbine_, or they might have some vague idea as to what Michael Moore's beliefs about guns really are.  He does explain in the film that he is (or at least, was at the time) a card-carrying member of the NRA.  I can't ever remember when I've heard or seen him advocate "disarming people."
> 
> Would actually renting and watching the movie be such a painful experience?  You just might find out what it's really about.



I have watched both of Moore's movies.  I viewed them with as open a mind as humanly possible.  If he doesn't have a strong anti gun agenda, I don't know who does.

 I have also read most of the contemporary works on the gun control issue from both sides of the aisle.  I make my living prosecuting violent criminals, who despite a mountain of ineffective gun laws, still seem to get guns, or just beat, stab, slash, injure and kill one another with phones, bottles, knives, bricks, or any variety of items when weilded in an agressive manner become a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 20, 2005)

modarnis said:
			
		

> I have watched both of Moore's movies. I viewed them with as open a mind as humanly possible. If he doesn't have a strong anti gun agenda, I don't know who does.
> 
> I have also read most of the contemporary works on the gun control issue from both sides of the aisle. I make my living prosecuting violent criminals, who despite a mountain of ineffective gun laws, still seem to get guns, or just beat, stab, slash, injure and kill one another with phones, bottles, knives, bricks, or any variety of items when weilded in an agressive manner become a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.


I agree 100%. However Im waiting for the bandwagon of people who are going to "prove" that your "experience" dont really mean ****. :shrug:


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 20, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I agree 100%. However Im waiting for the bandwagon of people who are going to "prove" that your "experience" dont really mean ****. :shrug:



Well, as a wannabe scientist myself, I tend to take anecdotal "evidence" with a grain of salt. No falsifiability there.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 20, 2005)

Theres a lot of wannabe's of various types around the internet....


----------



## Baytor (Jan 20, 2005)

I'll tell you why guns need to be banned.  Satanic possesion.  It's true.  You see, back during the Crusades, there was a monestary in England that made Holy blades for the knights.  But one monk's heart was swayed to evil and he corrupted the mine they got the metal from by invoking a satanic ritual, causing all the metal to have an aura of evil about it.  Not long after that, the monestary closed down, and the area became known for wicked things.  Time passed, and cannons and guns were invented in that very place.  The metal used to make those guns was the samed cursed metal, and all who used the cursed cannons felt compelled to kill their fellow man, for they were possesed by evil.  So it has been for hundreds of years.  Evil monks cursing mines so that the evil guns continue to posses their owners and cause misery upon this world.  Only by smelting all the guns of the world down and turning them into vats holding holy water will the curse be lifted. 


I know, I have no point here...


----------



## Ceicei (Jan 20, 2005)

Baytor said:
			
		

> I know, I have no point here...


 :rofl:  Yeah, and that's why firearms are "evil".  :rofl:

 - Ceicei


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 20, 2005)

Zepp said:
			
		

> It seems that none of the posters on this thread, or the author of the article have actually seen _Bowling for Columbine_, or they might have some vague idea as to what Michael Moore's beliefs about guns really are. He does explain in the film that he is (or at least, was at the time) a card-carrying member of the NRA. I can't ever remember when I've heard or seen him advocate "disarming people."
> 
> Would actually renting and watching the movie be such a painful experience? You just might find out what it's really about.


Bowling tried to capture a lot of things.  Like why were kids able to get so much ammo at KMart?  Moore is still an NRA member.  

As for saying the NRA is not going far enough - I'd have to totally disagree.

I don't find it odd that Moore has guns.  I think his documentary was about SCHOOL SHOOTINGS, our violent society, and why it might be that a KID would try to waste his school, or a portion of it.

Surprisingly, one of the most articulate of speakers in the film - Marylin Manson (sp?), who creeps me out, but was very thoughtful.

Maybe there's a problem when kids decide to shoot up their schools.  Maybe we shouldn't all think that worrying about that means that all guns will be taken away.  

And maybe Moore's critique of the NRA in the film hinged a great deal on the pro-gun "parties" the NRA held in towns directly after shootings such as Columbine.  Tacky at best.


----------



## digitalronin (Jan 20, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Surprisingly, one of the most articulate of speakers in the film - Marylin Manson (sp?), who creeps me out, but was very thoughtful.


 He's totally cool   and also Great musician.


----------



## modarnis (Jan 20, 2005)

>>>And maybe Moore's critique of the NRA in the film hinged a great deal on the pro-gun "parties" the NRA held in towns directly after shootings such as Columbine. Tacky at best.>>


Moore's version of the truth might be this.  NRA, like many organizations and corporations holds a regularly scheduled annual meeting.  Here is a local news article from 1999 without spin:

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/shooting/0422nra3.shtml


----------



## modarnis (Jan 20, 2005)

Whoops,

Forgot the link:

http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/shooting/0422nra3.shtml
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/shooting/0422nra3.shtml


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 20, 2005)

Wow ... He is a Lifetime Member of that National Rifle Association. He showed this in his movie to the *President of the NRA. *He opened a bank account, and by doing so, received a weapon and he documented the transaction *on film. *He received an Academy Award (considered the highest honor awarded to film makers) for the film that shows these facts.

*And people are surprised that he owns guns !*

I am drowning in incredulity.


good grief!


----------



## AC_Pilot (Jan 20, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> As for saying the NRA is not going far enough - I'd have to totally disagree.
> 
> I don't find it odd that Moore has guns. I think his documentary was about SCHOOL SHOOTINGS, our violent society, and why it might be that a KID would try to waste his school, or a portion of it.


two points: 1) The second amendment is there to protect our right to own military weapons. If ya don't like it, don't own weapons. It's OK with me. And if you think no one else should have a militia-self defense right, do try to amend the constitution. Don't try to re-interpret it the way you prefer.. this is a slippery slope that is destroying the entire Bill of Rights.. it's called *judicial activism*. If Supreme court judges did their job we would not even be having a gun control discussion cause there would not be any prohibitions relating to peaceable weapons owners. The pro gun groups and our votes are our only avenue to restore our *rights* and we are going to do so, eventually. We don't want crazies to have access to weapons any more than you do.. but they will get them in a free society. Our only hope is personal self defense and swift punishment.

2) The reason there are continued school shootings is that it's a posted and known Criminal Free Zone. What do I mean by this? well, not even teachers and parents of schoolchildren can be legally armed in schools,( including Columbine) and the crazies out there know this. This is why you don't see police stations, shooting ranges, and gun shows being shot up by said crazies. Basic common sense. the few school shootings that have been stopped were, you guessed , by* someone with a gun! *Read this, please:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16382 

Oh, and one more thing: it was illegal for the Columbine kids to buy ammo.. so they were breaking the law, and the clerk who sold them said ammo was, also. There was a law and they broke it. They were willing to, and did commit *murder*. If they were willing to commit *murder and suicide*, what do you think would have kept them from obtaining ammo? What purpose will further laws serve?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 20, 2005)

At the risk of mentioning reality, the Constitution says nothing about the right to have military weapons. However, if you do choose to interpret the, "right to bear arms," that way, you're pretty much stuck with the full context--which says that we have the right to bear arms as part of an organized militia.

It's common to claim judicial activism. You might try to keep it in mind that many of the Supreme Court's decisions about guns (and abortion, for that matter) have been written by very conservative judges--Earl Warren among them. Republican, in point of fact.

As a lifelong teacher, one is deeply disgusted by the notion that the way to handle the Columbines is for teachers to show up with guns. It's a grotesque violation of EVERYTHING that education is about, tempting as it is to show up for, say, Freshman Comp totin' a shootin' iron.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 20, 2005)

Related to this topic, I started a discussion on the second amendment here, so we can discuss what it REALLY means...

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21071

Paul


----------



## AC_Pilot (Jan 20, 2005)

It's sad to see a teacher of our future generations so poorly informed.. I don't mean this as an insult but you do not understand the *Colonial era*, *English common law concerning private weapons*, or *Olde English* which was inherent in the 2nd Amendment.. please take the time to read this:
http://www.gunowners.org/fs9402.htm


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 21, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> f you do choose to interpret the, "right to bear arms," that way, you're pretty much stuck with the full context--which says that we have the right to bear arms as part of an organized militia.


 Really, thats what it says huh? Probably in the Same wording that makes this say "Separation of church an state" even tho it doesnt SAY that:

   "_Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" 
_
 So, in essence when they pass laws saying that you cannot pray in school, or have religious symbols in courthouses, etc... they are effectivly violating the consitution by passing a law "_prohibiting the free exercise thereof" 
_
 Yeah, hey, lets Interpret that as "Separation of Church and State" instead of what it actually says... same as we will do with the second amendment when we say its "Only for the Militia". 

 While We are at it, lets take away that pesky freedom of speech, after all,  its in the same line of the Constitution... we need Separation of "Speech and State"... No free speaking in public schools, government buildings, or on the subject thereof, etc. 

   But hey, dont listen to me, Im only reading it as its written, not how I want to see it because of my own bias and fears.


----------



## deadhand31 (Jan 21, 2005)

Another hypocrite: Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. He surrounds himself with armed bodyguards in even the safest of neigborhoods. He has, however, brought forth some of the most restrictive gun laws in Chicago about. (Chicago also has one of the highest homicide rates in the country.) 

As for Moore being a hypocrite, wow, that's SO UNEXPECTED! 

Honestly, his documentaries are anything but. If you go by how he portrays things in Bowling for Columbine, you see that the NRA is a callous organization that holds rallies in response to kids getting shot. What he didn't tell you, those rallies where scheduled waaaay before the kids being shot, and they were ANNUAL meetings! So here you have Michael Moore berating Charleton Heston, demanding he apologize for the NRA holding rallies that they hold every year. 

Not to mention that you'd have to be a drooling idiot to think that a guy could walk into a bank, and get a gun for opening an account in the same building! Yeah, some people probably think that was a real scene, which is pretty sad. He asks the bank manager "Don't you think it's kind of dangerous to keep a gun in a bank?", and then cuts away to a montage. What he didn't tell you is that there are no working guns kept in the bank, all the guns they give away are kept in a vault 4 hours away, and noone ever gets the gun the same day.


----------



## digitalronin (Jan 21, 2005)

deadhand31 said:
			
		

> Honestly, his documentaries are anything but. If you go by how he portrays things in Bowling for Columbine, you see that the NRA is a callous organization that holds rallies in response to kids getting shot. What he didn't tell you, those rallies where scheduled waaaay before the kids being shot, and they were ANNUAL meetings! So here you have Michael Moore berating Charleton Heston, demanding he apologize for the NRA holding rallies that they hold every year.


 
 Moores NRA membership was nothing more than a cover to get up close to heston.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 21, 2005)

digitalronin said:
			
		

> Moores NRA membership was nothing more than a cover to get up close to heston.


LOL - he was an NRA member since he was a kid.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Jan 21, 2005)

modarnis said:
			
		

> I suppose that would depend on whether they were 2 3/4" or 3" shells. Of course if you read Senate Bill 1431 as proposed: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.1431: , fixed magazine capacity is only one criteria. The pistol grip that the browning he is holding fits the ban, as does the catch all


 There's also an exclusion for slide, pump, and lever-action shotguns in that bill; did the weapon he held use any of those mechanisms?


----------



## someguy (Jan 21, 2005)

Sorry but if fox news identifies the person as his body guard then it may well be a guy trying to kill him.  Fox new=more spin then a centrifuge.
I'm not saying it isn't true but anything fox news say I take skeptically.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 21, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> There's also an exclusion for slide, pump, and lever-action shotguns in that bill; did the weapon he held use any of those mechanisms?


I don't know what he was using, but as a side note, 

A semi-auto wouldnt have a Slide/pump/or lever.

It would then be a Slide/Pump/or Lever action Shotgun.


----------



## deadhand31 (Jan 21, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> LOL - he was an NRA member since he was a kid.



You might want to hear why he purchased a lifetime membership. Quoting Mikey here:

"After Columbine, I decided that I would run against Charlton Heston for the presidency of the NRA. If elected, my plan was to try to return the NRA to a gun safety organization, instead of its current agenda of gun fanaticism. The rules said that to run for president, you had to be a member for the past five years or buy a lifetime membership for $750. And that's what I did. But after a while I realized this endeavor was going to take too much time, so I decided to focus all my attention on the movie I was making."

He said it would take too much time to become NRA Prez. Umm, yeah, noone in their right mind would elect a bloated fact-bending anti-gun moron like Moore to president of the NRA. Especially since he lacks anything beyond a high school diploma!


----------



## AC_Pilot (Jan 21, 2005)

BTW, legally armed citizens are a big deterrent to crime.. in this case a serious violent crazy was stopped by an armed citizen who shot him..see this thread on a breaking story:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21084


----------



## modarnis (Jan 21, 2005)

>>BTW, legally armed citizens are a big deterrent to crime.. in this case a serious violent crazy was stopped by an armed citizen who shot him..see this thread on a breaking story:>>


And for a great analysis of this, try More Guns Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong, by John Lott, a Yale economist


----------



## AC_Pilot (Jan 22, 2005)

John Lott is a great scholar and I have most of his writings. If I remember correctly he was once *not* pro gun but his studies changed his mind.. now that's a logical, scientific mind!


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 22, 2005)

Dr. Lott did his bachelor's master's and PhD at UCLA; subsequently, he has been financed almost exclusively by right-wing think-tanks, most prominently the American Enterprise Institute and the John M. Olin Foundation. There is no sign on his website that he has EVER supported ANY gun-control legislation.

"Tell me where a man gets his corn-pone, and I'll tell you where he gets his 'pinions.'"

--Mark Twain, "Puddin'head Wilson"


----------



## deadhand31 (Jan 25, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Dr. Lott did his bachelor's master's and PhD at UCLA; subsequently, he has been financed almost exclusively by right-wing think-tanks, most prominently the American Enterprise Institute and the John M. Olin Foundation. There is no sign on his website that he has EVER supported ANY gun-control legislation.
> 
> "Tell me where a man gets his corn-pone, and I'll tell you where he gets his 'pinions.'"
> 
> --Mark Twain, "Puddin'head Wilson"




Right here is a good example of how some people argue against things that they can't provide evidence against. Attack the source to invalidate the data. Notice Robertson has not provided any evidence to the contradict Lott, nor has he pointed out any flaws in Lott's data. 

I remember Gunfree.org at one point tried to pick his book, "More Guns, Less Crime" apart. Their arguments were rather juvenile at best. They argued that his studies were wrong, because the number of guns owned didn't increase, so the title was wrong. That was the best they could do, folks.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 25, 2005)

One was responding to a claim that Dr. Lott had been more or less an anti-gun liberal, and had changed to the side of the good and the true.

What one actually finds appears to be that he has been a life-long conservative, and that virtually his entire career has been supported by one conservative and/or right-wing group.

This certainly does not invalidate his research or his ideas. It is, however, suggestive of the way that his ideas and his research need to be a little more carefully scrutinized than the posts would suggest.

Similarly, many of the NRA's studies and much of  their, "data," appears to be fairly warped by their corporate sponsors and their ideology. Again, this does not necessarily mean that they're wrong--just that reasonable scrutiny of their claims is in order. Particularly dubious are their reiterated claims of the number of attacks and murders, etc., stopped by guns every year.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 25, 2005)

The largest % of gun deaths in the US is suicide...

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html

One thinks that that number would only shift slightly if guns were outlawed, as people would just find other means.


----------

