UnderGround Forums
 

Weapons UnderGround >> Michael Moore's bodyguard arrested


1/20/05 10:44 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 20-Jan-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 903
 
for carrying a gun...
1/21/05 8:46 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Crafty Dog
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 21-Jan-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 50
That is fornicating hysterical!!! ROTFLMAO!!!
1/21/05 8:49 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
rayfloro
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 21-Jan-05
Member Since: 11/25/2002
Posts: 940
Maybe he'll make a movie about it ;-)
1/21/05 9:32 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
paw
1458 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 21-Jan-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6762
Moore is a member of the NRA, I'm not sure why anyone would find this funny or hysterical. To the best of my knowledge, Moore does not believe no one should be allowed to own or carry a firearm.
1/21/05 10:30 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 21-Jan-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 911
Paw, you don't have to believe that he's for snatching up allt he guns to find this funny. He agitates for ADDITIONAL gun laws when his bodyguard--who carries a gun as part of his JOB--can't even comply with existing gun laws! There was a story about some NeoNazi dude named Chester Doles who was arrested for a weapon being in his home since he's an ex-felon. The gun actually belonged to HIS WIFE (who has no criminal record). Doles eventually took a plea to spare his family the stress of a trial. Somehow I think Moore's bodyguard will likely get off easier--a LOT easier.
1/21/05 3:18 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
paw
1458 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 21-Jan-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6779
Paw, you don't have to believe that he's for snatching up allt he guns to find this funny. He agitates for ADDITIONAL gun laws when his bodyguard--who carries a gun as part of his JOB--can't even comply with existing gun laws! What additional gun laws does he advocate?
1/21/05 4:07 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 22-Jan-05 09:49 AM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 914
What additional gun laws does he advocate?
All the ones advocated by The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence. Right here he mentions donating money to the The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence--an inherent endorsement of every gun law they push for. Suffice to say, the Bradys aren't satisfied with the state of gun control laws in this country. On that much, I agree with them. :) I'm curious. What did you THINK Moore's position on gun laws was? Did you think he wanted (1) more gun laws, (2) fewer gun laws, or (3) the status quo? At the end of the day, everyone's opinion falls into one of those three categories.
1/21/05 10:18 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Dark Knight
412 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 21-Jan-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 3314
Everyone here seems to forget the important thing about gun laws and laws in general. They do not apply to the elite. Rosies body guard should be allowed to carry a gun in schools to protect her adopted children, Mikeys body guard should be allowed to go anywhere. But you little people need them to protect you from yourself.
1/22/05 7:52 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
paw
1458 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 22-Jan-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6780
What did you THINK Moore's position on gun laws was? Did you think he wanted (1) more gun laws, (2) fewer gun laws, or (3) the status quo? At the end of the day, everyone's opinion falls into one of those three categories. My impression of Moore isn't that he wanted more or fewer gun laws so much as he was pointing out things that "don't make sense" (a bank handing out firearms to people who are in the bank, the NRA having a convention in a town that a week before was rocked by gun violence, etc....) Right here he mentions donating money to the The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence--an inherent endorsement of every gun law they push for. That's not what I interpreted the link to say. To me it looks like Moore is saying, "you think my scene is staged? Ok, fuck you. I'll have the gun melted down and sold and give the money to the Brady Campaign just to piss you off." You'll notice that it's been some time since he wrote that, and no indication that he did it. Here's what bothers me with the pro/anti gun labels, and this is an off topic rant. If I, as a gun owner and hunter suggest, you know, maybe it isn't a bad idea that people have to get a class three license to own a fully automatic M16A1, or, I do know people who shouldn't own firearms because they are not responsible with them --- someone immediately will say I'm anti-gun, which in my mind, is bullshit.
1/22/05 10:13 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 22-Jan-05 04:51 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 916
My impression of Moore isn't that he wanted more or fewer gun laws
So he has no opinion on the topic? He's a total agnostic who's indifferent to what gun laws we have? Are you willing to endorse the following thesis: "I, paw, submit that Michael Moore has no opinion on whether our country should have more gun laws, have fewer gun laws, or maintain the status quo on gun laws." ? Whether he donated to the Bradys' org to piss people off or whatever, he's financially supporting them and they push for more gun laws. My initial thesis remains: he pushes for additional gun laws while his employees can't even comply with existing ones when on the job for him. Of course, I'd be entirely unsurprised if it turns out that he's never gone on the record and said, "I support gun laws that do X, Y, and z." Lefties RARELY talk like this because they hate having to affirmatively defend any sort of coherently and directly stated policy position--because it forces them to lay out self-consistent arguments. Having to do that exposes their worldviews for the intellectually-shoddy emotional mush that they are. By the way, I wouldn't characterize your positions as "anti-gun," as I'm sure you're not against the existence of guns and wouldn't have any quarrell with guns being owned/used by GOVERNMENTS. I would however, characterize your position just as I did above: you want more gun laws.
1/23/05 7:48 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Skpotamus
38 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-Jan-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 586
Geez, his whole movie Bowling for Columbine was intended to inflame the neutrals and make them form anti gun ideas, while pissing off the pro gun crowd and making him $$$. The anti gun crowds at colleges around the country use his movie to help sway the uninformed masses to the anti gun side. The fact that he calls that trash a "documentary" makes the uneducated think that it's 100% true. He can say he's pro gun and a member of the NRA all he wants, the fact that he goes well out of his way to attack gun owners rights shows his true colors.
1/23/05 8:34 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
paw
1458 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-Jan-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6784
So he has no opinion on the topic? He's a total agnostic who's indifferent to what gun laws we have? I said that Moore, to the best of my knowledge isn't about the gross number of gun laws so much as he is for laws and behavior that are, in his opinion, rational. If you think that few gun laws = better for gun owners, you are mistaken. We can have one national law, "no one is allowed to own a firearm". Clearly, that would not be better for gun owners (btw, that was an example, not a position I hold). It is the content of gun laws that should be the issue, not the number. Whether he donated to the Bradys' org to piss people off or whatever, he's financially supporting them and they push for more gun laws. If he didn't donate money to the Brady organization, he didn't financially support them. There has to be $$$$ from Moore going to the Brady organization, and it's not clear from the quote that he did that. Nor to my knowledge, has there been any evidence that he did melt down the firearm received and ebay it. Lefties RARELY talk like this because they hate having to affirmatively defend any sort of coherently and directly stated policy position--because it forces them to lay out self-consistent arguments. Having to do that exposes their worldviews for the intellectually-shoddy emotional mush that they are. LOL @ Moore being a lefty. It's clear that Moore does not agree with many of the policies that the current administration supports, but if you read any of Moore's books, it's also clear that he takes the demoncrats and "lefties" (lol) to task just as often, if not moreso. By the way, I wouldn't characterize your positions as "anti-gun," as I'm sure you're not against the existence of guns and wouldn't have any quarrell with guns being owned/used by GOVERNMENTS. I would however, characterize your position just as I did above: you want more gun laws. Yet something else you're wrong about. I want meaningful laws, I don't particularly define my positions as more laws than currently exist or less laws than currently exist. I was against the so called "assault weapon" ban, which by your myopic reasoning makes me for less gun laws. But as I gave as example before, we, as a nation, could have ONE gun law ---- no private citizen may own or possess a firearm ---- and that clearly wouldn't be beneficial to gun owners (nor would it be a law I would support), yet it would be ONE law (clearly LESS than what we have now) and therefore good in to your way of thinking. And I remind you, as I stated earlier, I am a gun owner. Geez, his whole movie Bowling for Columbine was intended to inflame the neutrals and make them form anti gun ideas, while pissing off the pro gun crowd and making him $$$. We clearly had a different interpretation of the movie. Moore suggested that there were cultural factors within the US that result in the number of firearm violence, not that guns in and of themselves were the cause (remember the segments in Canada? the statistics from Switzerland?) He can say he's pro gun and a member of the NRA all he wants, the fact that he goes well out of his way to attack gun owners rights shows his true colors. Gun owner rights are dependent on gun owners acting responsibly. Holding gun owners accountable does not attack gun ownership in the same way that requiring a motorist to be sober when operating a motor vehicle infringes on automobile ownership. Honestly, both of you guys seem to be responding emotionally. Which is good, because you're clearly passionate about this, but I really feel like you're reading/hearing what you want, and ignoring what I'm saying/typing.
1/24/05 11:58 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Jan-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 921
"I said that Moore, to the best of my knowledge isn't about the gross number of gun laws so much as he is for laws and behavior that are, in his opinion, rational." Again, you're dodging the question in vagueries: What does "(he) is not 'about' (gun laws)" mean? Nothing at all, honestly. No one believes he's an agnostic on government policies relating to firearms. One way or another, he has an opinion on it. What do you think it is? And I'm going to stick ym head out of out monitor and scream in your ear at the top of my lungs if you make some other vague evasion of the issue. Whether or not consider Bowling for Columbine as a pro-gun control movie or as one that addressed gun control AT ALL either way, the fact is that Michael Moore, as a citizen, as a voter, and as a person interested in politics HAS AN OPINION ON THE STATE OF GUN POLICY! "But as I gave as example before, we, as a nation, could have ONE gun law ---- no private citizen may own or possess a firearm ---- and that clearly wouldn't be beneficial to gun owners (nor would it be a law I would support), yet it would be ONE law (clearly LESS than what we have now) and therefore good in to your way of thinking." Yes, you're very clever tripping me up over the semantics of "more" or "fewer" gun laws; pat yourself on the back, but it still doesn't settle the matter of what Michael Moore's public policy views are. "LOL @ Moore being a lefty. It's clear that Moore does not agree with many of the policies that the current administration supports, but if you read any of Moore's books, it's also clear that he takes the demoncrats and 'lefties' (lol) to task just as often, if not moreso." Well, I don't consider disagreement with the current administration as necessarily being "left." I see the evidence of his leftism in his words and actions. He's been on the record favoring 70% tax rate--you might agree with that policy and consider it a good policy, but good or bad it IS a left-wing policy. I've read parts of Stupid White Men, and the very thesis behind it about white men being the source of the world's problems is a, right or wrong a LEFTWING thesis. And when he attacks the Left it's done in a "loyal opposition" manner: attacking their committment to leftism, their resolve, etc. Here's a direct quote from the above-mentioned book:
"So is there a difference between Democrats and Republicans? Sure. The Democrats say one thing ("Save the planet!") and then do another quietly holding hands behind the scenes with the bastards who make this world a dirtier, meaner place. The Republicans just come right out and give the bastards a corner office in the West Wing. That’s the difference." (p.216)
See, his quarrel, is with elft-wigners who aren't principled enough, who aren't leftist enough: he doesn't have a PHILOSOPHICAL problem with leftism as an IDEA. Please don't try the tired game of attempting to rhetorically shift the political spectrum: "Moore isn't a leftist, the NYT isn't leftist, you're just an extremist nut since you see them that way." Of course, the left hates labels just as much as they hate direct, concrete statements of policy opinion. They hate AYNTHING that lends clarity to a discussion of them and their ideas. ***************** Paw, we're starting to tread off the beaten path. Getting back to your original question ("What gun laws does Moore advocate?"): here's another answer/example, Here's the PROOF. My original thesis thusly remains intact. He advocates greater restrictions upon gun rights than now exist and as such is a legitimate target of ridicule for hypocritically not seeing that his employees comply with EXISTING laws. Please don't accuse me of being emotional, it's arrogant, it's condescending, and its a transparent attempt to spin of greater level of intellectual merit for your positions.
1/24/05 12:46 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
paw
1458 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Jan-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6796
And I'm going to stick ym head out of out monitor and scream in your ear at the top of my lungs if you make some other vague evasion of the issue. Good luck with that. Let me know how it turns out. To the best of my knowledge, Moore has not advocated for gun laws one way or another. If you are asking me to speculate, I would guess that Moore believes that some gun laws should be strengthen (closing the gun show loop hole) for example, but that's just my wild-ass-guess and I could very well be wrong. In any case, if you now believe that makes Moore anti-gun, that seems pretty extreme to me. And when he attacks the Left it's done in a "loyal opposition" manner: attacking their committment to leftism, their resolve, etc. Here's a direct quote from the above-mentioned book: I think that if you read Moore's other books you would find that he's much more balanced in his attacks that you believe. Of course, the left hates labels just as much as they hate direct, concrete statements of policy opinion. They hate AYNTHING that lends clarity to a discussion of them and their ideas. Riiiight. Unlike the labeling and belief stereotyping you've done in this thread. If that's the same link you posted before (because currently, it has a letter to Dick Cheney's daughter), my answer remains the same. I believe Moore joked about his actions, and I've not seen any evidence to the contrary....nor have you supplied any evidence to the contrary. As I said before, I'm not aware that Moore has or has not advocated for any gun law change. Please don't accuse me of being emotional, it's arrogant, it's condescending, and its a transparent attempt to spin of greater level of intellectual merit for your positions. I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm not spinning anything. I gave you my opinion and answered your questions as best I am able.
1/24/05 1:56 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
WinkyTickleBear
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Jan-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 383
"My impression of Moore isn't that he wanted more or fewer gun laws so much as he was pointing out things that "don't make sense" (a bank handing out firearms to people who are in the bank, the NRA having a convention in a town that a week before was rocked by gun violence, etc....)" Except, of course, both of those things made perfect sense.
1/24/05 2:37 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Jan-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 923
Paw, click again on the latest hyperlink I gave you, scroll down far enough till you get to the parts that google highlighted and then you'll see him admonishing his readers to save the assault weapons ban. More later.
1/24/05 2:44 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
paw
1458 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Jan-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6802
Paw, click again on the latest hyperlink I gave you, scroll down far enough till you get to the parts that google highlighted and then you'll see him admonishing his readers to save the assault weapons ban. Ok, Moore was for the assault weapon ban. I'd be inclined to say he didn't understand that the ban was silly and pointless, but he's a pretty bright guy...so I don't know why he (or anyone else for that matter) would support it.
1/24/05 10:41 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Jan-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 925
Paw, I want to apologize if I made this at all acrimonious for you. I don't want this discussion to be a flame war. Honestly, from what I've read of what he says, I think Michael Moore wants our gun policy to more greatly resemble that of Australia or the UK. Of course, he isn't likely to come right out and say it in so many words.
1/25/05 11:53 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Skpotamus
38 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 25-Jan-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 588
paw, if moore wanted to make a movie that was intended to push gun RESPONSIBILITY in owners, maybe he should have shown some RESPONSIBLE owners instead of going out of his way to find the irresponsible ones, and doctoring examples to make all gun owners look bad? If you go to his website, a lot of the blanks you seem to have will be filled in. "I also realize that you just don't go after the NRA and its supporters and then not expect them to come back at you with both barrels (so to speak). These are not nice people and they don't play nice – that's how they got to be so powerful. " That doesn't sound like a supporter and member of the NRA to me... he then attacks CNN, and MSNBC for having people on their shows that attacked Bowling for Columbine for fallacies. When someone goes after the liberal left wing press for being too conservative, you can kind of see what side of the fence they are on. Farenheit 9/11 was IMMEDIATELY followed by a movie called FarenHYPE 9/11 that showed all of the fallacies, twisted interviews and half truths in the movie. Moore uses his writing and movies to push his own personal political agenda, attack his opponents views and make him money. The fact that he attacks any and every organization involved with gun owners rights should tell you something. Check his website, if you can stand all the leftist drivel, and see what he writes about firearms, the tone he uses, the wording he places ine very article on firearms he writes.
2/2/05 1:59 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 02-Feb-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 952
paw, just wondering, In light of his views on the assault weapon ban, do you concede the central point of this thread: i.e., that Moore is a hypocrite?
2/3/05 12:24 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
paw
1458 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 03-Feb-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6964
paw, if moore wanted to make a movie that was intended to push gun RESPONSIBILITY in owners, maybe he should have shown some RESPONSIBLE owners instead of going out of his way to find the irresponsible ones, and doctoring examples to make all gun owners look bad? Respectfully, you'd would have to show that Moore went "out of his way" to only portray irresponsible gun owners and that he doctored his examples. "I also realize that you just don't go after the NRA and its supporters and then not expect them to come back at you with both barrels (so to speak). These are not nice people and they don't play nice – that's how they got to be so powerful. " That doesn't sound like a supporter and member of the NRA to me... Why not? The NRA is a very powerful lobby and they have been known to play hardball. That's a fact. Moore knew he was going against the "official" party line and would be taken to task for it. Same thing happens in politics all the time, I don't think it's that big a deal. Moore uses his writing and movies to push his own personal political agenda, attack his opponents views and make him money. The fact that he attacks any and every organization involved with gun owners rights should tell you something. Well of course Moore pushing his agend, just as the NRA pushes it's agenda. Everyone has an agenda to push, even you and I with our posts. As far as Moore attacking all organizations, I think you're stretching things. Moore's point in the movie, given the recently gun violence within a specific city that polarized the community, having an "in your face" NRA rally shorty thereafter, doesn't help anyone. It just further polarizes the community. In light of his views on the assault weapon ban, do you concede the central point of this thread: i.e., that Moore is a hypocrite? What do you mean? I don't find it hypocritical that someone is an NRA member and gun owner has an armed bodyguard. Even if that person was pro assault weapon ban, at least in respect to gun control. So, depending on Moore's views in total, he might be...at least, by my way of thinking. I would find it hypocritical if someone had an armed bodyguard, but was pro assault weapon ban and pro gun control (a la Rosie O'Donnell).
2/3/05 11:27 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 03-Feb-05 11:28 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 964
Paw, do you believe Moore's support for the AWB is an isolated anomaly in his ideology and not an example of an overall ideology that favors more restrictions upon private gun owernership? Read his site. Even though he very rarely says anything plain and direct like "I support a gun policy with restrictions of X, Y, and Z," I think you'd be very hard pressed to read what he says and not come away with the conclusion that he wants to support efforts to further restrict private gun ownership. The AWB and Brady Caimpaign examples weren't isolated. I didn't have to spend more than minute or two Googling to find them. I coudl find many, many more such examples if I felt like it.
2/8/05 1:39 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
paw
1458 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 08-Feb-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 7018
Paw, do you believe Moore's support for the AWB is an isolated anomaly in his ideology and not an example of an overall ideology that favors more restrictions upon private gun owernership? I don't know....nor, frankly do I care. For the sake of the thread though, I still do not find such an individual hypocritical, at least not necessarily. Personally, I don't believe anyone should be allowed to own a firearm: minors, convicted felons and people who are mentally "unwell" for example, are groups that I have no problem excluding (sidebar: does this make me a "bad" gun owner?)....if someone, say Mike Moore...believes that the Brady Bill will prevent legal firearm ownership by those groups (convicted felons, minors, etc...), I would say he's misguided or mistaken about the impact of the Brady Bill....but I wouldn't necessarily say he's hypocritical. I would say Moore is hypocritical if he believes that a responsible, law-abiding citizen is not allowed to own a firearm, but he, because of his celebrity is entitled to own one (or employee someone who is authorized to carry a firearm).
2/23/05 2:10 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Buddhadev
21 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 23-Feb-05 02:12 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 1018
* "I don't know....nor, frankly do I care." Well, I guess I can't make you care, but given that you expressed great interest in his Bowling for Columbine movie, it's kind of shocking that his ultimate goal RE: gun policy wouldn't be of interest to you. Do you still find it laughable to describe him as a leftist as you did earlier in this thread? Ref: your quote of "LOL @ Moore being a lefty." The fact is that that's the right label for him: if I felt like it, I oculd dig up tons of quotes showing where he stands on gun rights, taxes, race issues, etc., etc. The certitude implied by your dismissive laughing is particularly shocking given your "don't know/don't care" stance on Moore's opinion of gun rights policy. How many other issues do you take a "don't know/don't care" stance towards Moore's opinions of? If there are more such issues, you shouldn't be comfortable dismissing any ideological label I might apply to Moore. Addressing some misc. issues from your posts: - I disagree with you on gun ownership by minors. Kids in this country have owned and used guns for longer than we've even had a country here. It's never been a problem before, and actually still isn't: that is, when you actually look at current rates of youth firearms crimes as opposed to getting swept away by the emotions surrounding events like Columbine and Paduka. - There's nothing wrong with the NRA having an event in CO so close to the time of the shootings. This is true on two levels: (1) I'm sure they've held events in areas that have had more overall levels of gun homicides over similar time periods. There's no reason to feed the media orgy that tried (and failed) to create an aura of singularity and exceptionalism around Columbine. By your logic, it would be "insensitive" for them to have an event in in or near Detroit EVER. (2) If they cancelled the event, they'd be giving moral legitimacy to gun-grabber activists for no reason. Why do that? Gun owners and gun advocates have no reason at all to feel collective guilt over Columbine. - Finally, the hypocrisy issue doesn't rest on Moore's employee simply usign a gun in his job, but rather BREAKING A GUN LAW--which is an aspect of the case that you mysteriously left out in your last post.
2/24/05 8:59 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Dark Knight
412 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 24-Feb-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 3524
After the elections Moore had put on his site that the Democrats ran the #1 liberal and he almost won, he then states that the country is leaning left and we should keep going that way. He is a leftist and a strong one.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.