Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 10/31/2002 11:34:26 AM EST
An open letter from Michael Moore: Subject: A letter from Michael Moore Wednesday, October 25th, 2002 Yes, It Was a Bushmaster. Dear friends, Yesterday, Larry Bennett, a 16-year old, was shot in the head after he was involved in a minor traffic accident. You probably didn't hear about it because, well, how could he be dead if he wasn't shot by The Sniper? Yesterday, an unidentified woman was shot to death in her car in Fenton, MI. You probably didn't hear about it because she had the misfortune of not being shot by The Sniper. Two nights ago, Charles D. Bennett, 48, an apartment security guard, was shot to death after confronting two teenagers in his parking lot in Memphis, TN. You probably didn't hear about it because the sniper was too busy sleeping in his car that night, and thus, poor Charles was not shot by The Sniper. Yes, The Sniper has apparently been caught, so we can go back now to NOT reporting the DOZENS of gun deaths that occur every day, the ones that just aren't newsworthy because they happen in all those old boring ways --unlike the ways of The Sniper, who was interesting and creative and exciting and scary! He played so much better on the news. Of course, had Congress not caved in to the NRA we would have known after the first HOUR of the first day of the killings three weeks ago that those bullets were coming out of a rifle that belonged to John Williams/Mohammad. How would we know this? It's right there in the state records in New Jersey: this gun was purchased this past July, under the name of John Mohammad! Many more people died needlessly in the days and weeks after that first hour of the shootings, and every one of their deaths could have probably been prevented had we had a national ballistics fingerprinting data base. Thank you, Mr. Heston for this unnecessary carnage. Thank you, Mr. Bush, for supporting Mr. Heston and his group's agenda -- which protects only the criminals. And thank you, Bushmaster Firearms, Inc., for providing the gun used to shoot the 13 people in the DC area. Bushmaster's president, Richard E. Dyke, was the Maine finance chairman of George W. Bush's 2000 Presidential campaign. According to Business Week, Dyke had to step down as Bush's finance chair "after reporters began quizzing him about his business dealings. Bushmaster Firearms Inc., is notorious for using loopholes to sidestep a 1994 federal ban on assault rifles." Bush and Bushmaster. Too tragically perfect. If everyone reading this letter (and you now number in the millions) would share this fact with just one person who is thinking of skipping going to the polls on Nov. 5th, I believe that on Nov. 6th, Mr. Bush will have neither the Senate nor the House doing his or Heston's bidding. Americans don't like people who assist serial killers in being able to ratchet up their kills because The Sniper knows that his bullets are prohibited by law from being traced to his gun. That, in a nutshell, is what the NRA is all about -- and I implore all responsible gun owners and hunters to join with me in putting an end to the NRA agenda once and for all. Don't give Bush his majority on November 5th. He's already seen to it that his cronies in big business have wiped out your 401 (K), and they are doing their best to see that you are left with no pension at all. That alone should be reason enough to NOT pull a single lever for a Republican on Nov. 5th. Send a message. Do something brave. Yours, Michael Moore mike@michaelmoore.com www.michaelmoore.com
Link Posted: 10/31/2002 11:42:53 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/31/2002 11:49:12 AM EST by cluster]
[puke][puke] [puke][puke][puke][puke][puke][puke] [puke][puke][puke][puke][puke][puke] [puke][puke][puke][puke][puke][puke][puke][pu­ke][puke][puke][puke][puke][puke] [puke][puke][puke][puke][puke][puke] edited to add:
I implore all responsible gun owners and hunters to join with me in putting an end to the NRA agenda once and for all.
View Quote
Link Posted: 10/31/2002 11:48:07 AM EST
What about the many unreported deaths by misdiagnosis? or car accident? Oh, that's right....it's not salacious enough to put on the news anymore.
Link Posted: 10/31/2002 11:55:34 AM EST
I thought they couldn't find the paperwork to show that ANYBODY had purchased the sinper's weapon???? If true, then they would NEVER have known who he was...
Link Posted: 10/31/2002 11:57:10 AM EST
My email back: Mike, I can understand why an overweight man who probably never bathes would be bitter about the good things in life, like guns and women. I know if I were a middle-aged virgin I would be bitter too. Have you considered going on a diet and taking an occasional bath? You might finally get laid, and I can assure you, you will find the experience life changing. Then buy yourself a nice rifle and go shooting. You will discover inner peace, and will be cured of the desire to make movies that no one wants to see or to write books that no one wants to read. Just a thought. marvl Niwot, Colorado P.S. - Say, have you been bit yet by that new airline regulation requiring fat, ugly people to pay for two seats? Just curious.
Link Posted: 10/31/2002 12:09:28 PM EST
I wonder who he blames for those boxcutters that killed thousands. Great post Marvl.
Link Posted: 10/31/2002 12:11:35 PM EST
What cluster said. If only people would understand it's not about guns. It's about Michael Moore. If it wasn't guns, it would be something else. To put it in perspective, here is some info I pilfered from a website:
According to the National Center for Health Statistics of the U.S. Census Bureau, for people of all ages, for 1992: deaths caused by motor vehicle accidents: 40,982; accidental deaths caused by falls and fractures: 12,646; accidental deaths caused by poisoning: 7082; accidental deaths caused by drowning: 3524; accidental deaths caused by inhalation and ingestion of objects: 3128; accidental deaths caused by complications due to medical procedures: 2669; accidental deaths caused by firearms: 1409.
View Quote
Link Posted: 10/31/2002 12:15:43 PM EST
Michael Moore's photo from his latest PR package. [b]Food good..guns and soap bad.[/b] [img]http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/jabbathehutt/img/movie_bg.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 10/31/2002 12:18:07 PM EST
I just sent him this email -Hey mike in your name I will be blindly pulling every single PRO GUN candidates lever this Nov 5. Just to cancel out your vote.
Link Posted: 10/31/2002 12:29:20 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/31/2002 12:32:45 PM EST
What about all the self-defense incidents that didn't even get reported? Huh Michael? How many people are SAFE AT HOME because they flashed or brandished a gun and the punks ran away? I guess we'll never know. I do know where you're worthless fat ass was the night I had to use a 12 gauge to run off some useless punk who tried to break into my apartment though--you were nowhere to be found, and neither were the cops. Oh, and did I mention I NEVER FIRED A SHOT and NO ONE DIED? Dickweed.
Link Posted: 10/31/2002 12:47:36 PM EST
[b]Jackass, The Documentary[/b] The Weekly Standard Oct. 31. 2002 by Matt Labash CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF, journalists are human too. We are not merely hecklers in the human comedy, the suckerfish of tragedy. We have thoughts and feelings. We experience pain and insecurity. We suffer disappointment and sorrow. Sometimes, we just need to be held. Of all these human emotions, the most acutely-felt is often regret. For though we make it look effortless--often because we don't exert any effort--it can be a tough racket: being forced to capture in a few-thousand word snapshot all the nuances of people's lives, being frustrated when you don't quite nail them. Take me, for instance. Four years ago, I wrote a piece on documentary-filmmaker Michael Moore. Entitled "One-Trick Phony," it was what is known in the trade as a "kneecap job." Even by my own often uncharitable standards, it was a nasty piece of work. Taking on the self-styled populist avenger, the bra-strap-snapper of corporate America, I went after Moore with a pick-axe. I said his career had been "one, long tiresome impression of a harlequin Reuther brother whistling the song of the working man," while all he really did was ambush mid-level proles in company lobbies. I called him a "Ritz-Carlton revolutionary" and a "high-cholesterol Cassandra" who dressed like "an unemployed lumberjack." After displaying initial comic genius with his General Motors-bashing "Roger & Me"--his critically acclaimed, if factually-compromised first film--Moore had, I suggested, become "a preachy bore . . . whose work has become so sanctimoniously unamusing it could make Cesar Chavez pull for management." Then I quit playing Mr. Nice Guy. While most Moore critics stop at ridiculing him, since he is, both figuratively and literally, a fat target, I talked to his co-workers, acquaintances, and former employees, nearly all of whom made my editorial pronouncements look like a good-natured game of Slapjack. They called him "paranoid," "mercurial," "demanding," and a "fork-tongued manipulator." Though Moore's entire shtick is predicated on fighting the jackboot of corporate oppression, they detailed everything from his temper tantrums to his threatening to fire an assistant who sent a yellow cab instead of a limo to fetch him at the airport. They compared working conditions under Moore to "a sweatshop," "indentured servitude," and "a concentration camp." One of his former producers said it was like "working for Idi Amin--without the laughs." Another staffer simply said, "My parents want him dead." But that was then, and now, it is four years later. With the mellowing brought on by age, I realize that we are all God's children, doing the best we can, struggling to get by. And so today, outside the heat of battle, in the cool light of day, as I watch Moore's latest documentary, "Bowling For Columbine," I can't help but be haunted by one mammoth regret: that my piece wasn't nearly mean enough. For some time now, cultural observers have noticed that being a sparkling left-wing satirist is not a vocation in danger of overpopulation. Now that Mort Sahl is dead (or is he still alive?), you might count Molly Ivins and Jim Hightower, which is hard to do if you've actually read them. The Nation's Katha Pollitt is a sparkling self-parodist, though not much of a satirist. So the field has pretty much been abandoned to Michael Moore, and more's the pity, since it is hard to imagine the likes of Twain or Swift comparing themselves to Mother Teresa (as Moore has done), while still expecting to be taken seriously as funnymen. Not that the marketplace has passed a similar judgment. Moore's latest book, "Stupid White Men" (which isn't, as the title suggests, an autobiography), has become a New York Times number one best-seller. A collection of union-hall-pamphleteer conspiracies stitched together in the mouth-breathing verbiage of someone who's quite proud of their GED, the book is useful in that it collects all Moore's crackpot theories in one place. The media tells us lies. . . . the election was stolen. . . . George W. Bush is an alcoholic. . . . we need Jimmy Carter. . . . on and on it goes. As for the yuks quotient, a typical line is "I think it was Thomas Aquinas who once observed, 'There's nothing like your own shit to make you realize how much you stink.'" Clever stuff. In a sidebar chart (it's the kind of book with sidebar charts) Moore offers "Mike's Fantasy List of Women Presidents" which includes Hillary Clinton ("only if I could get invited for sleepovers") and President Oprah ( "the fireside chats with Dr. Phil would save us all.") Yuck. Considering that Moore, just days after September 11, wrote "We, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we had better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants"--it's small wonder that the New Republic has called Moore "Chomsky for children." But it is precisely his culture-of-violence rap, along with his knee-jerk anti-Americanism, that has seen Moore earn some of his best reviews since "Roger & Me." Having already won several film-festival awards, "Bowling For Columbine" was such a hit at the Cannes film festival, that it won a 13-minute standing ovation, along with the 55th anniversary Jury Prize. While the French are renowned for lapping up sub-standard American entertainment products, they are less likely to celebrate screechy and preachy moralistic diatribes, of which "Bowling for Columbine" is almost nothing but. But since the film contains heaping spoonfuls of America-bad-everyone-else-good notions, they appear eager to make an exception. As Brandweek reported, since Moore's film also won the "Cannes Prix Educational National" award, voted on by hundreds of French teachers and students, it will now become part of their national curriculum, shown every year at schools in France. In fairness to the French, Moore's version of America gives them plenty to hate. Besides being a slovenly repository of happy meals and Shamrock Shakes, the protagonist (Moore) is a whiny nitwit, at turns deathly earnest and smugly glib--and he's supposed to be the good guy.
Link Posted: 10/31/2002 12:48:26 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/31/2002 12:50:39 PM EST by CLP]
(continued) The drama in a Moore film always comes from a cinematic version of the "Tonight Show"'s Jay-Walking segment--the running bit in which Jay Leno hits the streets and asks ordinary Americans to display their ignorance by asking them such stumpers as, "In what year did we fight the War of 1812?" Checking my stopwatch, I clock the film at 1 minute 20 seconds before Moore's first human sacrifice--a harmless bank teller in Michigan, who sports a sensible hairstyle and a North County Bank golf shirt. As part of a bank promotion, they are giving away free guns, after background checks, when a customer opens a new account. After the teller asks if Moore's ever been ruled "mentally defective"--a fair question, considering the customer--Moore asks her, "Do you think it's a little bit dangerous handing out guns at a bank?" This is, of course, amusing in the way Moore's films periodically are--in the way cooking ants under a magnifying glass on a hot sidewalk tends to enthrall your average ten-year-old boy. Unfortunately, it is one of his last entertaining moments. From there, we are off across America to prove we are a nation of militia-joining, bloodthirsty gun nuts, who use the rubric of the second amendment as a fig-leaf excuse to pump lead into each other for sport. The film's catchy, if non-sequitirish title, "Bowling for Columbine," is a reference to the ber gun-nut Columbine killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, who happened to go bowling in an elective-class the morning of the massacre. From the tofu farm of James Nichols, brother of Oklahoma City bomber Terry, to Q&A's with disenfranchised juvies, sporting bad skin and worse dental work, Moore seems to unearth every anti-government extremist who dreams of black helicopters and blood in the streets, proving that we are a violent nation almost beyond salvation. Moore himself has said his is not merely an anti-gun film, but a larger film about the culture of fear that fosters our gun culture. "The American media," he told Phil Donahue, "wants to pump you full of fear." He says the media overstate everything from child abductions to the recession, which is a curious statement, coming from the author of so many sky-is-falling manifestoes. Just take a paragraph, almost at random, from "Stupid White Men," and you come up with: "Investors lost millions in the stock market. Crime went up for the first time in a decade. Job losses skyrocketed. American icons like Montgomery Ward and TWA vanished. Suddenly we were 2.5 million barrels short of oil--every day! Israelis started killing Palestinians again, and Palestinians returned the favor. By mid-2001, thirty-seven countries were at war around the world. China became our new enemy--again. . . . In short, all of a sudden everything sucked." It's enough to make you want to hole up in your basement with canned goods and a weapons cache. In the film, Moore heads to Littleton, where he visits Lockheed Martin, the weapons maker and Littleton's biggest employer. Always one to blame societal ills on big corporations and/or the military-industrial complex, Moore interviews a Lockheed flack while his camera pans the factory's corny successory posters. As Moore nearly pops a hamstring, hyper-extending himself while reaching for a causal factor in the Columbine shootings, he asks the poor flack if he doesn't "think our kids say to themselves, 'Well, gee, dad goes off to the factory every day, and he builds missiles, he builds weapons of mass destruction. What's the difference between that mass destruction and the mass destruction over at Columbine High School?'" (Neither Klebold's nor Harris's parents worked for Lockheed, and Klebold's father has actually been identified as a liberal who favors gun control). By this point, the flack is as puzzled as we are. He kindly explains that he's not catching the parallel, and that our missiles are generally built to defend us "from somebody else who was the aggressor against us. We don't get irritated with somebody and just because we get mad at them, drop a bomb or fire a missile at them." In what is perhaps the most-heavy handed two minutes in any film of the last 30 years, here, Moore cuts to a montage of American atrocities throughout the decades. Against the strains of Louis Armstrong's "What a Wonderful World," Moore cuts to a caption and image timeline explaining how we are guilty of everything from propping up tin-pot dictators to killing innocent civilians the world over. As Armstong sings the last words, Moore flashes a visual of the smoking World Trade Center, with the plane flying into tower two as a caption informs "Sept 11, 2001: Osama Bin Laden uses his expert CIA training to murder 3,000 people." Perhaps the likes of Bianca Jagger, Daniel Berrigan or the French would think Moore's uncorked a real sly piece of satire, but he's rolling out pretty heavy artillery to explain a school shooting. The two-fold problem Moore runs into with attempting to fashion some deep polemic out of found material is that: (A) He has no idea what he wants to say, and (B) Neither does anyone that he finds. As he encounters Marilyn Manson backstage, they commiserate about the preposterousness of the Columbine rap nearly getting pinned on Manson by opportunists who said that the killers listened to his violent lyrics. (And they're right, it is preposterous, but slightly less preposterous than blaming Lockheed Martin). Manson tells Moore that the media are responsible for a "campaign of fear and consumption--keep everyone afraid and they'll consume." Moore agrees, and adds, apropos of nothing, that on the day of the shootings, the president dropped more bombs on Kosovo than at any other time in that war. This sounds less like a coherent argument, more like a conversation between two late-night dorm-room potheads.
Link Posted: 10/31/2002 12:49:29 PM EST
(continued...) But Moore doesn't stop there. Following his half-baked culture-of-fear theme, he goes to South Central, to ask a cop, who is, in all likelihood, about to bust some minority down the street, why he doesn't instead bust the people who are responsible for polluting the air, that makes it impossible to see the "Hollywood" sign from South Central. Later, he meets with a producer of the show "Cops," and suggests that instead of demonizing blacks and Hispanics by showing them getting arrested on television, maybe they could do a show called "Corporate Cops," where Enron-types get arrested. (The producer, tells Moore it wouldn't make much of a visual, unless they could get the corporate criminal to "take his shirt off, throw his cellular phone at the police as they come through the door, [and to] jump out that window--then we'd have a show.") The only solution Moore offers to curtail gun violence, isn't, oddly enough, gun control, but for us to become more like Canada--a country that has it's fair share of guns, but a tiny fraction of our gun deaths. Why this is so, Moore never adequately explores. In interviews he has made some faint noises about there being less suffering, and thus, less violence in Canada because of their socialized medicine. But for the most part, Moore leaves the viewer at sea, free to suppose that if we could just listen to Anne Murray records, take up curling, eat poutine and add "eh" to the end of our sentences, we too, would be a peace-loving people. By the end, Moore's deus ex machina creaks so loudly you'll need earplugs. Going back to visit Flint, Michigan (Moore's working class hometown, an antecedent he's usually fond of mentioning 12 or 13 times per interview), he re-visits the 2000 school shooting in which a six-year old boy found a gun in his uncle's house, brought it to school, and shot and killed a six-year-old girl. Moore pours it on thick. The media, at the time, were tempted to blame any number of factors for the tragic death. But class-warrior Moore settles on his usual bogeymen--conservative greedheads, multinational corporations, the NRA, all the regulars. Because of brutally unfair welfare-to-work laws, Tamarla Owens, the boy's mother, was forced to trek to work 40 miles away everyday to Auburn Hills. She had to drive through rich people's neighborhoods to work two minimum-wage jobs, one of which was pouring drinks at Dick Clark's "American Bandstand Grill." Dick Clark, it seems, has blood on his hands. But he has lots of company, since our old friends Lockheed Martin, Moore tells us--his head now spinning so fast that sprockets seem ready to bust loose--have become the number one firm in the country in privatizing state welfare systems. Because Owens, obviously victimized by the system, was forced to be an absentee mother out of necessity, she had to leave her children with her brother. Largely unsupervised, her youngest found a gun, brought it to school, and iced his first-grade classmate. It's a harrowing tale, one which Moore first takes to Dick Clark in an ambush interview (Clark quickly peels away in a minivan, unfortunately missing Moore), and later to NRA president Charlton Heston. Heston, of course, has announced he has symptoms consistent with Alzheimer's, which is apparent, because when Moore buys a star map and shows up at Heston's gate unannounced, he lets Moore in for an interview. Starting off slowly, peppering him with chatter about the second amendment, Moore ends up closing in for the kill, asking Heston if he'd apologize for bringing NRA conventions to both Flint and Littleton after their respective shootings. Heston wisely calls it quits, but as he flees his own living room, Moore follows him, hectoring him with a picture of the girl Tamarla Owens's son shot. "This is her. Please take a look at her, please, this is the girl," Moore says, before propping the photo against Heston's house. It is perhaps the single-most shameful moment ever in a Moore project, which is saying something, since Moore authored an entire chapter on how O.J. Simpson couldn't have killed his wife (because rich people usually hire lowerlings to do their dirty work). Not only did he ambush a doddering old man who had nothing to do with the shooting, but he related the Owens story in a fashion that was dishonest in nearly every way. For what Moore didn't tell us about Tamarla Owens and her family could fill several newspaper and magazine articles, and did. The uncle's house where Owens left her children was, additionally, a crack house, where guns were often traded for drugs. The gun that the boy stole from a shoebox on a mattress in his uncle's bedroom had been reported stolen once before. And Owens was hardly a model parent, merely getting squeezed by unfortunate circumstances. According to Time magazine, Owens herself was a drug addict (she denied it). Additionally, reported Newhouse News Service, according to a state Family Independence Agency petition, she admitted holding down her oldest boy so he could be beaten with a belt by two male friends, and she also admitted beating the boy with a belt while sitting on him, after first duct-taping his hands, feet and mouth. In short, Owens and her clan were to responsible gun ownership what Moore is to responsible journalism. To beat Heston up for her problems is itself an act of violence. It is perhaps understandable why Moore attempted to drop himself from the narrative, and put a less-fortunate type like Owens front-and-center. As he recently told one reporter, he has a sign on his editing-room door that says "when in doubt, cut me out." The reason he says, is "First of all, I can't stand the look of myself. Secondly, a little bit of me goes a long way. . . . because it's just a bit much. That's how it feels when I watch it." After watching "Bowling For Columbine," it's easy to see how he feels.
Link Posted: 10/31/2002 12:55:30 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/31/2002 1:03:38 PM EST
After seeing how Mr moore has gotten more than his share of his 15 minutes of fame I should try a few things myself hell im 10 times better looking and a whole hell of a lot more intelligent.
Link Posted: 10/31/2002 1:05:00 PM EST
Originally Posted By marvl: ... and will be cured of the desire to make movies that no one wants to see or to write books that no one wants to read.
View Quote
I an fairness, his latest book has been on the NYT bestseller list for a really long time, and his documentaries (like Roger and Me) have blown away box office receipts for all previous documentaries. Not saying I agree with him, but in all fairness he is writing and filming things that a lot of people do watch and read.
Link Posted: 10/31/2002 2:27:37 PM EST
Yep. His cheap shots and asinine opinions have made him one of the rich people he hates so very much. I guess he'll move out of NYC back to Flint, and share his fortune with the less fortunate. Smug, sanctimonious limosine liberals like him like saying they champion the poor, but when it comes down to putting money to work, it always has to be the taxpayers' money. The rich whom he always rails against are at least honest about their priorities in life and their self interest. I think that's a lot more honorable than people like, say, Jesse Jackson who claims to be champion of blacks but lines his own pockets with the money he extorted....or Clinton who panders to the poor for votes and who he lies to about wanting to help, and then turns around to his real concern: the rich who contribute to the Democratic political establishment in exchange for influence.
Link Posted: 10/31/2002 4:10:19 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/31/2002 4:12:28 PM EST by mattja]
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Originally Posted By marvl: ... and will be cured of the desire to make movies that no one wants to see or to write books that no one wants to read.
View Quote
I an fairness, his latest book has been on the NYT bestseller list for a really long time, and his documentaries (like Roger and Me) have blown away box office receipts for all previous documentaries. Not saying I agree with him, but in all fairness he is writing and filming things that a lot of people do watch and read.
View Quote
That just shows there's a lot of people out there who support the liberal agenda. Nothing more. And I might add, the majority of them are limousine liberals and naive college students and faculty members.
Link Posted: 10/31/2002 4:35:10 PM EST
Dear Michael, During the same time "the sniper" was killing people in MD/VA/DC, there were 2 car crashes in WI. A total of 13 people killed and 53 injured. Not to mention multiple cars totalled. 654 people have been killed in car crashes this year in WI. At that rate there will be 800 motor vehicle crash fatalities in WI in 2002. 47,000 appx were killed in car crashes in 2001. There were appx 16,000 homicides (some of which were undboubtly commited with weapons other than firearms). The media, which you are a part of, consistently ignores car crash deaths and injuries. Most are totally preventable. Why don't we focus on problems that cause more deaths, injuries and destruction, and can be prevented without infringing on people's RIGHTS. For every 1 criminal that uses a gun their are hundreds of responsible gun owners that have and will never used their weapons to harm another person. People also use legal weapons, while legally defending themselves. Ballistice fingerprints don't work, for a variety of technical resons. If you feel a national database of items could solve crimes perhaps you would want every American to submit their fingerprints and DNA, just in case. That way we could solve a few crimes while intruding in the lives of millions of Americans. Think of all the extra federal employees we would need. At least an intrusive DNA/fingerprint database could identify suspects, unlike that ballistic fingerprint, since that firngerpint is subject to change over time.
Link Posted: 10/31/2002 4:48:52 PM EST
How much money [i]exactly[/i] has this film made? Is at actually playing anywhere?
Link Posted: 10/31/2002 4:54:06 PM EST
I fired off this letter to this asshole:
You, sir, are a complete, total, and absolutely perfect example of an idiot. Your stance on firearms is well known...and it is well known that you simply don't understand the concept of cause and effect. It doesn't take a huge brain to figure out that crimes are caused by criminals, and not by weapons. Nor does it take a great deal of mental horsepower to comprehend the basic truth that banning or restricting any item is only going to have an effect on those who choose to comply with the ban or restrictions. Every law that bans guns only removes those guns from the hands of those who are inclined to obey the law, while very few if any people with criminal intent (we call them criminals, incidentally) will comply with such a law. Gun control is better termed VICTIM DISARMAMENT. The concept is pure filth and no reasoning human being would stand for it if they actually thought about it and realized how people REALLY act instead of how they WISH people acted. I am a one issue voter. I vote for my gun rights, to the total exclusion of all else. Since gun rights are critical to the preservation of all other rights, this is not an unreasonable position. I am 100 percent in favor of seeing every gun restricting law on the books, nationwide, totally repealed and scrapped. I would LIKE to see a few people in my community openly carrying authentic submachineguns as a matter of course in their normal daily lives. I can be assured of SAFETY and SECURITY in such a neighborhood. I would leave my doors unlocked and open on pleasant evenings and would have nothing to fear...but the criminal element would...the ones that were stupid enough to pursue their chosen line of work in a heavily armed society, that is. A few armed and trained citizens in every crowd is all we need to drop the crime rate to practically ZERO. It works for Israel and it works for Switzerland, and it'd work here. If teachers and school administrators were armed and trained, the Columbine massacre would have been brought to an early halt. Incidentally, I am amazed at the stupidity shown by some of the students that were there at Columbine. It has been reported that one of these two pathetic shitbag misfits talked to one of his victims for some minutes after firing two shots from an obvious double-barreled shotgun, and didn't reload. for some minutes. What kind of a stupid and/or uneducated high school student can't figure out that two shots fired from a double barrelled shotgun, and not reloaded, means that the shotgun is useless at the moment? If the students had HALF a brain and ANY guts, they would have grabbed the unloaded shotgun from the misfit's pencil thin arms and beat his damned skull in with the butt of the gun, and then grabbed a few shells and hunted down the other misfit shitbag and put an end to him before he could do more harm to the other students. I bet your movie didn't cover THAT possibility, did it? It's wrong thinking like yours that's poisoning our youth and keeping them from coming up with the radical and yet useful concepts of independent thought and personal bravery and yes, even self-sacrifice for the good of others. No, you encourage them to be scared little sheep who need protection rather than human beings who are quite capable of thinking for themselves and taking action for their own defense and protection, and for others in need. I come from a LONG line of well armed and very safe, and very patriotic, people. All known branches of my family have been firearms owners since long before the American Revolutionary War and through every time of peace and war since up to the present day. We know firearms and we know them well. From war to peace, we know what they're for and what they're used for. They are the first, best defense against any form of determined aggression, and they are our companions for safety and they are a preferred source of recreational activity. I personally have fired perhaps thirty thousand rounds of various types over the past decade or so, and with every round, I become a little bit better and a little bit SAFER as a gun owner. No gun that I own or use will ever be involved in a crime while I have it, except possibly to STOP a crime. My story is not at all unusual. A crime is a crime whether a gun is involved or not. It would be quite sufficent to aggressively enforce the laws that provide for punishment for criminal behavior, which doesn't happen on a regular and consistent basis, and it would be nice to see the penalties multiplied if the crime was committed with the assistance of a force multiplier as in a weapon of any description. Quit blaming the gun for the actions of the miscreant who's misusing it. I personally will take great pleasure in cancelling out YOUR vote at every opportunity. Assuming you even vote with any regularity, which I rather doubt. That's a duty that is taken seriously only by PATRIOTIC AMERICANS, and patriotic Americans aren't anti-gun because that is a non-patriotic stance. It IS a socialist position, though. You want to see guns banned? So did Hitler. So did Stalin. So did Idi Amin, and so did the Chinese. In the 20th century, more than 68 MILLION people were rounded up and EXTERMINATED by their own governments, and it began by first registering the people's guns and then disarming them. You're in some pretty impressive (Impressively revolting) company. FACT: In every place in America where restrictive firearms laws were enacted, firearm related crime went UP after the laws were enacted. This is beyond question or argument. You can identify where gun laws are strictest as they are the same places where crime is highest, and this happened AFTER the gun laws were enacted, and not before. It's obvious that the law-abiding citizens are obeying the law that prevents them from owning and using guns in their defense, and it's just as obvious that the criminal element is IGNORING those laws. So who benefits from gun control? Only the criminals. A vote for gun control is a vote to protect criminals. I didn't watch your movie...and I won't. You won't get one red cent of MY money. Very sincerely, C. M. Johnson cmjohnson@cfl.rr.com
View Quote
Link Posted: 10/31/2002 4:56:06 PM EST
Im sure Moore has a firearm or three around the house....but thats ok for him.....right?
Link Posted: 10/31/2002 5:21:05 PM EST
[size=1]I find only two words capable of expressing my feelings towards this lunatic without using every explitive in the book, twice:[/size=1] [size=6][green]HULK MAD[/green][/size=6]
Top Top