Exactly.  He'll still make the movie and it'll still be anti-gun propoganda.

God Bless Texas

If you read down further, you'll find he thinks the "peace activists" are just wonderful, too.

Don't get me wrong - I think that the voice of the opposition is a necessary thing in a free society.  Often they act as our conscience.  But I have a lot of trouble with Michael Moore's views and I disagree with him on about 90% of his positions.  

You'll note that he did NOT make any comment that any citizen armed with a firearm could have stopped the box-cutter armed terrorists.  

What a sicko.
Here is his "I'm voting for Hillary story"

[url]http://www.michaelmoore.com/2000_11_061.html[/url]

[puke]

He's still a big sniveling socialist.  Just look at how he derides the fact that someone might get paid outside of the minimum wage system or that the uneducated service workers suffered the brunt of the attack.  What the fuck?  Is this America, where people work to better themselves or not?  

I hope his anti-gun melodramatic documentary never makes it out of editing.  The best thing we can do is every time some anti-gun asshole starts spouting off at the mouth, someone needs to hold up a box cutter.

wait a month, he'll be back out there trying to ban guns

Socialist!  Nothing Moore!

I realize that dissenting voices are a fundamental strength of our country, but when I think of Michael Moorer, I think "for a supposed intellectual, WHAT A STUPID F#$K."  

You fellows will probably recoil in horror, but sometimes I wish that people like Rosie and Michael Moorer and Chuckie Schumer would get their wish to ban guns.  Their patently absurd idea that guns cause violence would then be exposed for the sham that it is.  

I always marvel that all these people, many of them with "advanced" college degrees are absolutely out of touch with reality.  

He's not totally worthless.  I think some of the stuff he does is hilarious.  He makes fun of big corporate executives who raise their own salaries even while laying off workers.  

He once bought a couple tankers of gas and borrowed a gas station for a day.  He posted all kinds of signs with Saddam Hussein on them and only charged $.05/gal. for the whole day.  He asked everyone who bought gas if they cared that the gas had come from Iraq and was benefiting Saddam.  It was hilarious, and it proved a good point--people appreciate value over dogma.  People were lined up around the corner to take advantage of the deal.

I'll keep saying this until it sinks in:  Saddam and Osama aren't our enemies, not really.  The real enemy is called the federal government.  

"weapon (i.e., a device that was solely and specifically manufactured to kill humans)"

sole·ly (sll, sl)
adv.
Entirely; exclusively

Guns aren't "solely" designed to kill humans. I can't speak for all of you, but I have been using my gun for quite some time without killing any humans, how can this be if guns are only capable of "exclusively" killing people?

It already has been exposed - England is the shining example of what disarming the law-abiding results in.  

Understand - most of the people in favor of gun control want [i]all the guns in the world to [b]disappear[/b][/i] thus making us all "safe".  Of course this is patently impossible, but it's easier to think of this as an achievable goal than changing human nature.  

Of course they completely ignore the fact that the last time there were absolutely no guns in the world it was run by large men with swords, and it was called "the Dark Ages".  

The remaining people promoting gun "control" are completely aware of reality.  They want to be the few priveledged who own the guns and control the rest of us.