A respose from fatass dumbshit... I mean Michael Moore. (1014 hits)
Category: GeneralRating: -0.23 on 42 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by King TwEE <Twee_666.at.hotmail.com> (View user info) at 2003-09-25 03:02:11 EDT
Im posting this because I can..
Michael Moore:
So, a whole host of gun lobby groups and individual gun nuts have put up websites where the smears on me range from the pre-adolescent (I'm a "crapweasel," and a "fat fucking piece of shit") to Orwellian-style venom ("Michael Moore hates America!").
I have mostly ignored this silliness. But a few weeks ago, this lunatic crap hit the mainstream fan. CNN actually put some guy on a show saying that my film contains "so many falsehoods, one after the other, after the other, after the other." They introduced him as a "critic" and "research director" of the "Independence Institute." He seemed mighty impressive.
Except they failed to tell their viewers who he really was: a contributing editor of Gun Week Magazine.
CNN saw no need to inform the viewers that their "expert"-- who has made a career out of opposing any form of gun control-has a vested interest in convincing the public that "Bowling for Columbine" is a horribly rotten movie.
So, what do you do when the nutcases succeed in getting on CNN? Do you just keep ignoring them? How do you handle people who say the Holocaust never happened or that monkeys fly? Ignore them and they'll go away? If you give them any attention, all the nuts will come out of the woodwork.
Well, I figured I better deal with this because the nutters were now being turned into "respectable critics" by a media that either had an agenda or were just plain lazy.
So, how crazy are the things they've said about "Bowling for Columbine?" Here are my favorites:
"That scene where you got the gun in the bank was staged!"
Well of course it was staged! It's a movie! We built the "bank" as a set and then I hired actors to play the bank tellers and the manager and we got a toy gun from the prop department and then I wrote some really cool dialogue for me and them to say! Pretty neat, huh?
Or...
The Truth: In the spring of 2001, I saw a real ad in a real newspaper in Michigan announcing a real promotion that this real bank had where they would give you a gun (as your up-front interest) for opening up a Certificate of Deposit account. They promoted this in publications all over the country - "More Bang for Your Buck!"
There was news coverage of this bank giving away guns, long before I even shot the scene there. The Chicago Sun Times wrote about how the bank would "hand you a gun" with the purchase of a CD. Those are the precise words used by a bank employee in the film.
When you see me going in to the bank and walking out with my new gun in "Bowling for Columbine" - that is exactly as it happened. Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account. I walked into that bank in northern Michigan for the first time ever on that day in June 2001, and, with cameras rolling, gave the bank teller $1,000 - and opened up a 20-year CD account. After you see me filling out the required federal forms ("How do you spell Caucasian?") - which I am filling out here for the first time - the bank manager faxed it to the bank's main office for them to do the background check. The bank is a licensed federal arms dealer and thus can have guns on the premises and do the instant background checks (the ATF's Federal Firearms database—which includes all federally approved gun dealers—lists North Country Bank with Federal Firearms License #4-38-153-01-5C-39922).
Within 10 minutes, the "OK" came through from the firearms background check agency and, 5 minutes later, just as you see it in the film, they handed me a Weatherby Mark V Magnum rifle . And it is that very gun that I still own to this day. I have decided the best thing to do with this gun is to melt it down into a bust of John Ashcroft and auction it off on E-Bay (more details on that later). All the proceeds will go to The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence to fight all these lying gun nuts who have attacked my film and make it possible on a daily basis for America's gun epidemic to rage on.
User Reviews
Submitted by senseiofmattitudev1 (user info) at 2003-09-30 18:00:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Let's go shoot things.
Submitted by tuesdaydelay (user info) at 2003-09-30 18:00:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/cgi-bin/message_get.cgi?message=1064955910864213349
Submitted by TwEE (user info) at 2003-09-30 17:46:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Anguish, Questions In Killing By Boy, 4
Sister, 5, Shot Dead; Brother, 7, Wounded
By Cheryl W. Thompson and Ian Shapira
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, September 29, 2003; Page A01
By the time police arrived, the 4-year-old boy had put down the .45-caliber semiautomatic handgun and was standing in the doorway crying.
"He kept asking if everybody was okay," said Cpl. Diane Richardson, a Prince George's County police spokeswoman.
Outside the Palmer Park rambler, the boy's 5-year-old sister, Kimberly Brice, lay dying from the single gunshot that the 4-year-old had fired through the red, wood door. His 7-year-old brother, Gregory Thigpen Jr., was critically injured with a bullet wound to the back. And his 10-year-old sister, Katina Brice, who was left to watch the children while their parents were out, was yelling for help.
A day after Saturday's tragic shooting, Prince George's police were trying to trace the handgun and determine how a 4-year-old had gotten hold of it. They said yesterday that charges could be filed against the parents or others who had left the weapon within his reach.
"When people hear about cases like this, they automatically think the gun owner carelessly left the gun within reach of the child," Richardson said. "But we haven't determined who was responsible for leaving the gun where it was found."
Submitted by YellowDragon (user info) at 2003-09-26 00:19:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Who's up for a day-long game of Capture the Flag paintball at UberCon2K3? Ooh, better yet, we should extend it into the night. Man, that would be freaking sweet.
Regards,
YellowDragon
Submitted by Quartermain (user info) at 2003-09-26 00:02:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
**QM, I can't believe you used a fictional story to prove a point. Shows your mental capacity, or lack of it I guess.**
The following people have also used fictional stories to prove their points:
Aristotle
Plato
Jonathan Swift
Jesus Christ
John Bunyan
C.S. Lewis
Isaac Asimov
Harlan Ellison
George Orwell
Aldous Huxley
H.G. Wells
Rudyard Kipling
Anton Chekov
Guess this shows thier mental capacity, or lack of it, I guess.
Microcephalic.
Submitted by SoxSexSax (user info) at 2003-09-25 16:25:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Missed this 1st time round:
"Yes using a knife is more personal however if everyone had a gun those jackass who are firing from a 50 yards away would probably think twice if all of sudden they had 30 guns aimed at them."
If you can't see why this is fucking dumb (and, to be honest, I can't believe anyone could miss the stupidity of this argument, which is precisely the same argument you used and I debunked in your last post), there is no help for you. Good day to you all. I have no more to say on the matter (for real this time).
Submitted by SoxSexSax (user info) at 2003-09-25 16:22:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"And finally as this is getting really long. In response to your last paragraph:
And as far as your last paragraph goes, can't you see...can't you SEE that is the most fucking backwards argument in the history of backward arguments! If the first person didn't have a fucking gun, the second wouldn't have fucking needed one. Jesus Christ, this argument for guns always fucks me right off. Only teenagers or people with the minds of teenagers use this. ..........
Said paragraph being (by me):
If someone wants to kill you they will. If some of those people had a gun at the time they might very well be alive. How abotu asking them if they wished they had a gun on them??? Oh yaw you can't their fucking dead.
Thanks for making my point as that was said in direct response to your:
Why not ask the hundreds of American's who've died as a result of some lunatic with a gun...oh wait, you can't can you."
WTF are you on about? I contradicted you. Twat. Did you not understand it? I'm sorry but I'm losing patience with you gun nuts. QM, I can't believe you used a fictional story to prove a point. Shows your mental capacity, or lack of it I guess. And Marc, my friend, for praising QM on his "analogy" (i.e. work of fiction), you are no better.
Submitted by marc01 (user info) at 2003-09-25 14:47:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ok and one more clarification for you .
i never said that the dead people were killed by guns just that they were dead. a gun could have possibly saved them from that larger man with a knife, or held off that gang of boys out for a bit of "fun" that wound up in that poor girls death.
Submitted by marc01 (user info) at 2003-09-25 14:40:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
damn it Quartermain you stole my thunder. well part of it but i was writing it first. however i do like your analogy better.
Submitted by marc01 (user info) at 2003-09-25 14:20:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Ok first off I will like to make a clarification. I have not seen the movie that this is talking about. All my responses have been directed at replies make by other posters. I fully agree that he may say what ever he wants about any subject at all. That is one of the beauties of our country. Also would like to state that yes SOME regulation may very well be appropriate. However the anti gun nazi's want to take it too far. A machine gun no we don't need them... my hunting rifle and hand gun yes.
Now as to my response to soxsexsax on his response.....
Um no. I wasn't being obtuse. I was trying to point out the fact that people have been, and will keep killing each other forever. When the first caveman grunted and saw the other had more than him and started scheming to take it (or for the biblical when Cain slew Able out of jealousy) we have fought and killed and wronged our fellow man. So we have been trying to find new ways to protect ourselves from the new ways we have been trying to find to kill so we could protect ourselves from the new ways.............. Yes using a knife is more personal however if everyone had a gun those jackass who are firing from a 50 yards away would probably think twice if all of sudden they had 30 guns aimed at them. the same guy who shoots from a clock tower today is the same man who centuries ago would have slipped poison into the towns water supply or invited his enemies to a bit of tainted wine. That is the point I was trying to make with the fact I gathered all those serial killers from over a wide range of years (and all English so you couldn't use the "old well what do you expect. They were ignorant American)
Taking guns from the law abiding citizens is not the answer. As someone stated below they are called criminals for a reason. The criminals will never give up their guns. There is to much advantage to them. They have them. you don't. your screwed. Fuck I do not like nuclear weapons at all... and yet the world has them. The countries will not give them up because other countries have them and so lose there edge. This may be an extreme comparison but it seems to take larger than life examples to make you (and by you I mean the anti-gun people) even begin to understand. oh wait yes I know we should get rid of the nukes.... sorry that wont happen either no matter how much I wish it might. and I am smart enough to realize that we cant give them up because someone out there might not play fair and keep his then I am in a world of shit.
And finally as this is getting really long. In response to your last paragraph:
And as far as your last paragraph goes, can't you see...can't you SEE that is the most fucking backwards argument in the history of backward arguments! If the first person didn't have a fucking gun, the second wouldn't have fucking needed one. Jesus Christ, this argument for guns always fucks me right off. Only teenagers or people with the minds of teenagers use this. ..........
Said paragraph being (by me):
If someone wants to kill you they will. If some of those people had a gun at the time they might very well be alive. How abotu asking them if they wished they had a gun on them??? Oh yaw you can't their fucking dead.
Thanks for making my point as that was said in direct response to your:
Why not ask the hundreds of American's who've died as a result of some lunatic with a gun...oh wait, you can't can you.
Submitted by Quartermain (user info) at 2003-09-25 14:07:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
**Well, I figured I better deal with this because the nutters were now being turned into "respectable critics" by a media that either had an agenda or were just plain lazy.**
This is what psychiatry calls a 'persecution complex.' Next thing you know, he'll be wearing a tin-foil hat.
I'd be a little more inclined to take his cries of 'I'm being marginalised' if his movies didn't show all over the country and he hadn't been onstage at the Oscars giving a speech.
**If NOBODY carried a gun, the world would be a safer place.**
Aside from this being quite possibly the stupidest statement I've ever heard, this:
Harlan Ellison wrote a short story about a scientist who went to see a general during a war. The scientist told the general that he had developed a strain of bacteria(or something similar)that would eat metal, in effect turning anything metallic to rust and unusable debris. The general asked the scientist what he planned to do with this bacteria. The scientist tells him that he has released it into the atmosphere this morning, and by now it should have replicated enough for the general to see the effects. Sure enough, the general looks around and all his military might is dissolving. Reports come in(while they can)of this happening all over the battlefield, to both sides. The general takes out his gun and it dissolves there in his hand. So what does he do? He picks up a rock and brains the scientist. He then breaks a branch off a tree and the war goes on.
Don't mistake the effect for the cause.
Submitted by TwEE (user info) at 2003-09-25 13:50:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Here ya go....
Michael Moore:
The oddest of all the smears thrown at "Bowling for Columbine" is this one:
"The film depicts NRA president Charlton Heston giving a speech near Columbine; he actually gave it a year later and 900 miles away. The speech he did give is edited to make conciliatory statements sound like rudeness."
Um, yeah, that's right! I made it up! Heston never went there! He never said those things!
Or....
The Truth: Heston took his NRA show to Denver and did and said exactly what we recounted. From the end of my narration setting up Heston's speech in Denver, with my words, "a big pro-gun rally," every word out of Charlton Heston's mouth was uttered right there in Denver, just 10 days after the Columbine tragedy. Heston devotes the entire speech to challenging the Denver mayor and mocking the mayor's pleas that the NRA "don't come here." Far from deliberately editing the film to make Heston look worse, I chose to leave most of this out and not make Heston look as evil as he actually was.
Why are these gun nuts upset that their brave NRA leader's words are in my film? You'd think they would be proud of the things he said. Except, when intercut with the words of a grieving father (whose son died at Columbine and happened to be speaking in a protest that same weekend Heston was at the convention center), suddenly Charlton Heston doesn't look so good does he? Especially to the people of Denver (and, the following year, to the people of Flint) who were still in shock over the tragedies when Heston showed up.
As for the clip preceding the Denver speech, when Heston proclaims "from my cold dead hands," this appears as Heston is being introduced in narration. It is Heston's most well-recognized NRA image - hoisting the rifle overhead as he makes his proclamation, as he has done at virtually every political appearance on behalf of the NRA (before and since Columbine). I have merely re-broadcast an image supplied to us by a Denver TV station, an image which the NRA has itself crafted for the media, or, as one article put it, "the mantra of dedicated gun owners" which they "wear on T-shirts, stamp it on the outside of envelopes, e-mail it on the Internet and sometimes shout it over the phone.". Are they now embarrassed by this sick, repulsive image and the words that accompany it?
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2003-09-25 13:19:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Closing the Columbine footage tear jerker scene, we see a near-hysterical female Columbine High School student telling how the girl next to her was shot in the head and a black male student was murdered 'because he was black.' Right at that line about him being shot 'cuz he was black' the girl is stopped, the frame freezes, and in a zoom in fade accompanied by a few seconds of black screen, we immediately see a clip of Charlton Heston at an NRA convention, colonial long-gun held high over his head, saying: "I have only five words for you . . . From my cold dead hands!"
Guilty by association
This trick is an important one to notice and is one Moore makes use of later in the film. Moore intentionally showed us footage of the sobbing student and stopped the feed at the racist line to demonize Heston. This is the first, but not the last time Moore does this kind of trick.
'From my cold dead hands'
After this, we hear Moore telling us, ominously, that "just 10 days after the Columbine mass murders Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally."
The distortion is nauseatingly extreme. Heston's "cold dead hands" speech, which leads off Moore's depiction of the Denver meeting, was not given at Denver in defiance to Columbine. It was given a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina, and was his gesture of gratitude upon being given the handmade musket he's holding, at that annual meeting. A key word there is 'annual.' Although Moore successfully makes it appear that Heston has held the rally in response to the Columbine massacre - this wasn't the case.
The portrayal is that the line is made in defiance of Columbine while at an insensitive rally in Michigan, when it's actually a thank-you speech given a year later in North Carolina. It was a statement to reaffirm the right to own firearms, no different than saying the same thing with a steak raised over your head to show opposition to fanatical groups like PETA. It had nothing to do with any tragic event.
David Hardy from Hardylaw.net was the first to uncover this very tricky scheme with a close analysis of the scene and the facts from the real events.
After the 'cold dead hands' line, Moore then cuts the shot -- a visual of a billboard and his narration. This is vital. He can't go directly to Heston's real Denver speech or he gives away his secret. If he did that, you might ask how Heston in mid-speech changed from a purple tie and lavender shirt to a white shirt and red tie, and the background draperies went from maroon to blue. Moore had to separate the two segments.
Defiant rally
But now wait a second pal. Whether Moore deceived the audience about Heston defiantly saying the 'dead hands' line right after Columbine or not doesn't change the fact that a rally was held. Annual meeting or not -- How dare Charlton Heston hold a peaceful assembly through an organization that promotes responsible use and ownership of firearms where people had just been killed by malicious and illegal use of firearms, one might say. Well, 2 fun facts that debunk this:
FACT: - Mayor Webb (who at the last minute told the NRA to cancel the convention) had eagerly solicited the NRA convention for Denver (2)
FACT: - Heston was required by law to hold this meeting by its non-profit charter from the state of New York, so cancellation was impossible. However, even if he wasn't legally required to hold it; the annual meeting in Denver was set to be held at that place and date years in advance. No way to change location, since you have to give advance notice of that to the members, and there were upwards of 4,000,000 members.
FACT: - Much to the disappointment of NRA members, Heston took initiative to cancel the fun and merriment that normally surrounds these gatherings (normally several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies), holding only its annual members' meeting, in the afternoon session we are shown.
Moore has to hide this fact to continue his deception so he uses another editing trick. He cuts Charlton Heston mentioning the cancellations out in a second edit that is covered by splicing in a pan shot of the crowd. Here is Heston's following announcement Moore didn't let you see, that says the NRA has in fact cancelled most of its meeting (as said prior - all that was possible):
"As you know, we've cancelled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. As your president, I apologize for that."
This quote, above all others from Heston's speech unequivocally crushes Moore's claim that he was holding the rally in defiance or any kind of insensitivity. The impossibility of him not seeing the full video of this quote, and his failure to apologize after the films release makes this blatant trickery and deception.
Moore Lying
Thanks totally to David Hardys critical analysis and information, we know that when this scene continues with the speech, it carefully edits it to change its theme. Moore has actually taken audio of seven sentences, from five different parts of the speech, and a section given in a different speech entirely, and spliced them together. Each edit is cleverly covered by inserting a still or video footage for a few seconds.
Hardy walks through the whole scene from the beginning here:
"Right after the weeping victims, Moore puts on Heston's "I have only five words for you . . . cold dead hands" statement, making it seem directed at them. As noted above, it's actually a thank-you speech given a year later in North Carolina.
During clapping, Moore has an interlude - the visual of a billboard and his narration - all covered by a smooth audio stream of clapping.
Cut to Heston noting that Denver's mayor asked NRA not to come, and shows Heston replying "I said to the Mayor: As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already here!" as if in defiance."
The comment gives a clear impression. It looks like the mayor said "we don't want you here - don't come here" and Heston said "Sorry! This is a free country and I can do whatever I want!"
But that's not what happened at all. Not only, as I said above, did the mayor solicite the NRA to come to Denver in the first place - Moore actually put an edit right in the middle of the first sentence, and another at its end! Heston really said (with reference his own WWII vet status):
"I said to the mayor, well, my reply to the mayor is, I volunteered for the war they wanted me to attend when I was 18 years old. Since then, I've run small errands for my country, from Nigeria to Vietnam. I know many of you here in this room could say the same thing."
Moore cuts it after "I said to the Mayor" and attaches a sentence from the end of the next paragraph: "As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land." He hides the deletion by cutting to footage of protestors and a photo of the Mayor before going back and showing Heston.
Moore has Heston then triumphantly announce "Don't come here? We're already here!" to make him look proud of his defiance. Actually, that sentence is clipped from a segment five paragraphs farther on in the speech. Again, Moore uses an editing trick to cover the doctoring, switching to a pan shot of the audience as Heston's (edited) voice continues.
What Heston said there was:
"NRA members are in city hall, Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy and the Olympic Training Center. And yes, NRA members are surely among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the students at Columbine.
Don't come here? We're already here. This community is our home. Every community in America is our home. We are a 128-year-old fixture of mainstream America. The Second Amendment ethic of lawful, responsible firearm ownership spans the broadest cross section of American life imaginable.
So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy."
Review:
Michael Moore manipulates these actions by Heston to completely change their meaning 100%. This scene is important for Moore's tricky harvest -- here he is planting the seeds of hate in the audiences now fertile mind to grow solidarity in his demonization of Heston. He goes to such lengths to defame him because he must make sure that the viewer is on his side when he attacks Heston later in the film.
Unfortunately, the trickery works like a charm, and without transcripts or fact sheets in front of them, the audience is totally deceived by Moore's perversion of reality. Don't be fooled.
-----------------------------
(1) David Hardy transcribed Heston's speech as Moore has it, and compared it to a news agency's transcript, color coding the passages. CLICK HERE https://www.hardylaw/Bowlingtrascripts.html for the comparison, with links to the original transcript.
(2) Dave Kopel National Review
Submitted by streetpunk (user info) at 2003-09-25 13:08:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'll have to read it when I get home because I have restricted access at work, bro.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2003-09-25 12:58:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"Just like Charleton Heston was to hold a pro gun conference in Denver right after the Columbine shootings. I thought it was mighty disrespectful but it was his right."
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowlingforcolumbine/scenes/hestonrally1.htm
READ.
Submitted by streetpunk (user info) at 2003-09-25 12:49:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
"I'M SAYING THAT I DON'T THINK HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH LYING TO AMERICA TO SWAY THEM TO OPPOSE A RIGHT STATED IN OUR BILL OF RIGHTS."
How did he lie to Americans? This is all opinionated and that is the beauty of freedom of speech, you can try to sway people to think whatever you want. Just like they have the right to be swayed or not to be swayed. He is perfectly within his rights. Just like Charleton Heston was to hold a pro gun conference in Denver right after the Columbine shootings. I thought it was mighty disrespectful but it was his right. People like freedom of speech as long as opinions expressed are that of their own but as soon as someone offers a different perspective, we want to revoke their individual freedom.
Peace,
STREETPUNK
P.S. This is a good debate, we should have used this in team wars.
Submitted by SoxSexSax (user info) at 2003-09-25 12:41:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"and you are very naive.
if someone wants to kill you it is just as likely to be performed with what ever is at hand. knives are sold as well and are just as deadly in someones hand . a treelimb can be as deadly ... doesnt matter how you die your fucking dead.
how many people did jack the ripper kill? or maybe Robert Black,John Reginald Christie,Gordon Cummins, John Haigh, and finally Dr. Harold Shipman as just of very few at the tip of the iceburg.
if someone wants to kill you they will. if some of those people had a gun at the time they might very well be alive. how abotu asking them if they wished they had a gun on them??? oh ya you cant their fucking dead."
Naive? I think you are being exceptionally obtuse to the point I was making.
If you have a KNIFE, you have to get up close and personal. You've got to risk getting the blood of your victim on your hands. You've got to risk getting it on your clothes. You've got to go up to another human and feel the blade enter their body.
If you have a GUN, death can be meted out from 50...60...70...or more feet away. No risk of blood splattering. No risk of splattering...less risk of detection. It's also far, far easier to kill someone with a gun than with almost any other weapon...put a full round of bullets from any hand gun into one person's torso and that person dies. End of story. Knifing is tricky to do well unless you're prepared to get fucking messy as well.
A gun makes killing easy...convenient...a far easier solution than rationally talking...or calling the police if its revenge.
Yes, a trusted professional doctor like Harold Shipman could (and indeed did) mass murder without a gun (Jack The Ripper only got 5, I believe.) But he is a *very* exceptional case (being a doctor and consequently having easy access to all kinds of drugs and the fact that his victims willingly and knowingly took them).
And as far as your last paragraph goes, can't you see...can't you SEE that is the most fucking backwards argument in the history of backward arguments! If the first person didn't have a fucking gun, the second wouldn't have fucking needed one. Jesus Christ, this argument for guns always fucks me right off. Only teenagers or people with the minds of teenagers use this.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2003-09-25 12:29:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Like it or not, if you want to keep your right to bear arms, you have to deal with other peoples rights to bitch about it."
not if i shoot them....
(i couldn't resist)
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2003-09-25 12:28:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by streetpunk (user info) at 2003-09-25 12:15:36 (#)
Ranking: 0
"Im posting this because I can.."
"fuckin' smartass. Americans have let freedom get to their fucking heads."
*****************************************************************************
How else can I interpret this bro? With your statement here, you seem to be implying that he should not have the right to post this or criticise.
=================================================
ONCE AGAIN- NO, I AM NOT SAYING HE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK OUT. I'M SAYING THAT I DON'T THINK HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH LYING TO AMERICA TO SWAY THEM TO OPPOSE A RIGHT STATED IN OUR BILL OF RIGHTS.
plus, i think he's way off.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2003-09-25 12:25:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Hugeos (user info) at 2003-09-25 12:20:10 (#)
Ranking: 0
hidden101 - "i'm not criticizing his right to free speach, i'm criticizing HOW he's doing it"
----------------------------------------------
So in America you're allowed free speech as long as they do it the way you like?
============================================================
uhhhhh.... yeah. do you like to be lied to?
Submitted by Hugeos (user info) at 2003-09-25 12:20:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
hidden101 - "i'm not criticizing his right to free speach, i'm criticizing HOW he's doing it"
----------------------------------------------
So in America you're allowed free speech as long as they do it the way you like?
And Bart, sorry mate, but shouting the 'right of militia to bear arms' lots of times is a pretty piss-poor argument. You all seem to hold this part of the constitution as scared and some kind of a priori truth, whereas in fact it is just a law that was passed a few hundred years ago. OOooooooh, I hear the vitriol pouring out of you now. "just a law? Dammit, it's our sacred constitution!". Um, it's still just a law. Like the law in the UK that says that it certain areas it is still legal to shoot Welshmen with a bow and arrow, the law is not infalliable, and should not be taken as such. To elevate it to the status of semi-deity that you seem to do smacks of fundamentalist ferour and nothing more.
Submitted by streetpunk (user info) at 2003-09-25 12:15:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Im posting this because I can.."
"fuckin' smartass. Americans have let freedom get to their fucking heads."
*****************************************************************************
How else can I interpret this bro? With your statement here, you seem to be implying that he should not have the right to post this or criticise.Like it or not, if you want to keep your right to bear arms, you have to deal with other peoples rights to bitch about it. That's why I did not say anything on your post about him because it's all opinion.
I am not wanting to fight or anything. I do agree that we should have this right. I just think the point of the film was completely misconstrued. I hate violence and think it should always be a last resort to any situation. I am not an idealist like Michael Moore. I know that violence has always been and will always be here. I know that guns are a necissary evil but that doesn't mean that we can not fight against violence and that doesn't mean we can not fight for more gun control. I know I am ok to own a gun but what about that guy who is not too stable with the bad temper. Should he have the right to own a gun? Would you want him living down the street from you and your family while owning a firearm?
Peace,
STREETPUNK
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2003-09-25 12:01:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Hidden, you say that some people let freedom go to their heads when they are exercising their right to criticise but you don't see the hypocrisy when you are not only exercising your right to criticise but also exercising your right to bear arms.
========================================================
goddamnit, Stanton, when are you people going to realize that i'm not criticizing his right to free speach, i'm criticizing HOW he's doing it. WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT??? HOW DOES THAT MAKE ME A HYPOCRITE???
oh, and as far as soxsex, or whatever his name is- that was the dumbest argument you've made so far when you said i was the one that was stupid for not capitalizing on my writing....
that doesn't even deserve a response.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2003-09-25 11:58:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2003-09-25 03:54:10 (#)
Ranking: -2
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
in case you didn't see that...
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
You don't think K-mart should sell guns?
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
The same piece of paper that states your right to bash the president without fear of governmental retribution is the same piece of paper that reads
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
What is so fucking difficult to understand here? Anything can be a weapon. If it isn't a tank, it's a machine gun. If it's not a machine gun, it's a shotgun. If it's not a shotgun, it's a box cutter. If it's not a box cutter, it's a baseball bat, a punch to the head, a good old kick to the groin. I would argue that machine guns should be street legal before I would argue that shotguns should be illegal.
If you think that gun manufacturers are responsible for violence, then you are a plague on society. Learn to accept some personal fucking accountability and expect the same of the psychopaths who go around shooting innocent people.
POP QUIZ
I was walking down the street today and a guy came up to me and asked me for some money. Why didn't I shoot him in the face?
a) I might have gotten arrested
b) I didn't have a gun with me
c) K-mart was out of bullets
d) I'm not a fucking lunatic
======================================================
it had to be posted again. this was the best thing i've ever read. how can one man be so awesome?
as for Matt's statement- i had a buy try to stab me once. he lunged at me with the knife, and i grabbed his arm, smacked the knife out of his hand, punched him sqaure in the face, and picked up his knife and stared into his soul.
he ran away.
Submitted by streetpunk (user info) at 2003-09-25 11:23:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I didn't want to get involved in this but I have to say that people missed the point of this movie, entirely. The movie in it's purest form poses a question to make you think. He shows all angles of violence and it's origins. To look at guns as a starting point for violence is not only rational but expected considering columbine and other school shootings.
Hidden, you say that some people let freedom go to their heads when they are exercising their right to criticise but you don't see the hypocrisy when you are not only exercising your right to criticise but also exercising your right to bear arms. As long as their is freedom of speech and freedom to bear arms, you are going to have people bitching about it from both sides.
I truthfully believe that the right to bear arms is ok. I think we should be able to own guns for many reasons. The constitution is referring to militias and is somewhat antiquated because they did not have the fire power that we have now but nevertheless, if war is brought to American soil, I will increase my chances of survival with my gun, if a robber/murderer breaks into my home I will be protected, etc etc.
With great power comes great responsibilty(spiderman). I truly believe that, so when we say that there should be no limitations on this is kind of absurd. They had no idea that a single shot musket could turn into an automatic machine gun over a period of 150 years. If they had, they might have chosen different verbiage.
Michael Moore was not blaming K-Mart for gun violence but I do think he was trying to show how easily it is to obtain bullets and other gun accessories for people who are obviously not mature enough to handle the responsibilty of carrying a firearm. Do you think as many people would have gotten hurt if they could not obtain the bullets for one reason or another?
So where does violence come from and why is America the most violent nation around right now? Does our freedom of speech and right to bear arms make us more violent? Does the media make us more violent? Are we more violent because we can be or because we are forced to be? Is it human nature to be violent? Does it all go with the territoy of freedom? These are the questions he is asking with this movie. Michael Moore is not a gun owner or a believer in that but I doubt he would want to do away with a constitutional right. He just wants regulations to prevent this. He wants people to wake up and see what's going on in our country. He wants conciousness to violence so people can think about their actions and possibly prevent them. He wants parents to be parents and talk to their kids. He wants kids to be taught that violence is not ok. He wants to make a dent in our country so we can be more peaceful.
Maybe he is an idealist but he's using his abilities as a film maker and writer to express a message that he feels strongly about. Does any sane person want violence? I doubt it. He just wanted America to recognize.
Peace,
STREETPUNK
Submitted by DJMattB241 (user info) at 2003-09-25 10:58:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"everyone's always saying, guns dont kill people.. people kill people.
well i think thats true...
but i think the gun HELPS"
-eddie izzard
i'm not sure what my stance on this is.
on one hand, i dont want to throw away the right to bear arms. a man has a right to protect his household and all that.
on the other hand, i think guns make it easy for people to be badasses, cuz they can hide behind a trigger. this is why there is so much violence, partially. people dont have to get INTO it to kill someone. They just walk by and pull a trigger.
hidden i think you'll agree with me on this. if someone had to come after you with something a little more physical, such as a knife or, god forbid, fists, there would be a LOT less badasses running around.
Submitted by Apathesia (user info) at 2003-09-25 10:26:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
What kills people? Simple question here. Do "guns" get up one morning, and go 'Gee, I think I blowing someone's head off today!'? NO. Why? Because guns do not kill people. Wanna know what does? DRUMROLL PLEASE...........-People- kill people. Like someone mentioned below, a gun, a knife, a can of fucking peas will do the trick. If someone wants to kill, they will. END OF STORY. We got some real fuckin stupid people out there that don't realize a simple concept like this. If you ban guns, or restrict the crap out of them, murders and robbings etc. will still happen. Why? Because criminals don't follow laws.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2003-09-25 08:18:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I love the carefully reasoned intelligent comments you get from Americans when you have the audacity to suggest anything about them isn't perfect. Their eloquence and humility never ceases to amaze me.
Submitted by marc01 (user info) at 2003-09-25 07:13:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
and one more just for good measure.
Submitted by marc01 (user info) at 2003-09-25 07:12:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
and another
Submitted by marc01 (user info) at 2003-09-25 07:12:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
fk me i ment to neg 2 this.
Submitted by marc01 (user info) at 2003-09-25 07:11:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Nobody <nobody.at.nowhere.com> at 2003-09-25 05:52:23 (#)
Ranking: 2
"Americans have let freedom get to their fucking heads."
This is precisely the problem with fascist countries like America. Freedom is for those who want the right kind of freedom. Freedom of speech is for those who want the freedom to say approved things. The trouble is, most Americans are too stupid to see it.
you sir are a complete moron.
as to SoxSexSax. and where were most of those poll's collected from? a very small demographic that is used consistanly over and over by the media as there views are what they (the media) wish to expound. poll's are worse than assholes as they do not perform a represitive sampling of anything other than those so sampled. if you were to tak those polls in at least half of the other states you woudl get very different results.
and actually i do not own a gun. however i have a very firm belief in my right to bear arms if i so choose.
SoxSexSax...
"How anyone can justify carrying a gun is beyond me. If NOBODY carried a gun, the world would be a safer place. Don't give the crap about "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Yes, this statement is true...but you keep giving psychopaths (fucking nutters to you, hidden) guns"
and you are very naive.
if someone wants to kill you it is just as likely to be performed with what ever is at hand. knives are sold as well and are just as deadly in someones hand . a treelimb can be as deadly ... doesnt matter how you die your fucking dead.
how many people did jack the ripper kill? or maybe Robert Black,John Reginald Christie,Gordon Cummins, John Haigh, and finally Dr. Harold Shipman as just of very few at the tip of the iceburg.
if someone wants to kill you they will. if some of those people had a gun at the time they might very well be alive. how abotu asking them if they wished they had a gun on them??? oh ya you cant their fucking dead.
Submitted by Nobody <nobody.at.nowhere.com> at 2003-09-25 05:52:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"Americans have let freedom get to their fucking heads."
This is precisely the problem with fascist countries like America. Freedom is for those who want the right kind of freedom. Freedom of speech is for those who want the freedom to say approved things. The trouble is, most Americans are too stupid to see it.
Submitted by SoxSexSax (user info) at 2003-09-25 05:09:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I hate doing this, responding after I said I wouldn't. But, fuck it, this info was too good not to post. Please note that it is properly sourced throughout:
http://www.usaweekend.com/99_issues/990704/990704pollpart1.html
52% say the right to bear arms should be modified or eliminated.
89% believe there should be some restrictions on gun ownership.
http://www.comotionmakers.org/gunviolence.html
90% of high school students favor the registration of all newly purchased handguns and the licensing of handgun buyers. Gilbert, Dennis, Hamilton College Youth and Guns Poll, Arthur Levitt Public Affairs Center, Clinton, NY, August 2000.
89% of students think that anyone buying a handgun should first pass a safety course. Gilbert, Dennis, Hamilton College Youth and Guns Poll, Arthur Levitt Public Affairs Center, Clinton, NY, August 2000.
63% of teens think that laws regulating the sale and use of handguns would not violate the rights of gun owners. Gilbert, Dennis, Hamilton College Youth and Guns Poll, Arthur Levitt Public Affairs Center, Clinton, NY, August 2000.
In 1998, more than 10 children and teenagers, ages 19 and under, were killed with guns everyday. Calculated by the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence. Unpublished Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics. National Vital Statistics System 2000. Also available from CDC Wonder at: http://www.cdc.gov.
On average, approximately 57% of annual firearm deaths are suicides, 40% are homicides, and 3% are unintentional shootings. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2000.
Every two years since 1988, more Americans have died from firearm injury than were killed in the entire 11 years of the war in Vietnam. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics. Unpublished Data from the National Vital Statistics System, 2000. Also available from CDC Wonder at: http://wonder.cdc.gov.
The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home. Kellerman, Arthur et. al. Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home. N Engl J Med. 1992; 327: 467-472.
Currently, the United States has weaker gun regulations and higher gun violence than all other industrialized countries and even most developing nations. United Nations, 1999.
In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada, and 9,266 in the United States. Calculated by the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence from mortality data obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Available at: http://wonder.cdc.gov.
Guns are the ****only**** (Sox: stars added by me for emphasis) consumer products in the U.S. that do not have to meet any government standards about safe design and distribution. United Nations, 1997.
United States and the Czech Republic are the only two industrialized countries that do not have a national system of licensing and registration. United Nations, 1997.
60% of Americans support stricter laws to prevent gun violence in this country. Associated Press Poll, April 2000.
61% of Americans feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict. Gallup/CNN/USA Today Poll, April 2000.
72% of Americans favor requiring a license to legally own a handgun. CNN/Time Poll, March 2000.
THIS ONE IS THE BIGGY!!!
A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used to shoot a member of the household or a friend than to shoot in self-defense. Kellerman, Arthur et. al. Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home. The Journal of Trauma, 1998.
Submitted by SoxSexSax (user info) at 2003-09-25 04:37:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Responding to Hidden,
"for one, that was the most ignorant statement i've heard yet."
Good thing you rectified the situation later on.
"for two- nice try, Moore. trying to discredit supporters of the Bill of Rights by calling them gun nuts. there's another tactic played out by Moore. make people think the Second Ammendment supporters are crazy rednecks, waving guns in the air."
Why does America have the highest murder rate in the western world? Hmm...
"you're so fucking stupid, i can't even begin to fathom it."
Well, the difference between you and I is that I can formulate a rational discussion without resorting to calling people "fucking stupid" (and, by the way, I find this highly amusing coming from someone too lazy to bother capitalising their writing). I put it to you, sir, that you are the one who is "fucking stupid", especially as I can provide proof of my IQ, if required.
"why don't you ask the bank teller what she thinks? i bet you'd be surprised to find out...."
Why not ask the hundreds of American's who've died as a result of some lunatic with a gun...oh wait, you can't can you.
To all:
How anyone can justify carrying a gun is beyond me. If NOBODY carried a gun, the world would be a safer place. Don't give the crap about "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Yes, this statement is true...but you keep giving psychopaths (fucking nutters to you, hidden) guns. There was a post on the main page linking to a news report of a shooting in a school on here merely hours ago.
Frankly hidden, whether the US has guns on the street or not bothers me, as a Brit, not one jot. But I wonder, if you or a loved one had been killed by a gun, whether you would be so rabid in your support.
I have nothing more to say on the matter. I will not respond in this thread any more. I'll let you gun lovers discuss your widow-makers in peace.
Submitted by chipolatte (user info) at 2003-09-25 03:59:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
That was art, bart.
Submitted by bart (user info) at 2003-09-25 03:54:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
in case you didn't see that...
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
You don't think K-mart should sell guns?
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
The same piece of paper that states your right to bash the president without fear of governmental retribution is the same piece of paper that reads
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
What is so fucking difficult to understand here? Anything can be a weapon. If it isn't a tank, it's a machine gun. If it's not a machine gun, it's a shotgun. If it's not a shotgun, it's a box cutter. If it's not a box cutter, it's a baseball bat, a punch to the head, a good old kick to the groin. I would argue that machine guns should be street legal before I would argue that shotguns should be illegal.
If you think that gun manufacturers are responsible for violence, then you are a plague on society. Learn to accept some personal fucking accountability and expect the same of the psychopaths who go around shooting innocent people.
POP QUIZ
I was walking down the street today and a guy came up to me and asked me for some money. Why didn't I shoot him in the face?
a) I might have gotten arrested
b) I didn't have a gun with me
c) K-mart was out of bullets
d) I'm not a fucking lunatic
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2003-09-25 03:23:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Im posting this because I can.."
fuckin' smartass. Americans have let freedom get to their fucking heads.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2003-09-25 03:21:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by SoxSexSax (user info) at 2003-09-25 03:08:54 (#)
Ranking: 2
+2. The thing that annoys me most about the US is not Bush...it is not the arrogance...it's the fact that a weapon that makes killing another human easier than rational discussion is freely available to all.
====================================================
for one, that was the most ignorant statement i've heard yet.
for two- nice try, Moore. trying to discredit supporters of the Bill of Rights by calling them gun nuts. there's another tactic played out by Moore. make people think the Second Ammendment supporters are crazy rednecks, waving guns in the air.
you're so fucking stupid, i can't even begin to fathom it.
why don't you ask the bank teller what she thinks? i bet you'd be surprised to find out....
Submitted by SoxSexSax (user info) at 2003-09-25 03:08:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
+2. The thing that annoys me most about the US is not Bush...it is not the arrogance...it's the fact that a weapon that makes killing another human easier than rational discussion is freely available to all.
Submitted by gbusman (user info) at 2003-09-25 03:08:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
what a terrible response.
-Bus
Submitted by DooZa (user info) at 2003-09-25 03:04:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I didnt read this .. can someone tell me what this is about.. In small words so my stoned mind can comprehend?
0 untill I find out what this is about