Shotgun Forum banner
1 - 20 of 47 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Out of curiosity I watched this movie over the weekend. This movie was a disgrace and an insult to ALL legal gun owners. The producer, Mike Moore (sp), did his best to serve up his one sided opinions in an effort to make all gun owners look like savage lunatics. He claims to be a card holding member of the NRA but it must be his effort at "infiltration".

There is too much to rant about in this movie. How on earth did he win an academy award for this one sided, non-factual piece of pig manure?

If you really want to get ticked off, watch this movie. Better yet, find a boot leg copy of this so that bum doesn't make any of your hard earned money. :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
I am gonna have to disagree with you on this. I loved the movie and didn't stop laughing. Miceheal Moore is a lifetime member of the NRA. He bought a membership to run as president. His goal was to make the NRA more focused on gun safety. He dropped out to pursue this great movie. It doesn't depict all gun owners as savage lunatics. Some in America yes. They go into Canada and see there are gun owners and the U.S. murder rates for guns are astronomically higher. It shows that they are some wacko's out there. An example is the lady the said " All the cops do is show up and take care of the criminal, I just take out the middle man." I don't know about you but I would go to police first. There are some situations where logistics doesn't allow it. I recommend for everyone to see this movie legally.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,214 Posts
I've had several hard core right wing whacko's (good close friends) tell me that to really get the gist of his message you have to watch it several times. They say the rhetoric that pisses people of loses it's edge after a couple of times, and you won't dwell on it but see the real message which is not necessarily anti- gun.

My question is, if it's supposed to be pro-gun why is it set up in a way to piss us off and close our minds?

here's a review that sort of mirrors what my friends have told me about it. http://eserver.org/bs/reviews/2002-10-15-11.05AM.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
241 Posts
Yeah, I'd have to agree with ThaShooter and Marland on this one...

When I first rented it, I was ready to get defensive and pissed off about gun owners being portrayed unfairly. But I walked away from the movie with the message that it is the media's "campaign of fear" that typically drives violence in the US, not gun ownership in and of itself.

Like ThaShooter mentioned, one of Moore's observations is about how Canadians live with and love guns, but don't commit the same amount of murders we do.

Moore argued that there are common misconceptions about American society like the belief that we watch more violent films, or that all our violence stems from racial conflict. He was trying to prove that these don't really hold up when you look at the facts. Along with those, he mentioned gun ownership and brought up Canada and how many guns there are up there.

Plus, at the end of the film, he again drives home the point about the media's paranoia. The movie doesn't really end with a tirade against gun ownership.

I think the NRA comes off looking pretty bad, but not gun owners themselves.

Just one man's opinion...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
My reasons for not liking that fat ******* michael moore go way back to Roger 'N Me. Where he tried to blame Reagan for what unions brought upon themselves. (Ya know, the one where he blamed the closing of the Flint GM plant on greedy GM, despite the fact that they were losing money to foreign competition hand over fist? Key word, LOSING MONEY) The way he portrayed the NRA is enough to make him anti-gun. But let's not forget his support of the Greens, who are hardly pro-gun. With there former CPUSA candidate Nader. He's also a fan of Greenpeace and PETA. I won't waste my time explaining whats wrong with that.

No one here should pretend for one single minute, that if it wasn't for the NRA getting involved in politics, we'd be able to enjoy the shooting sports today. Moore is anti-gun, and has always been. Let's not forget how much the movie has been lauded by the anti-gun groups and across Europe for it's "accurate portrayal of America's gun culture of violence." He realizes that the gun lobby has an awful lot of voters at there finger tips, and despite his claims about all of the "big money" bull****, it's in reality the 80million+ gun owners that make the big difference.

Basically, he's a rabid lefty whose trying to make a name for himself, and pissed that he's not caused greater political waves. I'm registered as and vote as a libertarian. While, I don't consider the current administration the ideal leadership, I would consider G-Dubbs head and shoulders over any of the socialists, and totalitarians that Mikey Moore has campaigned for. Just too bad GW isn't a little more Ron Paul, and a little less Richard Nixon. But, I've accepted that he's another Rockafellar Republican.

Anyway, back to the point... The great irony in his film is that he capitalizes on media 'scare mongering' to get his point across. I'm not sure I really wan't to get into a discussion about the factual errors in the movie. Hardy Law, Dave Kopel, Doug Thompson and the other commentators have done an excellent job of that. There are plenty of links to these discussions on www.revoketheoscar.com And while your at it, lurk around the Cato Institute... Tell us what the libertarians think of that fat ******* Miky Moore.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
By the way, Michael Moore is as much a Member of the NRA as Phyllis Schaffly is a member of the ACLU. In both cases it is nothing more than smoke up one's as... I mean smoke and mirrors. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I respect all of your opinions on this matter but what really set me off was "the facts". I'm pretty sure what gets into the newspapers east of the Delaware River doesn't make print on the western side. Violent crime is almost a daily occurance in the NY/NJ metro area. Especially in the urban areas along the Hudson River, especially Essex County. Last week the NJ town of Irvington made the papers for having it's 16th and 17th murders.

Irvington, around 20 miles east of where I live, is a town that is probably 1 square mile large. You then throw the nieghboring towns of Newark and East Orange into the mix and you have Violent Crime Central.

I took my wife and youngest daughter to a show in NYC last week and I found out the next day that 2 people were shot and killed a few blocks away from where we were.

To arrive at these "facts" I feel that demographics should have been addressed, at least a little. Last year there was a double homicide 6 miles from my home, in Roxbury. Two store clerks were working in a video store when a couple of predators shot them down for no known reason. They are still at large. I may be wrong but I heard the car they drove away with had NY plates.

I don't know the hard count but it's a safe bet that our major cities and the surrounding urban areas make up the majority of violent crimes with guns.

NJ probably has the toughest gun laws in the country. We have lawmakers around here that look for any and all reasons to make them tougher.

Do you know that to buy a Crossman pellet rifle around here it is the same as buying a .460 Weatherby Magnum? You have to present your NJ issued Firearm ID card, fill out a form stating that you're not crazy, will not overthrow the government, you don't beat your spouse, etc. Then you have to go through the normal NIC (sp). And that's for long guns. You have to apply for a permit, for each individual pistol or side arm you attempt to buy. Pistol permits must be applied for at your local PD.

Dum a$$ed movies like this don't make it any easier for the law abiding people in this state. Meanwhile the predators around here don't seem to be affected at all.

Be careful! A lot of these NJ lawmakers head west and south when they get tired of it here. Then they'll be trying to tell you what you should and shouldn't do.

There, it was my turn to vent :roll:

Thanks for the ear :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
Since I don't want Texas to be like NJ in a couple of years I agree with budd. Just like the latest fasions, things start on the east coast and move west...I've been dreading those rediculous gun laws coming to Texas for a while. I have never understood how taking guns away from law-abiding citizens at all helps prevent crime. I think it only prevents crime-prevention! (get all that?) If I was a criminal with an illegal gun I would feel a hell of a lot safer breaking into a house knowing that if the people inside do happen to even have guns that they will have them locked up with trigger gaurds and what not. Even if they did get their guns out they couldn't legally shoot me! That sounds a lot like incouraging crime to me. The NRA, whether we like it or not, is the largest spokesman for the gun owners of America, so anything said bad about them I take personally.

There is my venting for the day...

PS...I just put a bumber sticker on my car today that I got at a gun show...it says "more guns less crime" Although it sounds like an oxymoron I believe it to be very true under most circumstances.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,228 Posts
I feel Moore left himself out for scrutiny on purpose. It is common for powerful speakers and writers to take extreme points of view to make a point. I don't see this movie as anti gun, but as anti-idiot american. Most of us are not idiots, but the ones who are make the news and that goes out to the rest of the world. Count how many "Hunter shoots self/neighbor" headlines and compare it to how many "Hunter safely handles firearm and nobody is in danger" you see. I would say a bunch of the former and none of the latter, even though safe gun owners outnumber idiot gun owners by a very very large margin.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
FYI, The following was written by local high school students. NJ education at it's finest. The last 2 or 3 lines show the effect of this movie on our youth:

'Bowling for Columbine' is an eye-opener about guns
By Rebecca DiBrienza, MCTV Teen Writer

Americans love guns. Seriously - they are positively obsessed with firearms.

The most popular Halloween costumes for young boys are Army men and wild West heroes, quite possibly because of the sheer fun derived from carrying a toy gun. Young children are quick to decide that they'd like to be policemen when they grow up, because "their guns are really cool."

This infatuation spills over into adulthood, as more and more Americans purchase guns because they feel safer owning one.

Many tragedies occur each year because of this country's fixation on deadly weapons - the shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., for example.

In the Academy Award-winning documentary "Bowling for Columbine" (available on DVD and video from MGM/UA Video), activist filmmaker Michael Moore explores the roots of America's fondness for gun violence. He presents his findings in a film that is undeniably witty and heart-wrenching at times.

The film includes Moore's "A Brief History of the United States of America." This short animated sequence describes the role played by guns in U.S. history, from the Puritans landing at Plymouth Rock, to the Civil War, all the way up to the present. It also focuses on the role fear plays in this country.

Moore's philosophy is that in the United States, we have a culture based entirely on fear. According to Moore, Americans are told what to think, how to act and what will inevitably happen to them if they choose to do otherwise.

"Bowling for Columbine" consists mainly of Moore doing on-the-spot interviews and explorations. For example, he walks into a bank that claims it will give a free gun to whoever opens an account. Moore does this and is handed a gun after only a brief background and identification check.

After looking thoughtfully at the gun, he asks, "Don't you think it's a little dangerous to be handing out guns in a bank?"

The bank employees look at him strangely, and explain that they keep at least 500 firearms in their vault at any given time. Moore shrugs and leaves the bank.

Moore leaves no stone unturned when investigating the shootings at Columbine High School. He describes the two teenagers who did the shootings, and interviews two girls who had classes with them. He interviews "South Park" creator Matt Stone, who grew up in Littleton and attended Columbine High School. Stone explains how Columbine made extensive use of Moore's "culture of fear."

Moore also shows clips of National Rifle Association President Charlton Heston speaking at a rally in Littleton only 10 days after the Columbine tragedy. Stone comments that the rally was "disrespectful, because some people of Littleton had just lost their kids, and now guns were being shoved under their nose."

Moore interviews Heston, who shows no sympathy and eventually asks Moore to remove himself immediately, as he is trespassing.

Moore also shows many, many clips of government officials, each with a different person or thing to blame the tragedy on. Shock-rocker Marilyn Manson's name comes up several times (both teenagers responsible for the shootings were Manson fans), so Moore decides to interview him.

Manson is sympathetic toward the situation, explaining that he canceled his tour out of respect for the people of Littleton and still does not play in any venues near the town.

When Moore asks Manson to comment on his involvement in the situation through influence, however, Manson becomes defensive: "At the time of the Columbine tragedy, President Clinton was shooting bombs overseas and denying affairs with Monica Lewinsky, and yet I'm the bad guy, because I sang a couple of rock 'n' roll songs."

"I thought Michael Moore made some good points," said Jacqueline Garcia, a senior at Morristown High School. "I really enjoyed the interview with Marilyn Manson, as well as everything that was said about fear. That was so interesting."

Another entertaining (yet shocking) component of "Bowling for Columbine" is Moore's trip to Canada. The audience learns that the percentage of Canadians who own guns is actually greater than the percentage of Americans who own them. Ammunition is available more easily in Canada as well. Moore demonstrates by walking into a local Wal-Mart, picking up several kinds of bullets and walking to the register to purchase them. The cashier takes his money, no questions asked.

This must mean that firearm homicides occur more frequently in Canada than in the United States, right? Wrong. Canada reports 165 firearm homicides annually (still outrageous compared to Japan's 39), while the United States reports 11,127 each year.

"The fact that anybody could walk into Wal-Mart and buy some bullets was kind of upsetting to me." said Emily Bye, a senior at Morristown High School. "Throughout the movie, I was shocked that so many people don't know right from wrong."

"Bowling for Columbine" is extremely thorough; it's almost haunting at some points. To learn more about it, visit www.bowlingforcolumbine. com, a fantastic site complete with video clips. For more on the director/star, check out www.michaelmoore.com.

Do yourself a favor and watch this impressive documentary. It will make you think 10 times harder about the position that guns hold in our society and what can be done about America's dangerous passion for firearms.

Rebecca DiBrienza is a junior at Morristown High School.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
531 Posts
I'm an NRA member, a Right-Wing wacko (rugged individualist and super mega turbo anti-kollektivista), a decendant of General Robert E. Lee, and a supporter of the Sons and Daughters of the Confederacy. The KKK does NOT represent the ideals of the Confederacy even in the least!! I encourage all American citizens to take vigilante action against the Klan. Do it for our World War II veterans. Do it for our fathers and for our grandfathers. All fascist heathens deserve to suffer our retribution.

But I digress. If being a survivalist makes me a savage lunatic, then I'm proud of being a savage lunatic. Remember Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World'. To be "savage" (by Mickey Mooriarty's definition) is to be free. To be a "lunatic" (also by Mooriarty's definition) is be enlightened.

If being an American makes me a villain, then I will revel in my villainy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,228 Posts
Viva John Riley y los San Patricios!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
I watched Bill Marher's interview with Michael Moore on Real Time. That fat-a** is definately liberal. I don't how many times I stopped myself from kicking the TV. The ******* made so many ignorant comments against guns and gun ownership. I strongly agree with Budd's first post: he's in the NRA just as a leftwing spy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
Micheal Moore is definitely the man. He went to Kenneth Starr's house with a group of people dressed from the 1600's and yelled "Witch and pointed at him". To show how the Clinton trial was stupid. Also what is so wrong with being liberal. Our current president select is the only president to receive an F as a grade in environment. I believe this an issue we all care about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
531 Posts
Viva la Survivalisto!! :D *throws clenched fist in the air*

~~~~~

Micheal Moore is definitely the man.
This coming from a Decepticon...no surprize. :p j/k
 
G

·
There's nothing wrong with being liberal. In the classic sense, but that word has been hijacked over the last quarter century. A group calling themselves progressives, used it to moderate there public persona. (now appearantly they are going back to Progressives) Liberal initially described folks like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. And can you imagine how pissed they'd be at the thought that "modern" liberals are somehow comparing themselves to them? They certainly weren't anti-gun, they certainly wouldn't bar public displays of religeon, they wouldn't approve of the confiscation of one's income to redistribute to others (they didn't even approve of an income tax!), they didn't believe in government take over of private industry (hillary healthcare anyone?), they weren't anti-hunter, they certainly didn't believe it was the governments place to tell you what to eat, smoke or drink, and they believed in a Republic based on law, not mob rule type democracy. (hence the electoral system, for those who didn't put that together)

If Michael Moore is "the Man" there's something F&#@ed up with men these days and I no longer want to claim part of this. Ken Starr was doing his job, just like every other special prosecuter that has investigated, is investigating, and will investigate any other public official. He just happened to turn up a lot of **** on Slick Willy. Arguably the worst thing to happen to our country in many many years. I would think any gun owner would note his utter disregard for America's laws, and trying to use the UN treaties to push agenda's he couldn't push any other way. The boom in the economy that happened on his watch has far more to do with the tech revolution than it did with bolstering of the welfare state. So how did it take guts for Moore to do this? Seriously? It's kind of like every time someone says "I know this is an unpopular opinion..." Well, if it's so damn unpopular, how come I hear it every time I pick up a paper, turn on the TV or radio? How did this take guts? And again, why would any sane gun owner or a sportsman be such a Clinton lover?

Who gave our current president the F for the environment? Seriously? Who's standards? Greenpeace? PETA? Jean Chretien? As a general rule of thumb. If a group uses the phrase "environmental protection" instead of 'conservation,' it means they combine redistributive politics (read keynsian economics, or socialism) with there environmental message. This is what generally what separates groups like Greenpeace from those like Ducks Unlimited. Well that, and while one is generating 3.3 billion in private funds for the purchase and management of game lands the other is bombing research labs and burning down housing projects... Care to guess which one is which? While I admit that GW is somewhat two faced on the issue, he's greener than most on the left would like to admit. A lot of there criticisms have been proven full of ****. Like the supposed 'SUV tax credit,' people were whining about. The biggest criticism is because GW isn't hiking taxes to pay for it, he's counting on the private sector. And of course because he's not a Democrat. He's hardly a true Goldwater conservative, but he does have that much loathed (R) before his name.

Let's face it, politics in this country has become incredibly polarized, and turned into nothing more than a pre-game shouting match. Kind of like Ohio State and UofM fans arguing about why one is better than the other. Truth is, there's not a hell of a lot of difference. If one looks objectively, both parties are out to screw the general public in there own way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,228 Posts
I never vote for anyone from the two major parties. In fact, most of the time I write myself in because I best represent myself dangit. When the country goes down the tubes its not my guy who caused it cuz my guy never wins.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,207 Posts
I think that first, you have to separate the movie from the individual who produced it. Michael Moore has always struck me as a grandiose child of, at best, moderate intelligence. I happen to work in academia (yes, you have a prof from the NE land of unthinking liberalism--Connecticut--hanging around Shotgunworld writing posts on how much he loves his new old Ithaca, and believe me, it's lonely here), and I can assure you that MM is loved by all the wishy-washy democrats who are my colleagues. I've never found him funny, just rude. He's always been willing to say or do anything that will get him some more attention.

That said, I think that even though many of the posters here see through the Columbine film and read its messages deeply ought not to let Moore off the hook. He'd be just as happy to get an award for being anti-gun as for producing a clever interrogation of the relationship of guns to culture. A film is a text, and the meanings of all texts are unstable. The viewer, you see, will always find the message for which he or she is looking. Try complicating the model a bit: it's not that Moore puts in one clear message or moral and that a discerning viewer can then decode that one message clearly. It's that he fills up the space of the film with conflicting messages, which we all "read" according to our own cultural backgrounds and political beliefs. My reason for posting about this is that I think we should try to stand outside Moore's work in order to judge it, rather than being drawn in by the little hooks he dangles in order to catch us. This is so, in my opinion, whether you hate him and his film, or whether you think you've seen through to some deeper level. You have indeed seen through--but part of the message is always already contained in your own mind and experience. He knows this.

Michael Moore likes to slum around among people whom he regards as low-brow, or backwards, or ignorant, and then sneer at them, or portray them as culturally inferior. He's insidious this way. Like most liberals, he thinks you can maintain class distinctions even as you purport to be against them. Watch out for people like him: they'll get you to think they're ok, but you'll find yourself on the receiving end of a very smelly stick not long after. Why did he get the award? Hollywood just loves this kind of stuff: "let's all be politically anti-gun while we make incredibly violent shoot-em-up flicks, ala John Woo." My point: hold this stuff at arm's length! If you don't, it'll be at your peril.
 
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
Top