A Bowling for Columbine Review

I'm not sure what I've bought. I, personally, as I've already stated once, do not carry a gun. I personally do not feel the need to. However, I do not wish to restrict others who may want to do so.

Nebbit, there is no fear cultivated by the pro-gun crowd. None. They are merely trying to keep the tradition, the hobby alive...against some very irrational, terribly misinformed people who rely more on fear, loathing, ignorance, and knee-jerk reactions, than they do logic, common sense, and truth. The truth is out there. Don't allow yourself to be overwhelmed by those who seek a personal agenda or wish to foster a movement of fear and misconception.

Violent crime is real. It doesn't need to be sensationalized or exaggerated in order to make it known. The gun-rights lobbies have no need or desire to propogandize anything. The anti-gun lobbies have every reason to propogandize because the people know that violent crime is real and every one is a potential victim and that gun control DOES NOT WORK. It is very simple.

There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books right now and NONE of them do anything to stop violent crime. NONE.

The study is false, as I've already pointed out twice. Unless you grew up in a home where your father is a booger-eating, incenstuous monster who likes to threaten the mailman for trespassing and enjoys beating on your Mom for entertainment, then you are pretty safe.

Don't go around quoting MMoorefan, he is one mean-spirited little troll.

You are correct, Nebbit. Just because something is a tradition doesn't make it right. I agree. Some traditions are bad., such as female circumcision; and some traditions are good, such as the right to keep and bear arms in the USA. [I bet you are a real cutie. ]

As James Madison said, "Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation." James Madison, "The Federalist 46 (1788).

James Madison is the father of the Constitution, in case anyone cares.

__________________

Quick!

How many gun control advocates are featured on our nation's currency?

[quote=Karl Childers]I'm not sure what I've bought. I, personally, as I've already stated once, do not carry a gun. I personally do not feel the need to. However, I do not wish to restrict others who may want to do so.
_____________________________________________________________

**Sorry about that, must read better before I assume, my fault.**
_____________________________________________________________

Don't allow yourself to be overwhelmed by those who seek a personal agenda or wish to foster a movement of fear and misconception.
_____________________________________________________________

***No need to worry about me, not much overwhelms me***
_____________________________________________________________

Violent crime is real.
_____________________________________________________________

***I know it is I am a victim of it myself, it still doesn't think everyone should have the right to bears arms, how do you tell who is nasty etc***
_____________________________________________________________

The study is false, as I've already pointed out twice. Unless you grew up in a home where your father is a booger-eating, incenstuous monster who likes to threaten the mailman for trespassing and enjoys beating on your Mom for entertainment, then you are pretty safe.
_____________________________________________________________

***I wasn't quoting MMoorefan I was agreeing with him, as studies here show that also, how do you know if a study is false or not? Unfortunately a lot of people grow up in some terrible homes, I am glad I had a good home with loving parents.****
_____________________________________________________________


[I bet you are a real cutie. ]
____________________________________________________________

I am, for shore.

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

I think that one of the things that Michael Moore was trying to say with this film was that the media feeds on paranoia because sensationalism in the news is more profitable--more newsworthy. This contributes to setting up a cultural climate that puts the general population on edge--making them excessively nervous and trigger-happy for no apparent reason.

I think what Moore is arguing for is compassion in society in the face of ruthless corporate profiteering. This theme ties in with his earlier film, Roger and Me. It was particularly telling in the sequence where Moore organizes a group of Columbine survivors/victims and takes them to K-Mart to demand a halt on the sale of handgun ammunition.

Regarding Moore's portrayal of Charleton Heston--I agree that he went a little too far in demonizing a great thespian--a man that I, personally, admire and respect. However, quite apart from the fact that one's words can be taken out of context and distorted in the editing room (God knows that's happened to me any number of times ), what I find disturbing about Heston's conduct is the fact that he so prominently participated in NRA rallies so close on the heels of the Columbine shooting and then another underage shooting incident, and then he (seemingly) disdainfully refused to apologize to the concerned citizenry. I don't know what brought on such conduct on his part, and I am in no position to pass judgment on him, but I think it was somewhat reprehensible and Moore was justified in confronting him about it.

Nice to see you have resurfaced, I was interested in your post as I thought, he isn't raving about himself for once, until I hit this bit, just couldn't help yourself, GET OVER IT

Really? You think maybe the gun control crowd might also use tactics of fear to further their agenda? Or do you think the NRA folks own the corner on that? Considering the enormous, historical trash heap of lies and deception the gun control movement has created over the years, I think their has been plenty of fear-mongering coming from the left-wing , prohibitionist side. Let's repeat that....prohibitionist.

We prohibit something when we are afraid of it. Whether or not it is moral or just to prohibit it, is another matter entirely. But prohibition means control, as in gun control.

Ask an entire stadium of gun control advocates whether or not they are afraid of guns, and you would be hard pressed to find one that says he is not. I'm not talking about a healthy fear, a respect; but an irrational fear of something which is unfamiliar and foreign to their sub-culture. Of course, not all gun control proponents are unfamiliar with guns, nor are they crippled with fear by them. But the majority of them certainly appear to be.

More unsettling than the fear and loathing of an inanimate object is the desire to control other people. Of course, this appears to be a Socialist/Fascist phenomenon. Many gun control advocates fear people, and are totally envious of those who are unafraid to defend themselves using lethal force. This envy frequently results in a desire to control those people, because we must all be on the same footing. We can't have people using lethal force to defend their property or themselves when others are too afraid to do this.

Gun control is all about fear, and all about controlling not only inanimate objects, but people-- entire sub-cultures of people. People who believe in the right to keep and bear arms-- without restriction-- and who celebrate this freedom by maintaining the shooting/hunting sports.

Django's quote is so ironic considering that the topic of this thread is Michael Moore's highly fictionalized mockumentary. Why did Moore have to twist his facts and alter his audio/footage if there is no fear mongering on his side?

So you are saying Moore's pathetic stunt at K-Mart was more about squashing the big, mean Capitalist bully than it was about gun control? Not hardly. If he was truly concerned about the former, he would stop wearing cheap sneakers manufactured in filthy, third-world sweat shops. Wouldn't he?

Tackling something like that is too difficult, it requires too much effort. Moore prefers following around his prey with a cheap camera and a bunch of brainwashed groupies. Hunting down the likes of Ken Starr and that Roger dude provide instant cult power among the ignorant, socialist Left. Maximum exposure, minimum work. He's no dummy. I'll give him that.

So he takes his groupies to K-Mart to protest ammo sales. Meanwhile, K-Mart is sinking and Wal Mart is booming. (Wal Mart has a nice deal on 100 packs of .45 acp ammo if anyone is interested, btw. )

Did I miss something? Was Heston and the NRA responsible for Columbine or any other shooting? Either they were responsible, or they were not. If they were responsible for Columbine, please explain.

If they were not, then why would anyone expect them to change their schedule-- their agenda (since they are a LOBBY, don't forget)-- because of the oversensitivity and fear-mongering of their opposition?

Okay, just to set the record straight on this… following the Columbine shooting, the NRA cancelled all the events they had scheduled except for their annual business meeting that by law, had to be held… and this meeting had been scheduled several years before the shooting took place…

As far as the Flint shooting… the speech Heston gave there took place 8 months after the shooting and was at a “Get Out the Vote” rally… not an NRA rally… as a matter of fact, Michael Moore was there himself at the same time doing the same thing Heston was doing except he was holding rallies for Nadar’s party…

Given the facts, Heston had nothing to apologize for and as far as I am concerned, if any apologizes are in order, they should be made by Moore for assuming people were too ignorant to search out the truth for themselves…

__________________

Beautifully said. And SO true.

I still can't believe so many people have become brainwashed by this huckster. Michael Moore can't even take himself seriously. Why do others?

Hey, I'm not trying to make a statement about gun control one way or the other. All I did was state my interpretive critical evaluation of Michael Moore's film!

Again, I was only stating my critical evaluation of Moore's film and the message it conveys (to me). I'm not interested in getting into the gun control debate one way or the other, thanks!

I didn't say that Heston was responsible for Columbine. I just think that it was in really bad taste to hold a gun rally immediately after a shooting incident like Columbine. Kind of like throwing a party on someone's grave. I just think that something like that reflects badly on Heston because it seems to suggest that he places no value on human life, and after all his moralistic posturing in his movies and real life, doing something like this conveys the image that he is completely insensitive to basic human concerns--as if his ivory-tower Hollywood lifestyle has cut him off from the basic interests of average people.

Well, if that's the case, that isn't the impression I got from watching the movie! Point is, Heston made his "cold dead hands" speech in an NRA rally in the vicinity of the Columbine shooting immediately following the incident, right? A rally that was picketed by victims of the shooting. Whether the rally was scheduled years in advance or not, the timing stank. The fact that a business meeting for the National Rifle Association could not be rescheduled or cancelled because of a shooting incident simply because it had been scheduled years before is a pretty shallow excuse in my opinion. And even if the meeting was held, what, in God's name, did Heston think he was doing making the "cold dead hands" speech with a rifle in his hands, no less! The timing stank so bad as to reflect on the possibility that Heston is completely insensitive to the concerns of the average populace--a populace scarred by a horrifying incident only recently. Sure, Heston had nothing to do with Columbine, but that doesn't excuse his behavior. Suppose, for example, a group of Muslims held a convention in New York city on September 12, 2001 in which the lead speaker openly expressed his support for Osama bin Laden and Al Quaeda, wouldn't they all be arrested on the spot? Even if they had nothing to do with 9/11 at all? The same principle applies to Heston's actions, I'd say. I never said he was at all responsible for Columbine, only that his actions in the wake of Columbine were seriously questionable and, if nothing else, extremely insensitive and heartless.

I'll leave it to Cait to correct what I'm pretty sure are many misconceptions on your part. I feel compelled to respond to this, however:That's an awful comparison. Heston saying that he doesn't intend to let the government ever take his gun away is nowhere near the same as publicly supporting genocidal maniacs. Owning a gun is not a crime. Flying a plane into a building is. Your analogy is stunningly invalid.

Oh, so I guess waving a gun in an NRA rally in the wake of the Columbine incident does not constitute expressing your support for homicidal maniacs? I think the analogy is dead on!

OMG, I actually agree with you on this one! D, That was the most jaw-droppingly retarded thing I've ever "heard" anyone say!

__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/

Like I said, I think my comparison is quite valid. An NRA convention in defiance of government gun control directly in the wake of a tragic shooting incident like Columbine, in which the "terrorists"--schoolkids--were expressing the same sort of anarchistic anti-authoritarian tendency as, for example, Timothy McVeigh and even the 9/11 terrorists--can definitely be analogized to a Muslim convention expressing support for Al Quaeda held directly in the wake of 9/11. Keep in mind that, as Moore's movie demonstrates, Heston hails from the same Michigan territory that is a stronghold for the nationalist militia that espouses anti-government paranoia and expresses violent anti-authoritarian tendencies--a group with connections with Timothy McVeigh. Now, considering that Heston, great man that he undeniably is, hails from that same region in Michigan, if you follow the same logic and imagine a famous Muslim from Kuwait or Afghanistan or even Iraq (although it has no proven connections with Al Quaeda or Bin Laden) making a public speech in defiance of US authority in New York, a couple of months after 9/11, can you imagine what the consequences of his actions would be? Undoubtedly, he would be arrested--if not publicly lynched! In any case, his actions would be severely criticized by any rational human being. Heck, there were Sikhs getting beaten up in Colorado and California simply because they wear turbans and sport beards kind of like Bin Laden! Despite the fact that they have no connection at all with terrorist extremists like Bin Laden! And, if I remember correctly, at the time, there was talk of retaliation agains Mexicans, for God's sake! There was no sense of proportion at all in those few months following 9/11--as if the entire nation had been taken over by hysteria and paranoia, losing all sense of proportion--a fact that, as I see it, is the only possible justification for the Iraq war--the only way that Bush could have gotten away with his invasion of Iraq and its 45 billion dollar price tag, in the face of a domestic economic recession, with no real solid basis or justification for his actions. Let's face it, the last couple of years, the US has been teetering on the brink of McCarthyism, and we're damn lucky that we didn't go as far as that, given the gravity of the situation back then!

How does waving a gun around inherently express support for anything that is done with any other gun? The only thing they're supporting is the right to own guns. That's their entire reason for existing, in case you'd forgotten.

By your "logic" Ford should shut down any dealership in a town where someone's been hit by a Thunderbird. Get a grip. We don't close the deli when someone chokes on a piece of ham.

It's not the same thing at all. Columbine was fundamentally linked with the issue of gun control--namely the underaged getting their hands on guns and using them on innocent schoolkids. A problem that has been going on for some time in the US and came to a head with Columbine. As such, the NRA, by holding a rally in the wake of Columbine, was definitely making a political statement amounting to a total disregard for the humanity that paid the price with Columbine. Your analogies are way off, I'm afraid to say. Keep in mind that guns are weapons--instruments designed to kill or maim. Cars and food are quite the opposite. Accidental death is not the same as cold-blooded murder! By holding a gun rally in the wake of Columbine, the NRA was implicitly supporting the actions of the Columbine terrorists--namely, cold-blooded, deliberate murder.

I'm surprising myself by agreeing with Yoda here, yet again...

Was it really the appropriate time or place? Probably not, but they weren't supporting the murder of kids! Do you even listen to the words that come out of your mouth? Yeah, maybe they should have expressed their sympathy towards the parents and loved ones of the folks that were killed, and yeah, they really should have postponed it to a later date, or even moved it, but all their "Guilty" of is insensitivity. You're implying that all gun owners are secretly violent maniacs, which is an unfortunate and untrue generalization.

Give me a break! Let's suppose, hypothetically, one of your close family members was gunned down in cold blood by some crazed Korean. Then imagine if the very next day, a group of gun-toting Koreans invaded your home and held a convention advocating their right to bear arms in defiance of government gun-control. I wonder what your response would be!

Why Koreans? Do you not like Koreans? My aunt is Korean, Do you have something against my aunt? Are you a racist?

But I digress. Yes, it was offensive and inappropriate, I clearly stated that. What you are saying is that they were there in support of the killers, which they weren't. That was your idea alone. Even Michael moore wasn't making that leap, if you actually paid attention! His point, and it's the same point I've been making, was that it was insensitive, not that the NRA were showing solidarity with the two f*ckwits who did the shootings! How can I explain this in words small enough for you to comprehend? The fact that you only hear what you want to hear makes you just as bad as the folks you condemn.

I have nothing against Koreans or anyone else. No, I'm not a racist. I just picked Koreans as an arbitrary group of people, but my example is in no way ethnically based. My point applies to any group of people.

Regarding expressing one's support, what I said was that the actions of Heston and the NRA implicitly (i.e. not explicitly) constituted the expression of support for the Columbine terrorists. I did not say there was any connection--just that it was so offensive as to go as far as to constitute implicit support. It was more like an analogy than a statement of fact--what I meant to say was that the actions of the NRA and Heston were so offensive that it was like supporting the Columbine terrorists. It was like an implicit show of solidarity with the Columbine shooters.

About the rest of your old, tired refrain, frankly, I've grown pretty tired of hearing that old song endlessly, especially since it has absolutely no connection with the sort of person I am.