Doughboy, Michael Moore's bodyguard gets caught packing heat

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Fox News, nuff said.

Fox News, fair and balanced, nuff said.

Fox News, # 1 cable news channel in America by far, nuff said.

raildogg = idiot, nuff said

Yet again ROFLMAO at the people slamming Fox News.

What does CBS' obvious bias and errors have to do with Fox being anything other than a republican tool???

Answer: nothing

ergo, linflas = idiot as well. :cool:

Unlike CBS, CNN, and NBC Fox News has not yet been caught deliberately falsifying stories for news broadcasts. And of course ABC News trolling for military funerals to counter broadcast against the inaugural coverage was not motivated by any bias at all. :roll: Thanks for the compliment though, calling people idiots really makes them take your point of view seriously. :thumbsup:

If you truly believe Fox is unbiased then you're FAR too stupid to possibly understand my point of view, so I'm really not worried about it.

No where in any of my posts did I say that I believed that Fox News was unbiased. My point is that some of you dismiss the story because the OP used a Fox News link. Given the track records of the aforementioned news organizations I would tend to trust Fox News to not be making up a story from thin air irregardless of what you percieve to be their bias. You really don't even know that Fox was the first one reporting the story, you just assume it because the OP used it as a link. Nice that you found yet another name to call me rather than rationally explain yourself. :cookie:

At no point did I EVER state that the story was bogus or in any way diminished by who was reporting it. I merely point out that people who claim that fox is unbiased because others are biased, are ignorant.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Fox News, nuff said.

Fox News, fair and balanced, nuff said.

Fox News, # 1 cable news channel in America by far, nuff said.

raildogg = idiot, nuff said

Yet again ROFLMAO at the people slamming Fox News.

What does CBS' obvious bias and errors have to do with Fox being anything other than a republican tool???

Answer: nothing

ergo, linflas = idiot as well. :cool:

Unlike CBS, CNN, and NBC Fox News has not yet been caught deliberately falsifying stories for news broadcasts. And of course ABC News trolling for military funerals to counter broadcast against the inaugural coverage was not motivated by any bias at all. :roll: Thanks for the compliment though, calling people idiots really makes them take your point of view seriously. :thumbsup:

If you truly believe Fox is unbiased then you're FAR too stupid to possibly understand my point of view, so I'm really not worried about it.

what makes you think that Fox is biased. majority of Americans seem to love it

Source proving majority support?

Before you talk about viewership...a lot of people watch wrestling, but that doesn't make it real. A lot of people used to watch Tammy Faye to laugh at her, but weren't Christians. A lot of people watch the news, but don't necessarily enjoy it or agree with it.

Some time back the majority of Americans thought awesome people should shut up and pick the cotton, and that skirts had no business anywhere but the kitchen....since when does majority mean a damn thing????
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: Mill

Actually, that is not saying you are responsible for the guy who cuts your lawn running over someone on the other side of town. It would be like that: If you boycotted John Deere, spoke out against the company, and urged the banning of their products, it would be quite the show of hypocrisy if YOUR yardman *used* and *owned* a John Deere while being your personal yardman, and that you had prior knowledge that he used John Deere equipment, and that you let him use John Deere equipment on your lawn, but said no one else should be allowed to. Now that *is* the logic that is being used, but anyone but an obtuse fvcking idiot such as yourself would have understood that my logic was nowhere near what you claimed in your post.

I'm with you so far Mill, but there's the problem of facts still missing from this whole story which you seem to be "filling in the blanks" with... Where does it say Moore had prior knowledge that his bodyguard used a gun while he was protecting Mr Moore? I don't see that part anywhere in the story- did I miss this key fact somewhere?

(Though I have to say, the outcome of this whole incident may turn out for the obsessive Moore hating crowd, because as of yet there is no response from Moore on this)

The only proof we have that Moore knew was hearsay from Spike Lee, but that is better than the alternative of arguing that he didn't know. At least there is *something* out there that can back up what I'm saying. Moore not responding is fairly fishy as well.

"Michael Moore will be surrounded by more than just fans at the screening of ?Fahrenheit 9/11? in Crawford, Texas tonight.

The gadfly filmmaker plans to show his controversial documentary Wednesday in the town where Bush vacations. Moore originally intended to attend the screening but MSNBC-TV reported Wednesday afternoon that the filmmaker would not attend.

As The Scoop reported earlier, Moore has been getting death threats, and a source says the situation has gotten worse.

In fact, fellow filmmaker Spike Lee, while promoting his own film ?She Hate Me,? has told interviewers that ?they?re out to get? Moore who ?has an armed guard 24/7.?


 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,461
4
76
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Originally posted by: Nitemare
NSFW or home

Please fix your link to point to the correct file.

- M4H

I'd prefer to think of him as non-made in the USA

If the USA won't take Toronto's garbage, we're not taking Michigan's. :p

- M4H

We already took Celine Dion, John Candy and Rick Moranis from you, what else do you guys want?
 

Schneider879

Senior member
Oct 10, 2004
735
0
76
Lol, I love it when people say that Michael Moore is fat. That just proves to me that they have no other arguement against him. I guess I would really like it more if Walmart did sell assault ammunition. That would be great. Even though I don't agree with all his points, I still think he has done some great stuff.
 

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
All hypocrisy aside?

Are we picking on this guy because he may have worked for Pig Moore or because he really did something wrong? He had a registered firearm (already complying with unconstitutional laws) and declared that it was in his baggage when transporting it in another state.

I would say that the body guard's 2nd amendment rights have been violated and that New York is interfering with interstate commerce being that carrying a firearm and traveling is part of his job.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: exdeath
All hypocrisy aside?

Are we picking on this guy because he may have worked for Pig Moore or because he really did something wrong? He had a registered firearm (already complying with unconstitutional laws) and declared that it was in his baggage when transporting it in another state.

I would say that the body guard's 2nd amendment rights have been violated and that New York is interfering with interstate commerce being that carrying a firearm and traveling is part of his job.

Was he carrying or simply checking it as baggage? If the latter, then I think that is fscked up. I was pretty sure you could *take* a firearm into an airport and check it without a permit for that state, as I've done that before.
 

Mookow

Lifer
Apr 24, 2001
10,162
0
0
Originally posted by: Schneider879
Lol, I love it when people say that Michael Moore is fat. That just proves to me that they have no other arguement against him. I guess I would really like it more if Walmart did sell assault ammunition. That would be great. Even though I don't agree with all his points, I still think he has done some great stuff.

So when people make fun of Bush's facial expression, does that mean they have no argument against him? No.
 

kogase

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2004
5,213
0
0
I have nothing to say about Michael Moore. But about self defense... swords. Let people put some effort into defending themselves. And they can't gun down a fleeing robber with a sword. I'm opposed to guns because real men use swords, but as for as guns go, people should be required to go through an extensive training and conditioning course if they want to have and use a gun. If "protecting their loved ones" is that important to them, they damn well better be prepared to learn how to use and respect a gun.
 

RaiderJ

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2001
7,582
1
76
Originally posted by: kogase
I have nothing to say about Michael Moore. But about self defense... swords. Let people put some effort into defending themselves. And they can't gun down a fleeing robber with a sword. I'm opposed to guns because real men use swords, but as for as guns go, people should be required to go through an extensive training and conditioning course if they want to have and use a gun. If "protecting their loved ones" is that important to them, they damn well better be prepared to learn how to use and respect a gun.


:cookie:
 

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
Originally posted by: kogase
I have nothing to say about Michael Moore. But about self defense... swords. Let people put some effort into defending themselves. And they can't gun down a fleeing robber with a sword. I'm opposed to guns because real men use swords, but as for as guns go, people should be required to go through an extensive training and conditioning course if they want to have and use a gun. If "protecting their loved ones" is that important to them, they damn well better be prepared to learn how to use and respect a gun.

I suppose you should be required to prove you are capable of speaking in public and take political classes allowing you a federal permit before you can speak in public.

It is also up to you to register your home and your belongings and prove to the government that you need to be protected from search and seizure by letting them inspect your property for illegal activity whenever they want.

The Constitution is all or nothing; it is not there for you personally to select what you want and ignore whatever is convenient for you.

That said, there are idiots that shouldn't have guns, I completely agree with that. Those people need to be shot by those who are responsible citizens, or held accountable by the laws we already have. Just leave my guns alone. I for one will not be bringing a sword to an uninvited gun fight.

Now about that jet funnel and 16 rd mags for my USP40 ...

 

kogase

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2004
5,213
0
0
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: kogase
I have nothing to say about Michael Moore. But about self defense... swords. Let people put some effort into defending themselves. And they can't gun down a fleeing robber with a sword. I'm opposed to guns because real men use swords, but as for as guns go, people should be required to go through an extensive training and conditioning course if they want to have and use a gun. If "protecting their loved ones" is that important to them, they damn well better be prepared to learn how to use and respect a gun.

I suppose you should be required to prove you are capable of speaking in public and take political classes allowing you a federal permit before you can speak in public.

It is also up to you to register your home and your belongings and prove to the government that you need to be protected from search and seizure by letting them inspect your property for illegal activity whenever they want.

The Constitution is all or nothing; it is not there for you personally to select what you want and ignore whatever is convenient for you.

That said, there are idiots that shouldn't have guns, I completely agree with that. Those people need to be shot by those who are responsible citizens, or held accountable by the laws we already have. Just leave my guns alone. I for one will not be bringing a sword to an uninvited gun fight.

Now about that jet funnel and 16 rd mags for my USP40 ...


Ever heard the phrase "Sticks and stone may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"? Letting an uneducated jackass stand on a street corner and make political rants doesn't directly lead to someone else's death. Letting some faux badass who likes to look at himself in the mirror with a gun strapped to his chest because it solidifies his masculinity carry around a gun can be the direct cause of other people's deaths. The constitution isn't taken completely literaly, as can be seen with obscenity statutes, which technically trump the first amendment. And besides, requiring people to take a course before they can own a gun doesn't contradict the Constitution, so long as people are able, in some way, shape or form, to bear arms. Not only that, but a sword is an armament. If you want to take the constitution literaly, it wouldn't be unconstitutional to make guns illegal so long as swords weren't.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,997
37,168
136
Originally posted by: kogase
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: kogase
I have nothing to say about Michael Moore. But about self defense... swords. Let people put some effort into defending themselves. And they can't gun down a fleeing robber with a sword. I'm opposed to guns because real men use swords, but as for as guns go, people should be required to go through an extensive training and conditioning course if they want to have and use a gun. If "protecting their loved ones" is that important to them, they damn well better be prepared to learn how to use and respect a gun.

I suppose you should be required to prove you are capable of speaking in public and take political classes allowing you a federal permit before you can speak in public.

It is also up to you to register your home and your belongings and prove to the government that you need to be protected from search and seizure by letting them inspect your property for illegal activity whenever they want.

The Constitution is all or nothing; it is not there for you personally to select what you want and ignore whatever is convenient for you.

That said, there are idiots that shouldn't have guns, I completely agree with that. Those people need to be shot by those who are responsible citizens, or held accountable by the laws we already have. Just leave my guns alone. I for one will not be bringing a sword to an uninvited gun fight.

Now about that jet funnel and 16 rd mags for my USP40 ...


And besides, requiring people to take a course before they can own a gun doesn't contradict the Constitution, so long as people are able, in some way, shape or form, to bear arms. Not only that, but a sword is an armament. If you want to take the constitution literaly, it wouldn't be unconstitutional to make guns illegal so long as swords weren't.

That statement is wrong (factually and logically) on so many levels, it isn?t even funny.
 

kogase

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2004
5,213
0
0
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: kogase
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: kogase
I have nothing to say about Michael Moore. But about self defense... swords. Let people put some effort into defending themselves. And they can't gun down a fleeing robber with a sword. I'm opposed to guns because real men use swords, but as for as guns go, people should be required to go through an extensive training and conditioning course if they want to have and use a gun. If "protecting their loved ones" is that important to them, they damn well better be prepared to learn how to use and respect a gun.

I suppose you should be required to prove you are capable of speaking in public and take political classes allowing you a federal permit before you can speak in public.

It is also up to you to register your home and your belongings and prove to the government that you need to be protected from search and seizure by letting them inspect your property for illegal activity whenever they want.

The Constitution is all or nothing; it is not there for you personally to select what you want and ignore whatever is convenient for you.

That said, there are idiots that shouldn't have guns, I completely agree with that. Those people need to be shot by those who are responsible citizens, or held accountable by the laws we already have. Just leave my guns alone. I for one will not be bringing a sword to an uninvited gun fight.

Now about that jet funnel and 16 rd mags for my USP40 ...


And besides, requiring people to take a course before they can own a gun doesn't contradict the Constitution, so long as people are able, in some way, shape or form, to bear arms. Not only that, but a sword is an armament. If you want to take the constitution literaly, it wouldn't be unconstitutional to make guns illegal so long as swords weren't.

That statement is wrong (factually and logically) on so many levels, it isn?t even funny.


So maybe it's wrong. If that's the case, as you see it, please explain how that is so.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,997
37,168
136
Originally posted by: kogase
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: kogase
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: kogase
I have nothing to say about Michael Moore. But about self defense... swords. Let people put some effort into defending themselves. And they can't gun down a fleeing robber with a sword. I'm opposed to guns because real men use swords, but as for as guns go, people should be required to go through an extensive training and conditioning course if they want to have and use a gun. If "protecting their loved ones" is that important to them, they damn well better be prepared to learn how to use and respect a gun.

I suppose you should be required to prove you are capable of speaking in public and take political classes allowing you a federal permit before you can speak in public.

It is also up to you to register your home and your belongings and prove to the government that you need to be protected from search and seizure by letting them inspect your property for illegal activity whenever they want.

The Constitution is all or nothing; it is not there for you personally to select what you want and ignore whatever is convenient for you.

That said, there are idiots that shouldn't have guns, I completely agree with that. Those people need to be shot by those who are responsible citizens, or held accountable by the laws we already have. Just leave my guns alone. I for one will not be bringing a sword to an uninvited gun fight.

Now about that jet funnel and 16 rd mags for my USP40 ...


And besides, requiring people to take a course before they can own a gun doesn't contradict the Constitution, so long as people are able, in some way, shape or form, to bear arms. Not only that, but a sword is an armament. If you want to take the constitution literaly, it wouldn't be unconstitutional to make guns illegal so long as swords weren't.

That statement is wrong (factually and logically) on so many levels, it isn?t even funny.


So maybe it's wrong. If that's the case, as you see it, please explain how that is so.

1. We did not fight the Revolutionary War with swords. The term "arms" in the 2nd Amendment refers to small arms such as rifles and pistols. There is no debate about this point.

2. The founders never meant for people to give up their right to weapons:

"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion... in private self-defense..."
-- John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788)

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
-- George Washington

"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison; The Federalist, No. 46

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
--Samuel Adams; Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--- Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774

3. The twisted logic you use to justify the removal or severe restriction of these things which we have a clear constitutional right to possess is disturbing. Would you be so quick to infringe on other constitutionally protected rights to such an extreme? I think not.

4. Concealed carry laws have not caused the rash of shootings and deaths that the anti-gun lobby always screams will come to pass.
 

kogase

Diamond Member
Sep 8, 2004
5,213
0
0
In response to K1052:

1. You're still making an assumption. As I was talking about a literal aproach to the Constitution, you cannot do that.

2. I never said they did.

3. Restrictions? No. Requirements? Yes.

4. A "rash". So there haven't been millions of shooting deaths each year. There have been shooting deaths, though. And you may say "What's a few deaths?", but the fact of the matter is, a few deaths is everything to the people who die.
 

mwtgg

Lifer
Dec 6, 2001
10,491
0
0
Ugh, not this debate again. Do I have to bring out this quote yet again?

Originally posted by: Vic

The well-regulated militia btw is the common men, allowed to keep arms and to train themselves in the use of arms (not the national guard or any other professional or semi-professional military). In other words, the regular citizens, those same brave men who helped the Founding Fathers win the Revolutionary War, aka citizen soldiers, the same ones that were also considered indispensible in America winning WWII.

In general, "arms" are defined as those weapons that the common military infantry would carry on their persons; rifles, pistols, swords, etc. Grenades are considered to be explosives, which are ordinance. Cannons were not considered to be arms in Revolutionary War times, but artillery, and today that would include mortars, rpgs, nukes, tomahawk cruise missiles, etc.
 
May 16, 2000
13,522
0
0
Originally posted by: kogase
In response to K1052:

1. You're still making an assumption. As I was talking about a literal aproach to the Constitution, you cannot do that.

2. I never said they did.

3. Restrictions? No. Requirements? Yes.

4. A "rash". So there haven't been millions of shooting deaths each year. There have been shooting deaths, though. And you may say "What's a few deaths?", but the fact of the matter is, a few deaths is everything to the people who die.

Almost NONE of which were by lawfully endowed citizens. Criminals create gun violence, not CPL holders. CPL holders STOP gun violence as has been proven again and again. You cannot suggest that firearms are more dangerous than alcohol, drugs, or driving....all of which cause far more problems but I don't see you soapboxing them. I'm not blaming you, you're very likely brainwashed by the same ignorant media hype that keeps the hopes of gun control advocates alive. Even the national scientific study into gun control was unable to suggest even one positive outcome from all the gun control measures enacted thus far....and it was funded and created by a purely anti-gun lobby. If they can't show how guns are bad, no one can.
 

Spencer278

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 2002
3,637
0
0
To the people say we don't understand Moores POS movie if it didn't suck so bad we have gotten the point. His movie showed he hates guns there is no question.