Doughboy, Michael Moore's bodyguard gets caught packing heat

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Kev
And how often is a celebrity able to hire a bodyguard that doesn't have a license to carry? Maybe Moore should hire Ninjas instead?

Depending on your state, pretty easily. Especially when you have the resources as a celebrity.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: jst0ney

Originally posted by: Nitemare
Bowling for Hypocrisy


NSFW or home

Hey look its someone else that didn't understand Bowling For Columbine.

Yep.

 

[Amused]

BTW, to those who say MM owns guns:

http://film.guardian.co.uk/int.../0,6737,841083,00.html

MM: I have the gun which I won at the bank for opening the account, and I want to get rid of it; I don't want a gun in the house. Yes, I have that gun but not for long and there's no ammunition in it.

That debunks that.

At any rate, read the rest of the interview. It is obvious he opposes gun ownership for self defense and labels people who buy them for such reasons as paranoid.

On gun control:

I don't know why anybody would feel sorry for a guy who leads the most powerful lobby group in the US and whose sole purpose is to make sure that people can have as many guns as they want to have and fire as many bullets as the guns can possibly fire. These people are insane and they have to be stopped. And the majority of Americans, according to every poll, want gun control. This group succeeds with a minority position and I think it's time to hear from the other side; time for the other side to not be afraid to stand up for what they believe in and until we correct the mental problem, we have to put the guns away. So I do believe in gun control - guns have to be put aside until we can act more Canadian-like.

Want to keep denying the obvious, lozina?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Kev
I am by no means a MM fan or supporter, but that doesn't mean I think he's a hypocrite for having armed protection.

He is opposed to concealed carry and handgun ownership by individuals

I would think a professional bodyguard owning a gun is a little different than some one buying it to protect their home.

Same basic principle. You get a CCW to protect yourself and your family around you. The bodyguard gets a CCW to protect his client. The only difference is the bodyguard usually protects high profile people, and you don't. So I guess only high profile people deserve armed protection?

I never said that, and I don't feel like repeating myself

You can repeat yourself all day long. You wont change the fact that opposing private ownership, but allowing the rich to hire licensed armed guards is hypocrisy and liberal elitism.

Not really. Does every day Joe Shmo need to walk around with a concealed gun? I doubt it.

Who are you, the self appointed elite, to decide that for them? What of the woman with a stalker? What of the business man with a disgruntled employee? What of the employee with a bank deposit?

There are any number of personal reasons, all of which are none of yours, or the government's business.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: alien42
did anyone attacking moore on this forum actually watch bowling for columbine? apparently not

moore is not against gun ownership, he makes a point that canada has more guns per capita than the united states yet has a much lower murder rate. the whole point of bowling for columbine is that the media, fox being the prime suspect, is insiting fear in the people of this great country and that the media is the problem, not the people and not the guns.

:sigh;

Read his interviews. He believes that guns should only be for hunting and sport. He opposes CCW. He opposes handgun ownership. He considers the buying of guns for self defense to be paranoid.

He's using the same old tired gun-control line of "no one wants to take your guns" while doing everything they can to do just that. If they had their way the only legal guns would be single fire muzzle loaders... and only with a strict license.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Kev

Probably not, why should he? I don't see how MM's documentary states that a professional bodyguard can't legally posess a gun. That would be like saying the police can't have them either. You have obviously missed the point of the movie, which was already pointed out in this thread.

No, Moore simply believes that carrying a gun for self defense is paranoid and should be illegal. Yet he hires an armed securty firm to protect himself.

No matter how you look at it, it's hypocrisy.

He never said that in his movie.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Kev

Probably not, why should he? I don't see how MM's documentary states that a professional bodyguard can't legally posess a gun. That would be like saying the police can't have them either. You have obviously missed the point of the movie, which was already pointed out in this thread.

No, Moore simply believes that carrying a gun for self defense is paranoid and should be illegal. Yet he hires an armed securty firm to protect himself.

No matter how you look at it, it's hypocrisy.

He never said that in his movie.

Someone needs to read the thread.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Kev

Probably not, why should he? I don't see how MM's documentary states that a professional bodyguard can't legally posess a gun. That would be like saying the police can't have them either. You have obviously missed the point of the movie, which was already pointed out in this thread.

No, Moore simply believes that carrying a gun for self defense is paranoid and should be illegal. Yet he hires an armed securty firm to protect himself.

No matter how you look at it, it's hypocrisy.

He never said that in his movie.

For the last time, we're not talking about his stances from the movie. We're talking about his public stance that he's portrayed in the media.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Kev

Probably not, why should he? I don't see how MM's documentary states that a professional bodyguard can't legally posess a gun. That would be like saying the police can't have them either. You have obviously missed the point of the movie, which was already pointed out in this thread.

No, Moore simply believes that carrying a gun for self defense is paranoid and should be illegal. Yet he hires an armed securty firm to protect himself.

No matter how you look at it, it's hypocrisy.

He never said that in his movie.

OK, one last time:

THE MOVIE IS IRRELEVANT.

Moore's political opinions are on the web for everyone to see and read. I have posted an interview with him that makes his anti-gun views obvious. His movie simply bleats the same old tired gun-grabber line of "no one wants to take your guns" while secretly working to make it nearly impossible to own one.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: Kev
Not really. Does every day Joe Shmo need to walk around with a concealed gun? I doubt it.

If your profile is correct you live in PA. There are a lot of Joe Shmos walking around with guns.

Link

How do you feel about that? Did you even know that?

Odds are you see armed citizens every day, yet you never know about it.

For all your anti bleating you live in a very gun friendly state.

Viper GTS

 

[nakedfrog]

" Moore's 2003 Oscar-winning film 'Bowling for Columbine' "
I do believe it was a 2002 film.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Kev
Not really. Does every day Joe Shmo need to walk around with a concealed gun? I doubt it.

If your profile is correct you live in PA. There are a lot of Joe Shmos walking around with guns.

Link

And these guys

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Kev
Not really. Does every day Joe Shmo need to walk around with a concealed gun? I doubt it.

If your profile is correct you live in PA. There are a lot of Joe Shmos walking around with guns.

Link

And these guys

Somehow I doubt that they are law-abiding citizens..those which are authorized to possess CCW permits.

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Kev
Not really. Does every day Joe Shmo need to walk around with a concealed gun? I doubt it.

If your profile is correct you live in PA. There are a lot of Joe Shmos walking around with guns.

Link

How do you feel about that? Did you even know that?

Odds are you see armed citizens every day, yet you never know about it.

For all your anti bleating you live in a very gun friendly state.

Viper GTS

I really don't care, I'm not against gun ownership, I was just saying that Moore wasn't a hypocrite for having a bodyguard with a gun because of the movie Bowling for Columbine.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Kev
Not really. Does every day Joe Shmo need to walk around with a concealed gun? I doubt it.

If your profile is correct you live in PA. There are a lot of Joe Shmos walking around with guns.

Link

How do you feel about that? Did you even know that?

Odds are you see armed citizens every day, yet you never know about it.

For all your anti bleating you live in a very gun friendly state.

Viper GTS

I really don't care, I'm not against gun ownership, I was just saying that Moore wasn't a hypocrite for having a bodyguard with a gun because of the movie Bowling for Columbine.

And our point was, he IS a hypocrite because of his political positions.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: Amused
You can repeat yourself all day long. You wont change the fact that opposing private ownership, but allowing the rich to hire licensed armed guards is hypocrisy and liberal elitism.

Not really. Does every day Joe Shmo need to walk around with a concealed gun? I doubt it.

Well, if every day Joe doesn't need a gun, neither does MM's bodyguard... right? Honestly I can't believe you don't see the obvious hypocrisy and elitism in this.

The *only* way this isn't hypocritical is if MM didn't know about it. However, the fact he *did hire* a body guard tells me he probably interviewed him. At any rate, I'm pretty sure when your hiring a body guard, your looking for someone with a gun or not. That would be my first question, actually I wouldn't even consider hiring someone w/o know the answer to that Q.

It's much more likely he knew vs. he didn't, yet here you are telling us Bowling for Columbine isn't anti-gun, when that's not even the topic. It's MM's political views on gun ownership, which are VERY clear. We don't need to see Bowling to know his views on gun ownership...

 

[Kev]

Actually, his being a hypocrite because of BFC WAS the topic until the topic was changed to be about Moore's overall politics, which I don't follow because I don't care about him.

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: Kev
Actually, his being a hypocrite because of BFC WAS the topic until the topic was changed to be about Moore's overall politics, which I don't follow because I don't care about him.

Show me where Amused, Phoenix86, K1052, or myself specifically said he was a hypocrite because of the movie.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Kev
Actually, his being a hypocrite because of BFC WAS the topic until the topic was changed to be about Moore's overall politics, which I don't follow because I don't care about him.

Show me where Amused, Phoenix86, K1052, or myself specifically said he was a hypocrite because of the movie.

Yes, please do.

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Kev
Actually, his being a hypocrite because of BFC WAS the topic until the topic was changed to be about Moore's overall politics, which I don't follow because I don't care about him.

Show me where Amused, Phoenix86, K1052, or myself specifically said he was a hypocrite because of the movie.

Show me where I said you said that. 😕

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: BigJ

Originally posted by: Kev
Actually, his being a hypocrite because of BFC WAS the topic until the topic was changed to be about Moore's overall politics, which I don't follow because I don't care about him.

Show me where Amused, Phoenix86, K1052, or myself specifically said he was a hypocrite because of the movie.

Show me where I said you said that. 😕

Your reasoning that Moore is not a hypocrite is solely based on the content of BFC. Our contention that he is a hypocrite is based on everything that comes out of his prodigious mouth.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Amused
BTW, to those who say MM owns guns:

http://film.guardian.co.uk/int.../0,6737,841083,00.html

MM: I have the gun which I won at the bank for opening the account, and I want to get rid of it; I don't want a gun in the house. Yes, I have that gun but not for long and there's no ammunition in it.

That debunks that.

At any rate, read the rest of the interview. It is obvious he opposes gun ownership for self defense and labels people who buy them for such reasons as paranoid.

On gun control:

I don't know why anybody would feel sorry for a guy who leads the most powerful lobby group in the US and whose sole purpose is to make sure that people can have as many guns as they want to have and fire as many bullets as the guns can possibly fire. These people are insane and they have to be stopped. And the majority of Americans, according to every poll, want gun control. This group succeeds with a minority position and I think it's time to hear from the other side; time for the other side to not be afraid to stand up for what they believe in and until we correct the mental problem, we have to put the guns away. So I do believe in gun control - guns have to be put aside until we can act more Canadian-like.

Want to keep denying the obvious, lozina?

Ok Amused, I think based on that interview I'd say you have a valid point and I'd agree with you that Moore is hypocritical for having an armed bodyguard if in fact Moore hired this bodyguard because he was armed. But that's the vital key to your attack on Moore which is missing from the scenario.

So still, the facts surrounding this story are totally insufficient to implicate Moore as a hypocrit. There is a definite bias here which is driving peope (including yourself) to ignore the lack of evidence and go straight for the conviction. No one waits to hear the other side of the story, no one is waiting for what Moore will say in his defence to this latest attack on him, instead you just immediately take the opportunity to defame this guy.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Hardcore
WTF? Hypocrisy? It was his bodyguard, not him.

Sometimes extreme hatred override rationality

Hardly. According to the liberal anti-gunners example, only the rich and famous deserve armed protection. The poor are fscked.

When an anti-gun advocate hires armed protection, it is the height of hypocrisy. They should have the courage of their convictions and resolve themselves to being as defenseless as those they would impose their will upon.

Yes and no. In Bowling for Columbine he makes a very good point that we are a gun crazed culture and that the average person has no need for a gun. The difference is that Michael Moore has the whole of the crazed right-wing gun brandishing redneck nutjobs out for his blood and the chance of an attack is much greater for him than the average person in our society.

That is not a good point, that is his idiotic opinion. And also, I guess that means fata$$ doesn't believe he is an average person. I guess because he makes left-wing propaganda and gets his ugly mug on camera every so often, he's above the rest of us.

 

[murban135]

What a hypocritical idiot

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
It's to protect him from the Dumbfukistanis

you're still using the same tired jokes?

kerry lost. get over it.

What you think I was talking about you? I don't think you'd harm Moore thus you aren't a Dumfukistani. Those who say he should be shot of kicked out of the country are whom I consider Dumbfukistanis.

i've seen you refer to texas as dumbfukistan on more than one occasion.

Uh Oh, the eyes of Texas are upon me!:shocked:

You better watch out, we're always watching.