Yeah, because our armed forces stand no chance against Americans with guns.

You don't know what your talking about. Read up on your history. If we have no hope then lets really elect Hillary and just end this country now. I really hate how people think they know everything. Thats the last thing I got to say.

You must hate yourself. I'm sorry.

MOORE to RECEIVE CAREER ACHIEVEMENT AWARD from International Documentary Association

Sicko should win the Academy Award for best doc this year. It's truly a great film. Looking forward to F911 1/2. I read that Errol Morris has said that Michael Moore is cruel to some of his interview subjects, may be some truth in that. I was initially offended by the Heston segment, but I got over it. As much as I admire Barbara Koppel. Morris & Moore are the most interesting documentary film-makers active (US), and I'm damned glad we have both of them.

Seeing as it's Veterans Day and all...

Uber nice threadcrap.

How am I threadcrapping? I've been having a back-and-forth with Brack....this was my forth in response to his back.

"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan

Because in the event a coup d'etat becomes necessary, your smith & wesson 9mm and bolt-action hunting rifle will completely OWN the Secret Service, Army, Navy and Marines - not to mention all of the federal agencies with charters to operate armed within the US.


-Doc

Happy veteran's day!!!

I guess I feel like the Bush/Cheney administration has performed a coup d'etat, only it wasn't so sudden, and they had 911, and fear mongering to allow us all to sleep through it.

They don't give me a choice where my tax dollars go... sooo much for defense. I think it should be okay for you to allow a fraction of that to go for poor people's health care.

I think Michael Moore can be a blowhard, can twist facts and yet I admire him for getting important discussions going. I wish more people would talk about these issues, and not yell and throw statistics at each other, liberals and conservatives alike.

Well said.

oh, and one more point:

By that logic, the gun-slingin' American public should have stormed the White House six-shooters-a-blazin' sometime around 5 years ago...


-Doc

According to the numbers I know, the ratio of guns to American citizens is an even one to one. That's an awful lot of firearms in the hands of the citizenry of this nation....and I know we've all seen Red Dawn

Now we're into the differences between the red and blue states. What were to happen if shit were to go down on our shores...are the National Guard troops going to be allowed to help out the citizens of San Francisco even though the military is evil? Are the citizens of San Francisco going to be able to fend for themselves?

And no S&W here...the Glocks are 9mm, both Berettas are 40S&W, both shotguns are 12 guage, the Bushmaster's a .223, and the Remington's a .308, and yes, it's a bolt action.

Like I stated before....without the Second Amendment, the others would not exist. Despite what some apparently think, the 2nd has zero to do with hunting (YAY!! An amendment that allows us to eat!!11!!1 ) and EVERYTHING to do with protecting the citizenry from the possibility of a corrupt government.

all was good until you smiled about said possessions. quite disturbing.

Why should that disturb you? Maybe it was meant to have that affect. People are only frightened of firearms because they are either ignorant of them OR they believe all the hype about how they're only used for EEEVILLLLL!!

It fascinates me how for as much credit we give our forefathers in creating this great nation some, for some unknown reason, some seem to feel as if they just "dropped the ball" when it came to the 2nd Amendment. "Oh, if they could only see what's happened....crime...blah, blah, blah" I also find it interesting that The Bill of Rights spells out the powers that the US Government CANNOT impose upon it's citizens.....except for that pesky 2nd Amendment, they didn't know what they were doing there

I highly recommend tracking down Penn & Teller's episode of Bullshit regarding the 2nd Amendment, it's very informative.

You're jumping way ahead of yourself, as I never said anything about the 2nd amendment. I couldn't care less if you own guns. The fact that you find pride in such devices saddens me. I really doubt you'll have such joy when you actually have to use that weapon for what it's intended. At least I hope not.

It's a hobby. I'm good at it, and I take pride in my abilities. Why is that so wrong?

To someone who isn't involved with guns, can you see how hypothesizing about having to take up arms against the US military (?!) and enthusiastically posting a laundry list of 8 or more guns might not come off as just a hobbyist?

That was the point of the list. It's the stigma about guns that bothers me. You admit you know nothing about them, yet they still "frighten" you. I just find that to be odd.

Do I want it to happen? Of course not. I'm only talking about the 2nd Amendment and it's original intent compared to Michael Moore and the propaganda that he unleashed upon the unassuming public.

He's classified as a documentarian, he makes "documentaries" which are meant to inform and educate, but when he injects his own bias into the films they become nothing more than a guy trying to convince the public to agree with his point of view, which is a bunch of bullshit.

If guns were really as awful as Moore claims, then he should have absolutely no trouble in making a factually based film on the horrible god-awful evils of firearms. But he can't. Instead he twists and edits to suit his own end, and that isn't right....atleast by the technical definition of documentary it isn't right.

Facts are what they are. Truths are truths. Ken Burns seems to have no problem with either, I can't understand why Micheal Moore can't do the same.

All documentarians twist and edit to create an effective story. It's never 100% "real." No documentary is. He's not lying about statistics concerning gun-related deaths in the US.

Okay, 'cause this is the second time you've presumed we know nothing about guns. My father has been a federal agent for 34 years. I grew up around them, and thus had to be taught about firearms to demystify them. I could field-strip an M1911, put it back together and Bullseye 4 out 5 shots in as many seconds - my proficiency with handguns however does not somehow translate into the almost phallic relationship others seem to have with these deadly weapons.

To claim that we need a well-armed citizenry to defend us from the government is absurd. We need only politically knowledgeable voters, and the will and foresight not to give over our freedoms, liberty and - yes - privacy for some ludicrous sense of supposed security.

As to your claim that the gun-to-gun ratio is equal between the armed services and the citizen gun-nuts: I'd still place Vegas odds on the majority of PFCs and NonComs being better shots and more efficient marksmen the the majority of jethros sportin' hand-canons.

And aren't you, by definition, ragging on the troops by saying it may be necessary to trade bullets with them one day? I thought that was a big no-no for your righties?


-Doc

Wow, insult much?

Then please, YOU tell ME what the 2nd Amendment pertains to. Why's it even in The Bill of Rights?

Because we had just fought a war for independence and no one had any idea whether or not the redcoats were going to come crashing down their door in another attempt to subjugate us. We now have one of the most powerful militaries in the world and we don't have too many empire's banging down our door.

Not to mention that at the time it was written, we were dealing with single-shot muskets and Pennsylvania rifles. I suspect if the founding fathers had invisioned the assault rifles and fifteen-clip semi-automatics we have today, they may have rethought that particular ammendment.

Why is it that all other ammendments seem to be a shades-of-gray type of deal (Freedom of speach doesn't cover threats or yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater) and yet 2nd ammendment supporters claim it's sacrisanct.

With regard to my supposed insult, I simply said you lean right. I may take offence were someone to accuse me of that, but why are you?

And I also noticed that you focused on that instead of addressing any of the points I made prior to it. Had I known you were going to get all weepy about a supposed "zinger" at the end of a point-well-made, I would not have said anything.


-Doc