Just read this article. Havent really heard of this movie. Im assuming it's an Anti-gun movie thats going to be released to theaters? Just the part about the survivors of the school shooting going to K-mart to "return" the bullets they were shot with made me laugh. How stupid are these people? Why does it matter in the least where the bullets were bought? So is this the stupid reason K-mart is not selling rifles or ammo anymore?
Im just trying to find out about this movie. Is this gonna be another big kick in our faces? Will any of you go see this movie to see what its about? Seems to me that going to see it would be like supporting their cause.
Im interested to read what you guys think about this.
If you enjoyed reading about "Bowling for Columbine" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
January 13, 2003, 04:33 PM
Lots of mis-information and 'staged' events in this film, which has been discussed thoroughly on TheFiringLine.com
I've been banned from the MM forum about 5 times. Including my IP address and all that fun stuff. They really don't like me. I went back under an anonymous proxy server for awhile to bug them some more. I gave up after the forum mods started deleting all pro gun threads on site.
January 13, 2003, 05:17 PM
I spent about half a year bugging MM fan site/forum. What a nut sack that dude is. It was loks of fun!!!
January 13, 2003, 05:24 PM
MM's forum has been offline for several days now. I wonder if this is due to technical difficulties or the fact that the pro-gun posts have turned their forum from anti to pro. The anti-gun movements makes perfect sense as long as you don't refute their position with facts or logic.
Never cared much for M.Moore after he decided to bash Bush right after 9/11.
January 13, 2003, 07:09 PM
The advent of digital videography for the masses has allowed this yahoo, M. Moore ,his 15 minutes of fame :cuss:
January 13, 2003, 07:26 PM
I think Moore has pulled the plug on that forum. There had been a great deal of complaining to the admins about how "right wing trolls" (i.e. those of us who don't toe the PC line) had taken over the boards and were spoiling everybody's fun.
Most of what went on at the BFC boards was bravo sierra. However, I will miss making fun of Germans! Those were some really priceless moments.
January 13, 2003, 07:31 PM
Kind of miss my opportunity to go to MM's board and poke all the neo-Marxists in the eye.
Maybe the board has gone the way of liberal talk-shows...they all fall of their own weight.
January 13, 2003, 08:33 PM
Zander, those "neo-marxists" that you mentioned, were they, in Michael Moore's own words (not mine guys), "stupid white men" or as Lenin once said, "useful idiots?"
January 13, 2003, 08:58 PM
This movie will bomb!
January 13, 2003, 09:12 PM
I think he pulled it because too many people were understanding the logical points made by the pro-gun-rights people. I read a few posts that said "When I first got here, I was anti gun.. but not so much now". I'm sure he didn't want his own board to to be filled with logic and reason and serve to dispute his side.
That, and the ridicule for his behavior in England.
He is so weak and pathetic that he can't stand up to a little debate or a little criticism.
January 13, 2003, 10:03 PM
A devotion to distortion
Jan. 12, 2003 Orange County Register Column: Filmmaker-provocateur Michael Moore wanted to expose America's gun culture with his documentary, 'Bowling for Columbine.' Instead, he again exposed his basic dishonesty.
By Ben Fritz
Ben Fritz is co-editor of Spinsanity (www.spinsanity.org). Portions of this article first appeared there.
It's no exaggeration to say Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" has had the greatest impact of any documentary in this country since his own "Roger and Me" 14 years ago. After winning a special prize last spring at the Cannes Film Festival, Moore's exploration of the reasons behind America's high rate of gun violence went on to break "Roger and Me's" record for the highest box office gross of any nonmusical documentary. Now it's won the prestigious National Board of Review's "Best Documentary" prize, made over 100 critics' Top 10 lists, and been voted by members of the International Documentary Association as the best documentary of all time. But in their praise of Moore's provocative and often hilarious filmmaking style, critics have neglected the fact that "Bowling for Columbine" fails at the most basic task of a documentary: telling the truth.
Perhaps most egregiously, Moore has apparently altered footage of an ad run by the Bush/Quayle campaign in 1988 to further implicate then-Vice President George Bush in the Willie Horton controversy. Trying to make a point about how racial symbols have been used to scare the American public, he shows the Bush/Quayle ad called "Revolving Doors," which attacked Michael Dukakis for a Massachusetts prison furlough program by showing prisoners entering and exiting a prison. Superimposed over the footage is the text "Willie Horton released. Then kills again." This caption is displayed as if it is part of the original ad.
However, existing footage, media reports and the recollections of several high-level people involved in the campaign indicate that the "Revolving Doors" ad did not mention Horton, unlike the ad run by the National Security Political Action Committee (which had close ties to Bush adviser Roger Ailes). In addition, the caption is incorrect - Horton did not kill anyone while on furlough (he raped a woman).
Similarly, during a stylized overview of American foreign policy, Moore claims that the U.S. gave $245 million in aid to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001. The Taliban aid tale is one Moore has repeated in many media appearances over the past year. But contrary to his claim, the aid did not go to the Taliban - it actually went to famine-relief programs administered by the United Nations and nongovernmental organizations.
In a recent article for Forbes, Dan Lyons found even more distortions in Moore's documentary. The film makes reference to "weapons of mass destruction" being manufactured in Littleton, Colo., and questions whether there is a connection between that activity and the Columbine High School shooting. In actuality, the Lockheed Martin plant in Littleton makes space launch vehicles for satellites. The much-celebrated scene at the beginning of the film where Moore receives a gun at a bank in return for setting up a certificate of deposit turns out to be false as well. In reality, customers at the branch where Moore shot the scene are normally required to pick up their guns at a local store. An executive at North Country Bank said the scene where Moore is handed the gun at the bank was staged at his request (and a mistaken belief by the bank that it would be good publicity). Yet Moore makes it look like it's standard practice to receive a gun right there, even joking before he walks out, "Here's my first question: Do you think it's a little dangerous handing out guns at a bank?"
Beyond his errors and distortions, what Moore likes to call his "hard-core analysis" is contradictory and confused. He claims that excessive coverage of gun violence by the media makes Americans scared of each other and therefore more violent. This circular argument doesn't make any sense. If gun violence is really so bad, shouldn't the media be covering it, and don't citizens have something to be afraid of? And if the media are indeed overcovering it and America is safer than we think, why did Moore make this film?
Contradicting himself doesn't seem to be a problem for Moore, though. Nor does he lose sleep worrying about his growing reputation as someone who makes things up and passes them off as fact.
When questioned last year about distortions in his best-selling book, "Stupid White Men," Moore hid behind the excuse of satire. "How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?" he said on CNN. Yet in an interview with the Contra Costa Times, he expressed an opposite sentiment: "I always assume that only 10 to 20 percent of people who read my books or see my films will take the facts and hard-core analysis and do something with it. If I can bring the other 80 percent to it through entertainment and comedy, then some of it will trickle through."
Most critics, it seems, land in that latter 80 percent. But when you're giving out prizes for a documentary, shouldn't facts count for something?
MM..."Don't confuse me with the facts." :cuss:
January 14, 2003, 07:45 AM
Can't wait... the movie will start to show here in February. There will be interesting discussions.
January 14, 2003, 08:13 AM
The bowling movie lasted about a week on the screens of Greater Cleveland, as I recall...............
\\\tongue in cheek mode on
And ya know, I didn't see a single bowling alley :neener:
\\\smarmy smart-??? mode off
January 15, 2003, 04:10 PM
Bad movie. Little money. Ignore fat liberal lying piece of cow pie.
People will tire of him and he will disappear. Bye BYE FAT LIBERAL!
January 15, 2003, 04:27 PM
From what I've read here and on TFL it's probably not a movie I'll be paying to see anytime soon. Luckly I don't think it ever made it to any theaters up here. :neener:
January 15, 2003, 05:04 PM
I would like to see it to learn more about the statistical lies and arguments we'll hear for the next few years, but I will not give my $$$ to support that loser's fight against America.
January 15, 2003, 06:10 PM
My daughter has seen it twice. She has been nagging me that if I'm "really" interested in hearing opposite points of view from my own, under my know thine enemy philosophy, then I should see it. Snotty kid! (I'll catch it when it's on Sundance, or the IFC channel on my dish for free)
Her take was that it was less of an anti-gun movie than she thought it was and more of a sloppy parenting indictment. She thought he's using the reactions from the pro-gun people as publicity fodder to hype it for a few extra weeks.
It's what the theaters classify as an "art" or "special interest" film. Translation: only a handful of people will show up for it so it's in andout quickly.
She did say the Charlton Heston so called "interview" was very uncomfortable for her, knowing he has Alzheimers.
His ambush interviews are his "schtick". IMHO that kind of so called investigative journalism went out with the Carter administration.
January 15, 2003, 06:39 PM
I may download the movie if I feel like wasting a half hour of my time and just to educate myself about this BFC crap. I'd never pay money to see it though.
January 15, 2003, 06:46 PM
Shouldn't Michael Moore's 15 minutes up already?
January 15, 2003, 10:19 PM
I got an invite to the movie from a proffesor, actually an email went out to the whole class to view it compliments of the Brady Group. I thought real hard about keeping my trap shut, but i'm to old and tired to put up with this crap anymore from the college proffs. An apology was extended to the class in due time because of this, but more importantly it opened some dialog between him and myself that might in time do some good. I think a point we all need to push and expound upon given the opportunity is the racial history of gun laws in this country...
Auschwitz, Vidor, Cars, and Swimming pools…
Have you ever opened your email box only to discover an invite to a KKK meeting? How about opening it up to an invite to a provocative, exasperating, and funny cinematic essay on how to gay bash? Wouldn’t be to funny would it? Might raise your blood pressure a few points, make you wonder who the inconsiderate hate monger happened to be, and why they felt they had the right to send you that email. Then imagine that you paid $442 to take a class and that is one of the things you paid for, to get an invite to an event sponsored by a radical hate group. Would you feel cheated, violated, and angered?
I’m one of 80 million law abiding gun owners in this country, exercising a right that the Constitution enumerates, a right that many constitutional scholars, the United States Congress, and assorted Courts have upheld as a personal liberty, an individual right. How would you feel if you opened an email and attached to it was one from a group whose supporters have said things like, “Charlton Heston ought to be shot right in the head” as Spike Lee did. “Gun owners should all be locked up in prison” as Rosie O’Donnel did. How would you feel if the namesake of the organization routinely tried to infringe upon liberties you happen to hold dear to your heart? The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is to 80 million law abiding gun owners what the Klan is to African Americans, an organization designed, funded, and supported to remove from the American scene a certain cultural group. Now imagine you received that message from a professor who is supposed to be teaching an English class. Would it make you question why you spent $442 to enter into a class with a professor who supports a hate group, a group that wants to see you killed, jailed, or stripped of your liberties?
Every year 40,000 people die in auto accidents, 4,300 die from drowning, 3,500 from inhalation of a foreign object, 2,700 from medical procedure complications, and accidental shootings 1,600 based on a population of 270 million. 2.5 million times per year honest law abiding gun owners use a firearm to protect themselves, their family, or others. They stop murderers, rapists, robbers, and kidnappers and the Brady campaign wishes to take that right away, to leave the criminal element an unarmed pool of victims to choose from.
Sensible gun laws to the Brady campaign is simply put, no guns at all, not lets put criminal behind bars, not lets admit that gun laws have no effect on the criminal element, whose job it is to break laws. Gun laws have worked so well in England and Australia that violent crime has skyrocketed, criminals have been given a government guarantee of a pool of defenseless victims. England has a flourishing trade in full automatic machine guns, guns not allowed without severe restrictions and intensive background checks that last up to 90 days in America, with every one of the 225,000 cataloged by the Bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms. The largest importer of these black market machine guns, China, a country with gun laws so strict they would make the Brady campaign rejoice about their progressive gun laws
The first gun laws in America where instituted not to control crime, shootings, or as sensible precautions; Gun laws where the first of the Jim Crow laws. Bob Klansman with a white sheet and a burning cross wouldn’t want a minority they viewed as lower than trash shooting them dead before they could drag him out for the weekly Klan lynching. Members of the Bi-partisan anti-Chinese committee wouldn’t appreciate being killed by armed Chinese they happened to be exploiting in the building of a railroad. Gun control has always been, and will always been about one thing, “Control.”
History is replete with examples of the results of reasonable gun laws and where they led. Turkey established reasonable gun laws in 1911, from 1915 to 1917 one point five million Armenians, where rounded up and exterminated, they had no way of defending themselves. The Soviet Union established reasonable gun laws in 1929, from then until 1953, twenty million political dissidents where slaughtered. China established reasonable gun laws in 1935, between 1948-1952 twenty million political dissidents where brutally exterminated. Germany enacted reasonable gun laws in 1938, from 1939-1945 thirteen million Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and mentally ill people where exterminated in a quest for a pure socialist utopia. Cambodia got their reasonable gun laws in 1956, from 1975-1977 one million educated people where killed off. Guatemala established reasonable gun laws in 1964, from them until 1981 one hundred thousand Mayan Indians where killed. Uganda established reasonable gun laws in 1970, from 1971 to 1979, three hundred thousand Christians where slaughtered. The list goes on, Bosnia, Iraq, Iran, and dozens of atrocities in Africa, all related by one common theme, they got reasonable gun laws, and brutal ethnic, cultural, and religious cleansing took place soon after. So please forgive me if it makes me angry when a so-called educated member of American society, asks me to sign up for reasonable gun laws. Can’t happen here; study the history of the Bonus Marchers, right here on American soil after WWI. Unarmed peaceful protestors where marched back by United States Calvary, and slaughtered, their shelters burned. Randy Weaver after not paying a $200 tax on a gun the government felt needed to be controlled had his son shot, his wife murdered, and he received a 3.5 million dollar settlement from the United States Government because of their brutal tactics, have you ever owed $200 in taxes?
So when someone tells me I need to support reasonable gun laws, I ask myself, what do they stand to gain? Do they want socialist based programs that most gun owners find un-American? Is it because they object to rapists, murderers, and other criminal being killed in the commission of their crimes? Or like so many times in history is it the basic reason that political dissidents cause unneeded problems?
Among the many misdeeds of the British Rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.
Both the oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms.
One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purpose without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms.
--Joseph Story (1840)
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.
--Abraham Lincoln (first inaugural address, March 4, 1861.)
Funny thing about history, how modern society who has never faced severe oppression, tyranny, and fascism can discount so many who have with a wave of their hand and simple phrase, “If it saves just one life.” What is it they say about those who fail to remember history being doomed to repeat it? Funny how the supposed elitist educated can dismiss such a simple lesson and a Southern white trash beer drinking redneck can take it to heart and practice it. What does that say about our education systems in this country, and those who stand at podiums in an attempt to indoctrinate? What does it say about those who graduate and parrot the same things those professors said? Leads this redneck to ask some simple questions of his own, “Are we the home of the brave, or a nation of sheep?” Do you supposed Hitler ever asked his victims, “Would you like your payment for supporting reasonable gun laws with Zyklon-B or just a fiery furnace,” what would I be offered today?
An emailed apology to the class for your pushing political ideals from the podium of education would be appreciated. Just as it would if I had sent an invitation to some hate group sponsored activity of my political leanings.
Not exactly a sheep, but not stupid enough to sign my name and watch my grade plummet.
Don’t Tread on Me,
P.s. How is that for a provocative, exasperating, and funny essay on the truths about gun control.
January 15, 2003, 11:27 PM
Guy B. Meredith
January 16, 2003, 12:46 AM
Whoa, St. Gunner! Can I quote that letter?
January 16, 2003, 01:16 AM
A liberal acquaintance of mine suggested to me that I should go see Bowling for Columbine, I said maybe when shows on PBS I'll watch it. There is no point in paying any money towards this film or MM. I try to be open minded and we can all agree to disagree but I'm not going to pay 8 bucks in the process.
I am slowly converting this liberal anti acquaintance to believe in private firearm ownership with logic and reality, believe it or not. When were headed up to the mountains for skiing and told him about another friend who was involved in a road rage incident where a guy side-swiped his car while driving down the median then chased him at high speeds trying to run him off the road. He admitted that "in that case, I could see having a gun to protect yourself" Yes! When it seems like it could actually happen to you, idealolgy takes a back seat to reality. BTW, my friend being chased had his cell phone and Glock readily accessible.
Calling Michael Moore a piece of s#!t gives fecal matter everywhere a bad name, at least manure has a useful purpose <rant mode off>
January 16, 2003, 01:38 AM
Given that Michael Moore is a raving socialist, I'm sure he would understand if I opted to simply download a pirated copy of his movie off of the internet instead of allowing him to exploit me for the money in my pocket.
But then again, my hard drive space is pretty limited.:neener:
January 16, 2003, 07:29 AM
Guy B. Meredith,
I put it here for that, that is a accumulation of several years worth of material I picked-up here, there, and yonder. It in various forms over the last few years has opened up some dialog and helped make some converts. You don't learn much about the genocides of the last century in history class anymore, which makes it that much easier to think it could never happen here. I play the race card part of gun control, because on a basic level most of the people pushing gun restrictions do so because they think racism in any form is wrong, but they never realized the history of gun laws.
If it pops up here under my name anyone can feel free to use, if you need references to any of the stuff there statistics wise, pm me about it. The numbers killed in genocide is fairly easy to find if you search under the various countries. Most of the quotes can be found on second amendment foundation (http://www.saf.org) .
If it helps us in the fight, I want it used, I don't care about credit or anything like that.
January 16, 2003, 09:13 AM
I do want to see the mindless, ill-thought, left-wing collection of lies and sensational meetings but I refuse to pay any money to do so, either in theaters, buying the DVD or even renting it. If I can borrow it, I will... Don't have cable/dish.
January 16, 2003, 10:01 AM
St. Gunner -- excellent letter!
January 16, 2003, 12:12 PM
My mom really liked Bowling For Columbine, and suggested that I see it. I did, and in the resulting discussion her opinion of Michael Moore made a complete about-face. :)
Some interesing and enlightening "facts" from the movie:
* Klebold and Harris killed people because many parents in Littleton work for Lockheed, which makes missiles.
* The media hates blacks, because they call killer bees "Africanized bees."
* Terry Nichol's brother is representative of American gun owners.
* Three high school kids cutting class are representative of all Canadian citizens.
* Charlton Heston is directly responsible for the killing of a seven-year-old girl in Michigan.
Blech. Now that mom isn't likely to see any more Michael Moore crap, there's no way I will be either.
January 16, 2003, 12:47 PM
I liked your essay St.Gunner...in fact, I copied it my personal email folder for possible future use. It speaks loudly.........
It was also repeated here many time but let me advise also...Please do not pay to see that film. The $$ collect will be viewed as a general endorsement of this guys ideas.
January 16, 2003, 01:17 PM
St. Gunner, you have my deepest respect and thanks. I not only work for a college but I went back to get my degree in electronics at the tender age of fourty-something. Makes life real interesting sometimes when the "long-haired, red-neck, gun-nut " turns around and actually points out some of the Bravo Sierra that the anti crowd shovels up so freely. I'm not sure which they hate more, the fact that I'm aware of their lies or that I'm not as dumb as I look?:D
January 16, 2003, 06:05 PM
I don't have the long haired and I am only 28years old, but I do wear everyday a Remington ball cap. College has been a real drag, i'm an English Major and talk about an area being crammed plum full of socialists, and proud of it. My reputation precedes me into classes most of the time, normally that is not so good. I had a sizable disagreement with a proff over the Ben Franklin and his views on personal liberties, he lost, cursed me loudly and then had me removed from his class. But he did get to pay me back out of his paycheck.:D It has run the gauntlet from low key I don't like guns to outright anti-liberty zealotry. I try to take it al in stride and just refute kindly and at times simply ignore it.
This time it raised my hackles. I actually deal better with the in your face type of assualt on my values, this was phrased in such a way as to be a sneak attack. I've noticed it more and more the longer I have been there, and it is working. I can tell you some horror stories of parents who sent off sweet little innocent Megan with a strong sense of conservativeness and a love of hunting and shooting and got returned an openly homosexual card carrying PETA member with a tattoo that says, "MMM" in large letters. Proffs seem to take great pride in changing and shaping young minds, i'm a hard headed cuss and it didn't take well with me.:D
The most important thing parents can do is keep in touch with their kids, that stuff just snowballs and is presented so gently and non-confrontationally that it gets under the skin and after endless exposure to it, they begin to see the world that way. Everytime I look at college anymore, it seems more like a cult of some sort. Certain areas seem to be partially immune to it, but when it says Liberal Arts, you can bet your last dollar what you will find there is a mixture of sociailism, communism, and a healthy dose of outright fascism. Liberalism does not truly exist at colleges, nobody is open minded enough to practice it.
It was a free pass, but I wasn't going to buy a soda or a bag of popcorn or set me gun owning behind in a theater who showed such trash. Besides i'd rather buy another box of ammo than a box of popcorn anyday.:D
Thanks for the nice things you had to say, but pat yourselves on the back for that letter to, because internet forums and their members is what has fostered those views and helped research those arguements, and some of you from TFL I really flat out argued with about certain issues, all if it fostered that and a few other things.
January 16, 2003, 06:08 PM
Keep it up St. Gunner and the pen will be mightier than the sword (but never the gun. They're pretty final).
January 17, 2003, 06:14 PM
I saw this movie today. It isn't so much about guns as it is about Michael Moore's bleeding heart liberal viewpoints.
Roger and Me was a great movie (even though there is much more to economic decisions made by General Motors than Moore will ever know). This movie falls way below the potential of Moore. It was unfocused just as its title. Was it about bowling? Was it about Columbine? Yeah, sometimes it was.
The coolest thing about the movie was that it was playing at the local art house where you can drink beer inside the theater and think about how Triumph the Insult Comic Dog would view this movie.
Triumph: "This was such a great movie...for me to poop on!"
January 18, 2003, 09:03 PM
Well, I watched it last night (courtesy of DSL) and, while I can't quite stand the man, and certainly don't respect some of his tactics, some of his arguments and ideas are worthy of a listen.
Why does Americas involved in such a high number of violent attacks and murders? He contends it has nothing to do with wealth or lack of it, unemployment, racial deversity or social back ground. He makes the point that, while Detroit is the city with the highest per capita murder rate of the major US cities, across the river in Windsor Canada they've only had one murder in the last four or five years and that was committed by a resident of Detroit. Windsor's uneployment rate is higher than that Detroit.
He argues that the media may be to blame as it preesents such an idea of horror on the news. This is certainly true, whether this is to blame or not.
Couldn't hard stand to watch the interview with Mr. Heston. I certainly think it was in extreme poor taste to show up in the cities of two recent school shooting to promote the NRA. I thought it was tasteless but then, they are guaranteed the right to do so.
At least they hurt K-Mart. Anything that pulls money out of the pockets of K-Marts upper management is good.
All in all, I'd give it a solid D.
January 19, 2003, 03:30 AM
Couldn't hard stand to watch the interview with Mr. Heston I certainly think it was in extreme poor taste to show up in the cities of two recent school shooting to promote the NRA.
Hmmm, as if the NRA had ANYTHING to do with what those two little f*****s did (who, by the way, I hope are being gang-raped in Hell). The NRA promotes responsible gun ownership and safety, not murderous rampages by psycopaths who use guns.
The ONLY thing wrong with the NRA is that they have rolled over too much in the past for the liberals and psuedo-conservatives (read: most conservative politicians).
BTW, no right-thinking gun owner should give one dime to Moore in the form of a movie ticket or otherwise. It is immoral to give money to people opposed to your beliefs.
January 19, 2003, 05:18 AM
B-B-But Michael Moore is a NRA Life Member.
I didn't buy the ticket. Someone invited me after discussing politics. Their viewpoint was emotion; "How do you explain to this girl's mom that her little daughter was killed by another six year-old?"
If I remember correctly, the boy's uncle was a drug dealer (thanks to our lucrative War on Drugs), so chances are he wasn’t a “productive” member of “society.” Michael Moore in a way blamed the state of Michigan Welfare-to-work system. If she had been able to keep her benefits, she wouldn’t have moved in with her brother who had the gun. It seems that Moore doesn’t believe that it’s entirely a parent’s responsibility, but society plays a role in why this child shot another child.
It seems that my friend and perhaps Moore has the idea that because people grew up in a certain neighborhood that they are predisposition for negative things to happen. I told him that I believed that most of what happens to you is directly related to your actions or inactions in life.
An example of my life is my broken legs as a result of a procedure that a company I worked for knew was dangerous. I made decisions earlier in life that resulted in me being there that moment when my hand got caught and I went for a ride. It wasn’t my fault that I had been injured, but I do take the responsibility of not going to college after high school, which would have hopefully placed me in safer environments.
Bowling for Columbine does create an environment for discussion and I think it's good for the RKBA crowd to discuss solutions towards individual liberty and individual responsibillity. If we do not, then the emotional rhetoric wins out due to the majority either lacking or too lazy for reasoning.
Plus, your local art theater might also sell beer. :evil:
The sad thing is that chances are that instead of introducing those students to a child gun safety course like NRA's Eddie the Eagle, they demonized firearms and probably do not even talk about the incident.
January 19, 2003, 07:41 AM
Everyone's opinion should be heard. It's a basic and constitutionally guaranteed right of the United States. Even if you strongly disagree with their position, they are acknowledged to have the right to express their view and in so doing, attempt to persuade others. This applies to a long list of topics, no matter how repugnant. These include racism, gender bias, abortion (either way), religion, and the price of eggs in China, to name just a few.
Both sides of any issue have that right. When one side advocates the prohibition of the rights of the other side to free speech, they are endangering the rights of themselves and their descendents yet unborn. I personally feel that the most unrecognized example of narrow minded, bigoted, sanctimonious behavior afoot in this country today are the liberals who attempt to surpress the constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech by the opposition expressing support for racism, exclusive heterosexuality advocates, anti-abortionists, pro-gun folks, and other politically incorrect groups and individuals. They do so buy being "offended" or finding otherwise unacceptable, the expression of opposing notions in society. This coming from "liberals" who profess holding the moral high ground in defending individually guaranteed rights, is something I find disingenuous and intellectully bankrupt. Has anybody ever heard their labels like "redneck" and so forth. Who do you think fostered the use of this term and the myriad of others like it? Is it not those same people who find words like Krauts, chinks, rugheads, etc unacceptable, denigrating and offensive coming when from the right? Is this not hypocritical? The answer must be a resounding, Yes! It is hypocritical, narrow minded bigotry and certainly "un- Liberal" in the interpretaion of the other groups constitutional rights. I do not wish to become one of them by attempting to banish their right to express their views in any acceptable forum, though I disagree with those points of view.
I will not however, be donating money to further their cause or to encourage more of their ilk to do the same by purchasing a ticket to the,....ahem....."Documentary". Nor I wish to shine light on their efforts by further discussion and the inevitible drawing of attention to it.
I think I will simple ignore them until they go away unless the subject is raised by some one else.
If you enjoyed reading about "Bowling for Columbine" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!