Michael Moore Hypocrisy Again (2nd Amendment)

[appal_jack]

Last night, when watching the 3/10 interview of Michael Moore on the Rachel Maddow Show, I got really bothered by his blatant hypocrisy regarding the 2nd Amendment. I thought about putting up an OP about it in GD, to get a discussion going about how we Democrats seem to be almost as bad as Republicans when it comes to selectively standing up for the Constitution. But instead, I found a GD discussion of the interview, and posted some thoughts there. I'm adding them here in the Gungeon as well, to see what my fellow Gungeoneers think. Any folks watch this interview too?

(On-edit): The original discussion can be found at: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7891544&mesg_id=7891544

From the transcript of Michael Moore's session with Rachel Maddow:

MOORE: "No, it's totally amazing. It's embarrassing. You know, Michigan's a great state. I live in his district... And I know him, he's a former Michigan state trooper, police officer, and, you know, he's done good things."

OK Michael, I'm not exactly sure how being a police officer (enforcing laws, including unconstitutional ones, as ordered by superiors) prepares one to be a Congressman (entrusted by the People to write legislation that comports itself with the Constitution), but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. Let's move on...


MOORE: "The NRA's been after him, and he's stood up to them, but this has just been shocking."

I regret to say that given the pirouettes of illogic you crammed into Bowling for Columbine, it does not shock me that you cheer when your Congressman attempts to trample the 2nd Amendment. But I thought your points in Sicko were great. Maybe you'll focus more on Stupak's own illogic regarding healthcare, and we can leave this anti-2nd Amendment stuff behind, OK?


MOORE: "It's unconscionable that he would try to stop even this watered-down, pathetic version of a health-care bill over his own personal religious beliefs."

Yes, Michael, now you're on-point! The anti-choice Democrats have been a significant road block during this attempt at meaningful health care reform.


MOORE: You know, it's kind of like, my feeling is, look, if you don't want to have an abortion, don't have one."

Preach it brother! The Constitution's liberties are the birthright of ALL Americans: women and men alike!


MOORE: "If you don't want to sleep with the same gender, don't do it.

EXACTLY. What is up with legislators attempting to denigrate or even ban practices that harm no one? Homophobia does NOT trump the Constitution!


MOORE: If you don't want to own a gun, well, that's a little different, because if you have 50 guns in your garage, I'm a little concerned about that.

WTF! Michael, you very nearly presented a concise, cogent defense of how Constitutional liberties should continually inform the legislative process. You came SO CLOSE to articulately calling upon your Congressman to set aside his own personal concerns, and legislate in accordance with our national principles. And then you stumble and trip over your own personal discomfort zone. Note, dear Michael, that shooting people (without cause, as narrowly-defined in legal codes) is ALREADY 100% illegal, AND that firearms, properly stored and handled, harm NO ONE. Plus, the possession and use of these firearms is EXPLICITLY PROTECTED by our Constitution. But all of a sudden we are supposed to swallow the notion that the Second Amendment is different than all our other American Liberties, because you're "a little concerned about that!" Goddammit. You Fail, fat man. That sort of Nanny State bullshit will fit right in with Stupak's own misguided and unconstitutional philosophies.


MOORE: "But everything else, it's like, I don't know where they get this sense that they need to control everyone else's private lives."

Yeah, fuck you too Michael. Good luck inspiring a plurality of Americans when you treat the Constitution just as cavalierly and hypocritically as Stupak, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Ed Meese. Every gun-owning neighbor of mine thinks you are an asshole. After this particular aside from you, I'm not prepared to argue with them.

-app

[katandmoon]

1. Unrec for you, kudoes to Michael Moore

[proteus_lives]

6. countered.

What, no sex canard?

You're slowing down moon.

[appal_jack]

23. Thanks. How about more Pro-2A recs from others?

Since I used some hostile language against Michael Moore in my OP, I'll clarify further: I consider him to be one of 'our own' on so many issues. I thought that F911 was a brilliant and necessary work that helped to turn the tide against B*sh at a crucial moment. Sicko? Great. Capitalism - A love Story? Only seen some excerpts so far, but looks very worthwhile, timely, and relevant.

My general respect for Michael Moore makes witnessing his hypocrisy on the Second Amendment all the more painful and disappointing. I think that he needs from pro-2A Democrats that this nonsense will not play in Peoria (well, maybe it will in IL, but it certainly won't here in NC).

-app

[roguevalley]

50. I believe, and I saw the interview too, that he was talking about the

fucknuts out there with 50 guns in their garage. He wasn't saying more than that in my opinion and I agree with him. Anyone with 50 guns, who isn't a collector but feels 50 guns is a political statement is no one I want living next door to me.

[PavePusher]

53. Please, explain why owning 50 firearms makes one a "fucknut".

I'll even let you use small words.

[roguevalley]

59. ah, you're a smartass. It is pretty much a given that a hostile gun

nut like the ones who shoot things up own 50 guns. Not everyone with 50 guns is a fucknut but the fucknuts have 50 guns. You are tarred with the same brush that people apply to pitbulls. Not every pitbull owner has a killer but every killer pitbull has a fucknut owner. Small enough words for ya?

[oneshooter]

60. So in your "mind" where does that leave me?

I have four safes with 200+/- firearms.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[roguevalley]

62. in my 'mind' that makes you a collector. the moment you bitch about

the gummit and go shooting someone, you will become a fucknut. I also own guns including a flintlock rifle. I have commemorative state rifles and shotguns. I don't have 200+ but I also do own a few. You don't know me. I don't know you but if I ever see your name in the headlines babbling how glen beck is the man after you shoot up a place, then I will. Your snide sarcasm is sad.

[PavePusher]

65. Assumptions, much?

Seems I'm not the only smartass around.

Evidence is a good thing around here.

[SteveM]

36. Countered again. Moore has a bit of fairy-tale about him...

Like so many lefties, he complains about the Right in harsh (and generally accurate) terms: The dangers of joblessness, poor health care, oppression, authoritarianism, etc. Yet he ends up with the reality-busting refrain: "Oh, but we need gun control."

It makes you wonder if he is really serious about the extreme Right. I think he has a lot of culture war baggage.

[Spoonman]

46. Michael Moore

is a con artist and hypocrite of the highest order.

Anyone stupid enough to believe ANYTHING he produces is basically a lemming!

[sharesunited]

2. He said somebody with 50 guns concerns him. I agree that it is a warning sign.

What would be your number? A thousand? Or no maximum? No such thing as excess indicative of mental illness?

These aren't beanie babies, ok? They're guns.

[TheWraith]

4. Somebody who owns 50 beanie babies would freak me right the hell out.

Those things are scary.

[rve300]

5. How many abortions?

What would be your number? A thousand? Or no maximum? No such thing as excess indicative of mental illness?

These aren't visits to the dentist, ok? They're abortions.

[sharesunited]

31. 15 by "abortion addict" who admits she is psychologically troubled.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ReproductiveHealth/abortion-addict-admits-multiple-abortions-suicide-attempts/story?id=8594347

Can we get someone with 15 guns to admit there's something wrong with him?

[57_TomCat]

38. I have well over 15 and ...

nope...nothing wrong with me. They are tools and I use them for different things. Some are better than others for the different guns games I play. None I might add have ever jumped up and gone off on a crime spree. In fact I have never felt the urge to go commit a crime spree myself. Even when the guns were "near". :)

[proteus_lives]

7. know people with that many.

Normal, everyday people with a hobby.

Stereotypes and ignorance: zero points awarded.

[appal_jack]

9. Collecting is a legitimate (and sane) pursuit

Most collectors of firearms have seen their investments do much better than those who chose to invest in stocks, housing, or a myriad of other items. During the "Panic" of 2008-2009, I could have sold a semi-automatic firearm for a full 700% premium over what I had purchased it for (I chose not to, and now the prices have subsided - I'm fine with that fact). With "Democrats" like you and katandmoon out there, there will surely be future panics too.

But let's look at your 'warning sign' Shares:

If one is an enthusiast of Enfield rifles, there are literally dozens of models out there, between the countries of manufacture (I know that Britain, Canada, Australia, and India made them. Maybe others too? I am sure a true enthusiast can chime in here), and the models themselves. Then there are the noticeable differences in models resulting in dates of manufacture (from WW1 to the 1960's all-told: wartime-production was generally more hurried than peace time, understandably). Stocks were made from different woods at different times and places. Some models were shortened into "Jungle Carbines," for fighting on the Pacific islands from what I understand. And of course, if one is a collector/investor, one must accumulate enough rifles so that one wants to sell at least some of them. That may mean two or more of each date/model/wood/country, and then choosing what to hold, and what to let go, when, and at what price. Plus, one might want a few 'shooters' in addition to the 'safe queens.'

So yes, it would be quite easy to accumulate 50 Enfields, and still be looking for more. Along with the US M-1's, and the various Soviet models of the time (one might legitimately collect 50 of each of those too) , Enfields helped keep us free from Nazism. Even though I am not a collector of Enfields (I own exactly 1), I view them as very worthy of collecting, for those who have the funds and interest to do so.

Why would you possibly have a problem with a citizen collecting such valuable pieces of history, Shares? Yes since they "aren't beanie babies," they should be secured in a safe instead of the back of a closet. But beanie babies have not yet repelled fascist empires either, OK?

-app

edit because i was in a hurry...

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

13. I agree. I have the same problem with rocks, but like guns, they don't eat.

[oneshooter]

57. You haven't priced ammo lately!! n/t

[dashrif]

61. pm

me os I think I can help :toast:

[enfield collector]

40. 50 Enfields? Now that's what I'm talking about!

[appal_jack]

49. Wondered if this would get your attention.

I recall seeing your user name around here, e c.

:)

Any other countries in the Commonwealth manufacture Enfields besides those I listed?

Also, note the chirping of crickets filling in the void where sharesunited might have voiced a legitimate concern about the prctice of collecting these historic and magnificent rifles.

I lack the funds and secured space to buy 50 of any rifle, but the notion strikes me as sound...

-app

[Euromutt]

51. You missed one and half countries of manufacture

The models up to and including the No.1 Mk.III* SMLE were manufactured in the UK (RSAFs Enfield and Sparkbrook, Birmingham Small Arms, London Small Arms), India (Ishapore) and Australia (Lithgow). The No.4s were manufactured in the UK (ROFs Fazakerley and Maltby, BSA) and Canada (Longbranch), but also in Pakistan (which was part of India up to 1947, of course) and in the U.S. by Savage Arms. The ones made by Savage were supplied to the UK as "Lend-Lease," and not used by American personnel.

There are also any number of "Khyber Pass copies" of the Nos.1 and 4, manufactured unofficially by gunsmiths in the North-West Frontier Province of what is now Pakistan. Because rather a lot of them are of poor quality, they're generally considered unsafe to fire in the West.

The No.5 Mk.I, unofficially known as the "Jungle Carbine," was actually intended for use in Burma, though the first unit to be issued the weapon was the 6th Airborne Division, which at the time was performing occupation duties in Denmark following the German surrender. At the time, there may have been plans to ship the 6th Abn Div out to South-East Asia, or maybe it was thought that airborne troops could use a lighter, handier weapon than the No.4. The No.5 was pretty awful; given the power of the .303, the weapon was too light and the barrel too short, resulting in massive muzzle blast and serious felt recoil, and added design flaws resulted in production being halted in 1947.

My personal interest is weapons of the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s, which frankly limits the selection to M48 Mausers, M59/66 SKSs, and Zastava M76s, plus assorted handguns, because you can't import any of the automatic weapons used in those conflicts, and besides, Washington is a non-Class III state.

[appal_jack]

52. Excellent info

Thanks Euromutt!

:hi:

I own a semi-version of a Yugo M70-AB2 that certainly saw some action at some point, maybe even into the 1990's. Well-made firearm for sure. Heavier than I prefer, but basically indestructible. An M76 in 7.62 NATO would be a fine rifle; it's on the wish list, but far enough behind other needs and wants that I don't anticipate owning one any time soon.

The full-auto weapons are out of my price range, plus I don't want to have to deal with the tax stamps and other legal hassles.

-app

[Pullo]

15. So I suppose you're in favor of an "arsenal" tax ......

...... similar to the one proposed in Brady II?

Funny thing, talk of that bill seemed to fade after Nov. 1994. Fifty guns is nothing for collectors, btw.

[burrfoot]

39. Shares,

why should there be a maximum? Do you believe that a person with 50 guns is more dangerous than one with 5? Or that someone with 1,000 guns is more dangerous than one with 50?

Why? It's not as though they can use all 1,000 them at once. What's dangerous about having a lot of them?

:shrug:

[gorfle]

47. Why would it be a warning sign?

People collect firearms. They are often handed down from generation to generation.

I currently own some 15 firearms. When my father passes on, I will probably inherit some 15 more.

I know one person who buys firearms as an investment for their retirement, as they nearly always increase, or at least maintain their value against inflation.

That said, I only know one person who has more than 20 firearms.

I just don't see what the big deal is. Someone who has the financial wherewithal to be collecting large numbers of firearms is not someone who is likely to be engaging in crime, for profit at least.

It's not like you can take 50 firearms with you on a shooting spree.

What's the big deal?

[X_Digger]

3. So close.. so stupid..

You can tell he had to almost correct himself.. his brain was headed in the right direction, then he had a second's pause to rethink that.

|| <-- that close.

Ahh well.

[proteus_lives]

8. Hypocrisy is right.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

10. I'm not anti-gun but I have a problem with all the greedy dealers that

sold guns to Mexico, also as I have said before. What about all the gang-bangers? We really need to deal with them more harshly.

[Pullo]

16. Yep, "deal with them more harshly" .......

Incarcerate their ass! Gun crime associated w/ gang activity? How 'bout we eliminate the plea dealings etc for these characters?

Changing firearms laws won't help, throwing their asses behind bars will. Keep your eye on the ball.

[appal_jack]

21. Sure, me too.

Selling guns to non-citizens, across borders, breaks all kinds of laws already. I agree with other posters who call for such crimes to be vigorously prosecuted.

-app

[PavePusher]

26. "all the greedy dealers"

How many? Which ones? Where?

Since there have only been a handful of them prosecuted for intentional illegal sales, I am confused when you indicate that there may be a plenitude. Got facts?

[Callisto32]

41. First order of busines should be, as always, stopping the drug war.

Maybe if we didn't let violent people out to incarcerate people on their 3rd simple possession charge, we would have more appropriate prison populations. Maybe we would also stop being the worlds leader in imprisoned people if we actually punished crime instead of malum prohibitum offenses.

[appal_jack]

48. Yes.

Ending the drug war is another whole crucial area in which Constitutional liberties ought to trump the victimless 'crimes' that the War On Drugs (erroneously) proposes to 'solve.'

-app

[GreenStormCloud]

44. The U.S. Government is the biggest supplier of guns to Mexico

The U.S. has helped equip the Mexican Army with surplus M-16s, many of which have "lost" to the cartels.

[GreenStormCloud]

54. Biggest supplier of arms to Mexico is the U.S. Government.

We help arm the Mexican Army which then sells loses guns to the cartels.

[Euromutt]

63. Actually, the Mexican army doesn't use much US-made stuff

Most of the US-supplied stuff that ends up in the cartels' hands comes from state police forces.

[provis99]

11. so your basic complaint is that Moore opposes the NRA, so he hates the 2nd Amendment?

since when did loving the NRA get equated with the 2nd Amendment? I don't understand your complaint.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

12. His complaint seems to be that Mike is a hypocrite.

[appal_jack]

14. My complaint is the hypocrisy.

I am sure that Bart Stupak would say that the life of the fetus trumps a woman's right to choose. Michael countered that notion with a (glib but effective) counter argument: "if you are against abortions, don't have one." But when it comes to the Second Amendment, he seems perfectly comfortable with the government throwing up arbitrary and capricious regulations that impede the legitimate exercise of a fundamental Constitutional right.

If Moore chooses to sneer at the NRA, that's his choice. I am not an NRA member myself, so that's not my fight. But Moore is using his considerable (relative to, say, my own) media influence to cavalierly dismiss the 2nd Amendment as negligible. I think that he undermines his whole defense of liberties (in the forms of reproductive freedoms and LGBT equality) when he does so.

I am an American and a Democrat who believes that we should stand up for all liberties we possess: explicit and implied, traditional and expanded, past, present, and future. That's my problem with Michael Moore's idiotic mis-step of last night.

-app

[Lint Head]

17. I own guns. I'm a Democrat. My family has won medals in the military

and the NRA can go to HELL! They do not speak for me are anyone regarding the right to bear arms. There was no NRA during the revolution
and it is not needed now to protect anything. The right to bear arms has not and will not be infringed if there is or is not an NRA.
Wayne LaPierre is an opportunist and liar!

[AtheistCrusader]

18. Exactly it

The political arm of the NRA is a greedy piece of crap that actually is a proponent of gun control, and does stupid things that risk our civil liberties.

[armueller2001]

19. Such as?

[AtheistCrusader]

42. Here.

The NRA tried to shoehorn it's way into the already well-on-it's-way McDonald case, so it could go back to it's members and say 'see what we did', thereby risking the viability of the case.

The NRA Respondents-Supporting-Petitioners, in McDonald v. Chicago, have filed a Motion for Divided Argument to request time at oral arguments. Petitioner opposed this motion.

In short, the NRA, represented by Paul Clement at King & Spalding, is asking to divide Gura’s time, and to get 10 minutes to argue. The NRA argues that Gura’s brief spent primarily focused on arguing in favor of extending the right to keep and bear arms through the Privileges or Immunities Clause, rather than the Due Process Clause. The NRA argues that the Court needs to hear an argument in favor of the Due Process Clause.

Fortunately, the court rejected the appeal. Cutting Alan Gura's time in half could have been disastrous. The NRA almost killed the Heller case as well, for fear it would be ruled the other way:
http://nrawol.net/Other_Issues.html#Levy


On gun control, the NRA supported H.R. 2640.http://www.nationalgunrights.org/othershr2640.shtml
Veterans groups, and almost every gun-related civil liberties group OTHER than the NRA opposed this piece of crap. Too late, it's law now.

The NRA supported the 1934 NFA, which led directly to the ban on select-fire weapons made after 1986.

JPFO breaks it down pretty well here, http://www.jpfo.org/articles-assd/nra-supported-nfa.htm

[appal_jack]

20. No argument from me.

While I can respect the fact that some gun owners feel that the NRA helps them in their cause, I can also respect those who support the 2nd Amendment, but choose not to join the NRA (this is my own stance exactly). See post #14 (above) for more details.

I do believe, however, that the Second Amendment (like all of our rights) will only remain vigorous and viable with the active support and engagement of many citizens. Do we need the NRA to do this for us? No! There we agree.

-app

[onehandle]

24. Wayne LaPierre is just a gun industry lobbyist.

And yes, there would be guns with or without them.

Without them there would a lot fewer Republicans in office and a couple of less Blue Dogs.

[GreenStormCloud]

55. You seem to be forgetting the NRA has about four million members.

All those member/voters speak with a loud voice.

[pipoman]

28. I would agree with you about the

legislative lobbyist division, NRA-ILA, only to a point. My feeling is that if the f-ing ACLU would loose their hypocrisy concerning the 2nd Amendment there would be little or no need for NRA-ILA...until then...

Now the NRA proper educates more people of all ages on safe shooting than any other organization on the planet. They have arguably saved more lives through education on this topic than any other group in history.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

32. "There was no NRA during the revolution and it is not needed now to protect anything."

That's a pretty silly piece of logic there.
The NRA's primary objective is to protect American's 2nd Amendment rights.
At the time of The Revolution, there was no 2nd Amendment. Why the heck would there have been a need for the NRA?

Look into the history of the NRA... it's pretty interesting. Quite ironic actually.
It is actually the anti-gun groups that made the NRA what it is today.
Anti-2A groups fighting the NRA give the NRA reason to exist. They are the source of their rival's power.

[oneshooter]

58. No, the NRA was formed

After the War of Northern Aggression.

Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis," according to a magazine editorial written by Church.

After being granted a charter by the state of New York on November 17, 1871, the NRA was founded. Civil War Gen. Ambrose Burnside, who was also the former governor of Rhode Island and a U.S. Senator, became the fledgling NRA's first president.

http://www.nra.org/aboutus.aspx

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[GreenStormCloud]

56. Neither was there an ACLU, NAACP, nor many other civil rights organizations...

...during the revolution. Are you saying that only organizations that were around then may exist today?

The NRA was very instrumental in getting the 1986, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act passed, and the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Both of those were vital to protecting a citizens right to arms.

The NRA also filed suit against New Orleans Mayor and Chief of Police after the gun grabs after Katrina. I take it that you don't call that illegal gun grab a violation of people's civil rights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf8trl69kzo&feature=related

[onehandle]

22. Run, Michael! You have drawn the anger of Gungeon Underground!

:scared: :scared: :scared:

I bet he is so concerned about this room's opinion.

LOL!

[Euromutt]

25. About as concerned as we are about yours (n/t)

[proteus_lives]

27. You're always so concerned.

Why else would you keep posting your nonsense?

[pipoman]

29. "Run, Michael!".....Yeah, right...n/t

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

34. Mike could use a jog or two. Great advice. (n/t)

[onehandle]

35. True. nt

[PavePusher]

64. "Jog or two"...?

Jebus, I just saw him on the Joy Behar show (yeah, yeah, don't get me started), and the fat bastard is the closest thing to Jabba the Hut, physicaly, that I've seen lately.

Michael, if you want the slightest shred of credibility on health care, skip a few meals, and change 2/3rds of the rest to salads. Then go out and walk 5 miles a day for a few months.

O. M. G.

[SteveM]

37. I don't get angry with you; in fact, I look forward to using the restroom

when you post. See y'all in 5.

[Biker13]

30. K&R

[slackmaster]

33. As someone who owns more than 50 firearms I'm a little concerned about Moore's excessive free speech

I think there should be an investigation.

[grahamhgreen]

43. This is about the only area I disagree with Moore on. Otherwise he's spot on. nt

[Xela]

45. He looses me everytime on the Second Amendment issue....

I agree with him most of the time, but the moment he shares his views about the Second...

...I just groan and sigh, and try to move on.

Xela