*Originally posted by Phil Jayhan *
**
I have never even heard Michael Moore or seen him. I couldn’t pick him out of a lineup. But I know what hes said, some of it; I just think he is a poor presenter of evidence from what everyone says. **
You should check out his last movie - “Bowling for Columbine,” it’s pretty good and will give you an idea of what he could do with exposing 9/11. He said he might have to leave the country after Fahrenheit 911
I saw “Bowling for Columbine” here in Australia, I thought it was some of the funniest sh.t I have ever seen.
After seeing that, I just had to watch “The Naked Truth” and ended up watching every episode.
Personally after watching these I think Michael Moore is great.
2 things still stick in my mind.
There was a South Park style cartoon about Americans, it brought tears to my eyes. I wish I had a copy of it.
Second was the open a new bank account and get a free gun, only problem is the large choice available.
*Originally posted by The_Vulcan *
**I saw “Bowling for Columbine” here in Australia, I thought it was some of the funniest sh.t I have ever seen.
After seeing that, I just had to watch “The Naked Truth” and ended up watching every episode.
Personally after watching these I think Michael Moore is great.
2 things still stick in my mind.
There was a South Park style cartoon about Americans, it brought tears to my eyes. I wish I had a copy of it.
Second was the open a new bank account and get a free gun, only problem is the large choice available. **
You know what the “great” thing about the getting a gun spot was…he had that all worked up in advance. You don’t just walk into that bank open an account and get a gun like it was made out to be. There are all the normal background checks and registration done as if you went into a gun store. Moore staged that spot weeks in advance and got all the necessary permits that he never mentioned. The rest of his movie was the same thing, he gave a lot of half truths and out of context information to “fit” his points. I mean I guess he had points. 
I assumed that there were “normal background checks and registration done” and that it was staged as far as that went.
The whole thing I found funny was getting a gun from a bank… Here there are no guns, well I would compare us to Canada in that they are few and far between.
If a bank was to offer that here in Australia, that bank would be boycotted and more than likely go under.
Hand guns are virtually impossible to get here.
No fully automatics
No Scopes
No Silencers
However 10 years ago I did go shooting rabbits with a .22 semi automatic Remington with scope and silencer.
Here if you own a property and have rabbits on it you can get your bullets subsidized by the government because rabbits are considered vermin.
I would have to say that when hunting rabbits the silencer changes everything.
*Originally posted by The_Vulcan *
**I assumed that there were “normal background checks and registration done” and that it was staged as far as that went.
The whole thing I found funny was getting a gun from a bank… Here there are no guns, well I would compare us to Canada in that they are few and far between.
If a bank was to offer that here in Australia, that bank would be boycotted and more than likely go under.
Hand guns are virtually impossible to get here.
No fully automatics
No Scopes
No Silencers
However 10 years ago I did go shooting rabbits with a .22 semi automatic Remington with scope and silencer.
Here if you own a property and have rabbits on it you can get your bullets subsidized by the government because rabbits are considered vermin.
I would have to say that when hunting rabbits the silencer changes everything. **
The culture is much different here in the US. Our Constitution guarantees us the right to own guns. Our country was built on the backs of gun owners surviving on the land. And, the small town Moore went to had a large population of gun ownership. That kind of thing wouldn’t have happened in downtown New York or LA or any other major metropolitain area, but in rural America guns play an important role in society. It wasn’t like they were giving out assault riffles either, they were hunting rifles.
ha ha ha true, but a hunting rifle can still kill people.
It’s the same here, most county towns have gun stores, but there isn’t many around cities.
About 15 years ago we had a massacre in a cafe with an AK47,
They really came down hard on those then and now no one would be willing to risk being caught with an assault riffle.
They also had a buy back scheme for a while, where if you had any illegal guns you had them in and get money for them.
Now you can hand guns into police stations and you won’t get in trouble.
But if you get caught with one, then you are going to be in trouble.
I understand that it’s a constitutional right to bear arms there, but the constitution was written a long long time ago.
If they ever thought you would have 20 million people living in a city together, I don’t think they would have wanted every Tom Dick and Harry having a gun.
Country towns and gun ranges is fair enough, but I don’t think a city is any place for assault riffles and hand guns.
I think that the Constitution is a timeless document. I think people in cities have as much right to protect themselves as people in rual areas. I think all Americans have a right to protect themselves from a government that gets out of control. We never could have defeted the British rule without personal firearms.
With that said, we are getting away from the facts of Bowling For Columbine. The gun he bought WAS in rural America. It WAS NOT a hand gun nor an assult riffle. The Constitution is still the core of American government. If the people find an amendment to be dated, they have a right to change it, such as what happened with the prohabition amendment. That has not happened with the amendment that gives us the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. If a bank wants to give them away legally, then they have every right to.
Was “Gangs of New York” based on actual events ?
The solders came in shooting people and they bombed people from off shore.
If you go up against the government now and with the weapons they have at there disposal something tells me no amount of guns are going to help you.
The only arrogant psychotic delusional moron to want to go up against the US government lost twice.
Sadam had an army, tanks, planes, missiles and once the government “popped a can of whip arse” he didn’t last long.
So are you telling me a bunch of un organized civilians with hand guns and machine guns are going to over power the government should it go a stray ?
I don’t think , so the only other reason to have a gun in a city is to defend yourself. If every Tom Dick and Harry didn’t have a gun then you wouldn’t need one either.
Shooting death statistics (approx 2003)
Australia, 65 deaths 19,731,984 population
U.S.A, 11,127 deaths 290,342,554 population
= 1 in 303,569 Australians killed by guns per year
= 1 in 26,093 Americans killed by guns per year
But you’re right, it’s your constitutional right to have a death rate 10x times higher than a country with gun laws.
I mean with those figures if you brought in gun control you might save one thousand one hundred lives a year !
But then why save all those 1100 lives a year when one day the government might…. might…… attack its own people. Not that you could stop them.
Sorry, it just don’t cut it in my eyes.
With that said, we are getting away from the facts of Bowling For Columbine.
That’s alright; this thread is titled Michael More so I think gun control is relevant to him.
And the thread died a month ago anyway.
If you go up against the government now and with the weapons they have at there disposal something tells me no amount of guns are going to help you.
The only arrogant psychotic delusional moron to want to go up against the US government lost twice.
Sadam had an army, tanks, planes, missiles and once the government “popped a can of whip arse” he didn’t last long.
So are you telling me a bunch of un organized civilians with hand guns and machine guns are going to over power the government should it go a stray ?
Not that I disagree… but remember that we kicked England’s butt at at time when their army was 1000 strong for each of our men, and they had superior techniques in battlefield combat. There’s a lot to be said for using unethical tactics to balance out a playing field.
can the same thing happen today? Probebly not… but definitely not? no I would not say definitely not.
But with gas and biological weapons, I would say defiantly not.
unethical tactics to balance out a playing field.
why oh why didn’t Sadam just pull all his forces into the cities, then he would have been a real bugger to get out.
Oh, that’s right; he is a delusional half wit.
sure sure… but you’re going to have a harder time getting away with bombing your own citizens. Complete destruction like that leaves a big mess to clean up. The government knows that if it wins a conflict it’s going to have to clean up before the infostructure will be able to be recreated. To that effect, any sort of large scale destruction or contamination will be avoided at all costs. If the government thought that perhaps it might lose a conflct within it’s own borders maybe then it would come to that… but not in any normal circumstances.
plus I was really just saying, “never say never”, and citing an example from history in which the vast majority didn’t think that we had a chance of doing the damage we did.
Of course now I can use that as a precident to state something else which is not relivant here… but is relivant in the grand scheme of things. Those tactics which we used to win the war were considered terrorist activity by every standing army of the day (of any “civilized” nation)… just as we today claim that bombing civilians is terrorist and uncalled for… they said that shooting officers was terrorist and uncalled for. None the less… we are the heros of that war, and Alqada is the villian in this one. (“war on terror”).
I still think that we have the right to defend ourselves… don’t get me wrong people. Just stating that we are only heros because we kicked their butts… not because we use more ethical tactics. The English were much more ethical (ON THE BATTLEFIELD) than we were during the revolution according to the ethics of the day.
Obviously that really belongs in a different thread. 
ethical tactics
Do not attack the innocent. (un armed & civilians)
Treat prisoners with the respect you would like to be treated with.
Other than this, all else goes.
If I were Bin, I would have killed the politicians and members of the defense force, not innocent civilians.
If he started assassinating politicians it wouldn’t take long for them to bend over for him.
But as long as he is only killing innocent civilians, the politicians can sit back in their nice tax payer paid leather chairs on capital hill and play silly buggers with themselves.
There quite happy to drag things on forever as long as its not them in the cross hairs.
If you told all the politicians as they arrived for work that you were gonna round them up in a week and send them to Vietnam. The Vietnam war would have been over before morning tea.
As for the British tactics; well it was because they were stupid that you one… Line up in a line and get shot…. Real bright !
Obviously this really belongs in a different thread too. 
A quick history lesson,
Sure, there where a few times, during the US revolution that US guerrila forces where able to damage (yet never defeat) the british opponents. But more often than not, they had their arses handed to them by the british.
The linning up thightly together is not a bad tactic, its almost neccessairy when using the type of weapons they where using. Lining up gives you concentration of firepower, and well derected attack of thightly formed squad, leaves death in its wake.
Only, with serious leaders and drill (curtosy of the French and Prussians), where the US able to repay the arse handaling to the British.
Now to a modern concept.
Now, there is no foreign tyrant to overthrow, there is only your own country.
So it wont be a war like the Independance War, but a War like the Civil War.
So, vulcan your example does not apply. Sure if a all the non-military gun owners went against the US military they will lose, and lose bad.
It wont be the same.
It will be Rebeling US military VS. Non-Rebeling US military.
Just like in Civil War, there would be some generals and armies that will join the Rebeling side and some wont.
Well I hope for your sake the boys with the Gas, and Norad Command are not the ones your up against.
No Nukes… No Nukes… No Nukes…
Duck… and cover ! Duck… and cover !
I love watching archive footage.
wont happen. One nuke requires that 4 individuals, whom are kept separate, turn their keys at the same time. The ONLY communication they have is with NORAD, and the president. None of them are trained in the entire procedure so even if one opted to attempt to break into the other locations at the silo, they simply wouldn’t be able to perform the operation. The order from NORAD would not come down, as was explained earlier.
believe me Vulcan… it wont come to us dropping any serious weapons on our own country. We’re simply not that stupid. Even losing control of the government for a time would be better than cleaning up that mess. The game would be over.
The problem is when both parties see themselves in the right.
If it comes down to it, is the one that’s about to loose the war not going to order a few B2’s to drop some dirties in a last ditch effort to win.
And I am sure they would have no problem gasing everyone, that will clear up. It’s not like it has a half life of a bazillion years.
God help you all if I am put in that position, cause if I am not gonna win then no one is…… Yes I can be extremely spiteful, that’s why I keep it locked away with 4 keys.
As for Norad, that’s only prevented providing the 4 people are not on the same side.
I mean, if the Conservatives are able to control Congress and the Executive branch and many state governments, they have to be doing something right!
kirupa thats total rubbish
Hitler and his nazi party controlled everything in pre war germany didnt make them right though did it… :thumb:
Hitler and the Nazis built roads…we are building roads…I fail to see your point ave. There are major differences between those parties. The nazis also used oxygen for breathing purposes. So do you…I hope 
You were suggesting that cause the consertive right wing have a majority rule that they are right or justified to behave however they like.
I was merely pointing out that one famous party which had majority rule on its side was very harmful, if you do not see the link then i see no point in continuing this already.
:: Copyright KIRUPA 2024 //--