Your feelings after viewing Bowling for Columbine

[Skaman]

I saw many good points that made me think twice. A very well done movie, opened my eyes I must say.

[Ratamacue]

Haven't seen it, so I won't actually comment on it. However, my friend sent me this link awhile back and I bookmarked it:

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

[mocking_loudly]

I saw it and thought it made some good and some bad points.

I honestly don't think civilians should have access to high powered rifles but i'm not going to change any ones mind here.

Yes I have been to alot of the anti-Michael Moore sites so please refrain from pointing out the flaws in the movie.

[TacoDelRio]

Micheal Moore.

What a guy. He opened my eyes to...

...WHAT A COMPLETE ASS HE IS!

I own several high-power rifles. I have access to them. What's so bad about that? I've never hurt anyone with my firearms. I've never done anything wrong with them. What am I going to do wrong? Rob a bank with an antiquated Russian bolt-action rifle? Yeah, that'll work. Maybe he should learn about people. You don't see me running around trying to take people's rights away.

Basically, if I was to go hunting with a non-high-powered rifle (classified as anything below a .223, and usually a rimfire, as far as I know), for say, White-tail deer, chances are very good that I wouldn't be able to actually kill the deer. That is what us hunters call "Inhumane". It's nicer to kill an animal quickly, than to kill it with a little .22lr, and let it slowly bleed to death. Think about it. Would you rather die slowly, bleeding to death, or die so fast you never know what hit you? I'd choose the latter.

Overall, civilians in MY country, the United States of America, should ALWAYS be allowed the right (not privilege) to own high-powered rifles, along with any firearm. Always. I will die to keep the right to defend yourself. Notice I said YOURSELF, as in the cops can't reach your house before you can take care of an intruder with your own firearm (unless you live next door to a police department). Do the math.

I am not qualified to comment on the movie, "Bowling for Columbine", as I have yet to see it. As an NRA/ILA member, I obviously won't like it, nor agree with Micheal's OPINIONS (they are opinions), but I'm sure to watch it. Probably because I like to see how my enemy thinks (or in this case, doesn't think at all).

My ultimate opinion: May he burn in hell for all eternity. p-)

Just some thoughts and opinions. :D

PFC Dacey
US Army

[mocking_loudly]

You seem a little militant.

Ok I should have stated high-powered military style rifles.

Yes I'm certain every one here disagrees with me.

[Clay]

thats why I love canada, we have good gun laws and every one is soo nices, I know people that have moved from over seas and they said they would take canada over US any day.

[Fargin]

Good movie, it mostly confirmed my prejudices. Marilyn Manson surprised me in a positive way though.

[James]

Bowling for Columbine was an editorial, not a documentary. It should be watched while taking a dose of salt...

[Skaman]

First of all, Moore is not suggesting high powered rifles be taken away from the general public, but a revalutaion of the USA's current lax gun laws and ability to own handguns, automatic weapons, and other non sporting weapons. It is sad these weaposn cannot be used responsibly, yet they cannot, thus they need to be illegal. Why one deems it necessary to protect their home with a m4, or a half dozen loaded glocks is beyond me. 1 shotgun does fine for me. Ultimately, what Moore suggests is an American culture of fear, black segregation, militarism, and poor gun owenership has created the violent society it is today. Why the USA spends billions of dollars on 100's of f22's and makes the military the primary focus of the buget seems strange when millions live in poverty, broken homes and suffer from countless other misfortunes. I agree the military is of the out most importance, yet in proper balance with other expenditures. The cold war is over. Osama's camel riding ak 47 touting suidice bombers are not going to challaneg the ol usa's multi million state of the art air defence force. However, I found that Moore would exploit a scence or scenario and move it in a direction he wanted. Nontheless, an essential view for any citizen of the USA or of a gun owner such as myself.

[96B]

I've never seen the movie and frankly could not care less about it or Michael Moore. Citizens who legally own their rifles or weapons with permits almost always are not the ones actually committing the shootings or crimes that gun control fanatics accuse them of. It is those who illegally purchase or acquire the weapons. Gun control disarms America's law abiding citizens while the criminals will still be able to get weapons through black market etc. There is also hipocricy amongst the liberals in the area of gun control. An example that comes to mind I believe was Rosey O'donnel who strongly voiced out for strict gun control laws when in fact she has armed bodyguards for her kids.

I am most certainly for the owning of pistols, rifles etc however I believe that there should at least be certain limits such as the owning of automatic weapons which I do not see any need for in the hands of civilians. You have to understand there are many people out there (including me) who are military/weapon enthusiasts and express our 2nd ammendment right to own guns not even out of the need for defense but as a hobby.

[Skaman]

1.Columbine school shooting-weapons and ammo, bought legally
2.Washington sniper-weapons and ammo bought legally
3.Hollywood Bank robbery(ak47 armed robbers who shot cops)-weapons and ammo bought legally

I think these examples speak for themselves.
Correct me If I amworng.

these examples are only but many that stand out among the countless other murders, robberies, and killings which are used by legally purchased weapons.

[mocking_loudly]

No offence but you yanks are crazy bastards with the gun fetishs. :lol:

[96B]

Fair enough, post links that support your statements. And as for the police shooting, I was not aware that you could purchase automatic AK47s legally.

Also, do you believe if even all guns were banned for civilians that criminals would not be able to get them somehow? It would never be enough for the gun control types. Once military rifles were banned, regular rifles would be next, then pistols etc. Might as well ban knives as well, since they can be extremely dangerous and even easilier concealable.

[martinexsquaddie]

The Swiss allow you to hold a military rifle at home true.
But you have to do a years National service and some form of military service every year. You can even take the annual weapon test if your abroad rifle,pistol and crossBow :roll: some cultral thing Everybody knows real men use Longbows :P (although septics may not get that reference just ask a frenchman about Agincourt ;) )
Somehow I doubt the NRA would be in favour of mass conscription and military training for everyman until there 65.

[StarvingStudent47]

The movie was very personal for me, because I was a high school senior the year of the Columbine massacre, and my high school was a mere hour's drive away from Columbine High.

I was disgusted by Michael Moore's use of videotapes of the massacre. We all know what happened. Showing the film of kids getting shot to death was uncalled for. And I felt he did it, not to eulogize the victims, but to puff up his own image. Which made it far, far worse.

On the other hand, I think some of his criticisms of the NRA (how they were very callous about the Columbine massacre, and how Charleton Heston blames violence on racial diversity) were spot on.

I also think it was good that he made the point that more guns do not equal more violence (the whole Canada analogy). That would have been an easy way out, a typical far-left simple-solution answer. But he didn't take it, instead admitting that gun violence is a complex problem without a simple solution.

[Seiyuuki]

Why the USA spends billions of dollars on 100's of f22's and makes the military the primary focus of the buget seems strange when millions live in poverty, broken homes and suffer from countless other misfortunes.

Uhh...the US military only get, I think, 15% - 20% of the budget.

"Gun control is feel good politics..." (somebody said it).

[mocking_loudly]

Right, I'll make this one point then I will go and put my head in the toilet.

Australia has harsh guns laws, so much so that an air soft rifle is considered illegal.

Benefits - I don’t have to worry about my neighbours / college’s / friends shooting me.

Now your argument is:
"with out my m4 carbine equipped with arse detecting rounds the criminals would come to my house and have their way with my family".

Ummm....sorry, I have no guns yet I don't fear criminals rampaging through my city looking to rob / maim / destroy.

Paranoid delusions or is the USA such a crime infested place?.

Now why doesn’t every one just admit they own loads of guns cause they look so damn cool and they can’t wait to shoot some one because the movies make it seem so exciting?.

Deep down inside it’s the truth.

[Herrmannek]

I've seen 21 minutes of film already (rest is dl), and don't know I want more.
Film stoped when one guy put the gun in mouth and gun discharged (don't like to see dying people especialy i don't need to). Didn't hear about movie before so haven't make opinion about it and I watch film with clear mind, but first 20 minutes have make me mixed feelings about it.

[Vance]

1.Columbine school shooting-weapons and ammo, bought legally
2.Washington sniper-weapons and ammo bought legally
3.Hollywood Bank robbery(ak47 armed robbers who shot cops)-weapons and ammo bought legally

I think these examples speak for themselves.
Correct me If I amworng.

Okay, you are wrong on two of them.

[mocking_loudly]

I just cut myself bad shaving........

Okay I agree with tane on the Kosovo intervention point.

Infact its a damn shame we didnt roll the tanks into that place and slapped slobo around.

[Seoulstriker]

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com


read that site then tell me what you think of BFC.[/b] :bash:

[Fargin]

I didn't like the site very much. :hug:

[Saranof]

Just admit, most of you don't like him cos he is critical to the way you live. Only the baseball cap prevents the government from doing what they usually do to unbelivers, fiering cruise missilses at :) him

[Seoulstriker]

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com


read that site then tell me what you think of BFC. :bash:


Just admit, most of you don't like him cos he is critical to the way you live.

ummmm... do you mean critical as in making up and distorting everything in his films to make a point? YOU are not being critical of HIM: read the website:his films are a bunch of lies.

:bash: Moore

[txajas]

Oh, yeah... just cuz a website says so he is wrong, right? Jeez...

I am afraid that a bunch of ya'll have not seen the movie, yet that doesn't stop you from talking about it.

First off his main point was not about gun ownership and how evil it is, as it went ahead and made the point that Canada's personal gun ownership rate is equal or larger than in the USA, yet their crime rate is way lower. What his point was IMHO is not that guns are evil per se, but that the CULTURE of fear in the USA is the problem, guns just magnify the problem. He is not trying to take away your precious rifles, he is just pointing out, see we have got a problem here because some people here are paranoid and feel the need to arm themselves to the teeth, that is what is wrong...

[Seoulstriker]

Oh, yeah... just cuz a website says so he is wrong, right? Jeez...

I am afraid that a bunch of ya'll have not seen the movie, yet that doesn't stop you from talking about it.

First off his main point was not about gun ownership and how evil it is, as it went ahead and made the point that Canada's personal gun ownership rate is equal or larger than in the USA, yet their crime rate is way lower. What his point was IMHO is not that guns are evil per se, but that the CULTURE of fear in the USA is the problem, guns just magnify the problem. He is not trying to take away your precious rifles, he is just pointing out, see we have got a problem here because some people here are paranoid and feel the need to arm themselves to the teeth, that is what is wrong...

ummmm... you know that statistic you cited from BFC about Canada's gun ownership and crime rate? well, if you read the website, YOU WOULD SEE HOW MOORE DISTORTED THE STATISTICS AND BASICALLY DISTORTED THE WHOLE STORY!


read the damn website... it cites specific instances of Moore's distortion and lies during the movie. damn, read the website...

[Kriz]

Seoulstirker did it ever occur to you that a website might publish lies too ? :roll:

[Seoulstriker]

Making a point about the 'white mans fear of the black man' and the media's use of racial symbols to scare the American public, Moore alters footage of an ad run by the Bush/Quayle campaign in 1988 to damn Bush in the Willie Horton scandal. What's the Willie Horton scandal?

National Review columnist Dave Kopel says "Political historians [and that's about it] will remember that in the 1988 Democratic primaries, candidate Al Gore criticized Gov. Michael Dukakis for a Massachusetts furlough program under which Willie Horton — who was serving a murder sentence of life without parole — was given a weekend furlough, and raped a woman. During the fall campaign, the pro-Bush National Security Political Action Committee ran a Willie Horton commercial."

Moore shows the Bush/Quayle ad called "Revolving Doors" that attacked the prison furlough program by showing prisoners entering and exiting a prison. The actual ad did not mention Willie Horton. However, as Kopel notes in his column, Moore pastes text from the National Security PAC ad over film from the Bush commercial, thus creating the impression that Bush invoked Horton (all in a point supposedly showing an example of racial fearmongering). Moore superimposes the text (as shown above): "Willie Horton released. Then kills again" to make it look like it is part of the original ad.



Kopel continues:

"This libels Willie Horton, who perpetrated a rape but not a murder during his furlough. The audience already knows that it is supposed to be angry about the Willie Horton ad, because it was unfair and because it politically seduced gullible Americans. So Bowling does a "Willie Horton" of its own on the audience, making the film's version of the ad into a falsehood and so turning the audience into dupes of a Willie Horton ad — just like the 1988 dupes of the original ad. For good measure, the ad makes the audience believe that a black man is guilty of a crime he never committed; Bowling thereby perpetrates the same manipulation of racial fears which it accuses the media of perpetrating."

*DVD Release Update*
Special notice from Spinsanity :

"In a tacit acknowledgment that the caption was both phony and factually incorrect, Moore has altered the text in the DVD version of Bowling for Columbine. The caption now reads "Willie Horton released. Then rapes a woman." Moore's correction doesn't make the insertion of text that wasn't in the original ad any more excusable. And he has conspicuously failed to correct the rest of the film's distortions and inaccuracies. While it is too late for the Oscar voters he deceived, Moore still owes it to the public to set the record straight."




Bowling contains a sequence filmed at a Lockheed-Martin manufacturing facility near Columbine. Moore places a Lockheed Martin executive, right in front of a mammoth, menacing-looking rocket and asks:

"So you don't think our kids say to themselves, 'Gee, you know, Dad goes off to the factory every day and, you know, he builds missiles. These are weapons of mass destruction.' What's the difference between that mass destruction and the mass destruction over at Columbine High School?'"

Dave Kopel from The National Review comments on this argument by Moore:

"Of course the connection is nonsense. While one killer's father once served in the Air Force, neither family worked in the defense industry. The other killer's parents were gun-control advocates — so much so that they forbade him to play with toy guns — unlike the many children who are shown with toy guns elsewhere in the film. One of the killers' gun suppliers was the son of a Colorado anti-gun activist. Thus, Moore might just as well have asked a spokesman for a gun-prohibition group if "our kids say to themselves, 'Well, gee, mom and day say that guns are just for killing innocent people. So if I have a gun, I guess I should use it for killing innocent people.'"

Moore continues. The next shot is of a safety slogan banner displayed at the plant that reads "It has to be foreign-object free" --- implication being that Lockheed Martin employees no so hidden objective is to obliterate foreigners.

He also darkly observes that the missiles with their "Pentagon payloads" are trucked through the town "in the middle of the night while the children are asleep." Moore asks whether knowledge that weapons of "mass destruction" were being built nearby might have motivated the Columbine shooters.

So just to review so far: Moore says that it's ridiculous to say Columbine killers infatuation with glamorous empowering song lyrics attributed to acts of glorifying violence had any part in their actions, but thinks it perfectly plausible to blame national defense weapons that - by Moore's own words from his own argument - the kids probably never even knew existed. BUT - whatever your opinion on that be - the facts in the scene aren't even correct.

David Hardy found out that after Bowling was released someone checked and found that the Lockheed-Martin plant does not build weapons-type missiles; it makes weather and communication satellites there. Wups! Pretty embarrassing revelation huh? I wonder what Moore has to say about this terrible fumble?

Moore's BFC website has his response to the uncovering of this information, casually inserted into his FAQ list:

" [T]he Lockheed rockets now take satellites into outer space. Some of them are weather satellites, some are telecommunications satellites, and some are top secret Pentagon projects (like the ones that are launched as spy satellites and others which are used to direct the launching of the nuclear missiles should the USA ever decide to use them). "

As Hardy exemplifies, a quick review of the film reveals a big back peddle on the issue that still...doesn't even hold up:

1. That some are spy satellites which might be "used to direct the launching" (i.e., because they spot nukes being launched at the United States) is hardly what Moore was suggesting. Review the quote from the movie:

"So you don't think our kids say to themselves, 'Dad goes off to the factory every day, he builds missiles of mass destruction. What's the difference between that mass destruction and the mass destruction over at Columbine High School?'"

2. One of that plant's major projects was the ultimate in beating swords into plowshares: taking the Titan missiles which originally had carried nuclear warheads, and converting them to launch communications satellites and space exploration units (a).

So what were those big scary 'mass destruction'-esque looking things populating the background of the interview at Lockheed then?? The giant missile in the film is a refurbished Titan 2 rocket used to launch one such pre-mentioned satellite.

Mooreover, as Anthony Zoubeck (b) learned from a Lockheed spokesman, the company moves the rockets at night because they are so large they need a convoy -- not, as Mr. Moore insinuates, because anyone is trying to hide the awful dastardly truth about weather satellites.
{ insert dramatic music here }





THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART:


It should definitely be reassuring to citizens of the USA that according to the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI), The United States consistently ranks behind Canada in crime victimization statistics for developed countries. You are more likely to be the victim of a crime in England, Canada, Australia, France or Germany than in this violent hellhole of a country of ours.


Germany:
Bowling says 381: 1995 figures put homicides at 1,476, about four times what Bowling claims, and gun homicides at 168, about half what it claims: it's either far too high or far too low.


Australia:
Bowling says 65. This is very close, albeit picking the year to get the data desired and although it's misleading when given as an average.

Between 1980-1995, firearm homicides varied from 64-123, although never exactly 65. In 2000, it was 64, which was proudly proclaimed as the lowest number in the country's history. Is it really honest to be taking a countries lowest number in history as it's average when making an argument in comparison to another country?


Japan:
Its worth noting that in Japan, a land that is all Japanese (only 1.2% of the population is non Japanese) + total gun control = virtually no murder by gun. (1)

While Michael Moore speaks so highly of Japan's low gun violence rates, it might be fun to read this recent xenophobic, anti-foreigner article written by Tokyo Governor ISHIHARA (2) where the freely elected official basically sums up the Japanese attitudes and policies concerning ethnic diversity when he praises the Tokyo Police leaflet which boldly states "If you see a foreigner, think thief." He wraps up his call to the "genetically docile and law abiding" people of Japan with an ominous warning: "The entire nature of Japanese society itself will be altered by the spread of this type of crime [heinous murder] that is indicative of the ethnic DNA [of the Chinese]"

Hitler would be so proud.

The reason this is paramount is that Moore's argument pounds hard that America is just like these other countries. He says that comparing violent pasts, poverty, or family break up are bad comparisons to try and equate us with these other countries. Yet, Japan & America's diversity is incredibly different. By depriving you of this perspective and just throwing numbers at you, the comparison not only seems legitimate, but compelling. The facts dictate otherwise.



United States:
Bowling says 11,127. FBI figures put it a lot lower. They report gun homicides were 8,719 in 2001, 8,661 in 2000, 8,480 in 1999. (2001 UCR, p. 23). Here's the table:

* David Hardy found a way to compute precisely 11,127. Ignore the FBI & use Nat'l Center for Health Statistics figures. These are based on doctors' death certificates rather than police investigation.

Then -- to their gun homicide figures, add the figure for legally-justified homicides: self-defense and police use against criminals. Presto, you have exactly Moore's 11,127. I can see no other way for him to get it.

Since Moore appears to use police figures for the other countries, it's hardly a valid comparison. More to the point, it's misleading since it includes self-defense and police: when we talk of a gun homicide problem we hardly have in mind a woman defending against a rapist, or a cop taking out an armed robber.



For instance, also brought to my attention by hardeylaw.net -- Switzerland requires almost all adult males to have guns, but has a lower homicide rate than Great Britain. Japanese-Americans, with the same proximity to guns as other Americans, have homicide rates half that of Japan itself.

[ibstolidude]

as the great orator Homer (simpson) wrote:

"Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that."

all sides of an argument make up the **** to further their cause!

[Seoulstriker]

After the conclusion of the "Wonderful World" montage -- Right after the footage of the airplanes hitting the Twin Towers, Bowling shows a B-52 memorial at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. Moore intones:

"The plaque underneath it proudly proclaims that this plane killed Vietnamese people on Christmas Eve 1972."

The point is only half way obvious to most viewers, although even those not catching the direct connection - the understanding is inserted : that the United States government and Al-Qaeda both perpetrate murder by airplane. This phrasing intentionally insinuates that the plaque praises the bombing of civilians.

In fact, the plaque on the B-52 at the AFA is not quite as Moore describes it. The plaque says :

"B-52D Stratofortress. 'Diamond Lil.' Dedicated to the men and women of the Strategic Air Command who flew and maintained the B-52D throughout its 26-year history in the command. Aircraft 55-083, with over 15,000 flying hours, is one of two B-52Ds credited with a confirmed MIG kill during the Vietnam Conflict Flying out of U-Tapao Royal Thai Naval Airfield in southern Thailand, the crew of 'Diamond Lil' shot down a MIG northeast of Hanoi during 'Linebacker II' action on Christmas Eve, 1972."

Hardly sounds like a proud proclamation of Vietnamese killing. But Moore brushes it off. According to Ebert, Moore's response to this criticism was as follows: "I was making a point about the carpet bombing of Vietnam during the 1972 Christmas offensive. I did not say exactly what the plaque said but was paraphrasing." (1)

However - offering no evidence to support the claim that this historical account was in any way bragging about civilian death - Moore boldly deceives the audience here. Since he supports his opinion of the plaques supposed inferences with nothing, we must rely on grammar - none of which has a hint of anything that denotes pride in death. He of course doesn't show the plaque so he can get away with the deception, and didn't expecting anyone to check him on this fact, and thus gets away with it.

The truth behind the plaque is a much different story, as told by David Hardy of Hardylaw.net:

"The particular feat was accomplished by Airman First Class Albert E. Moore, who brought down a MiG-21 which was closing to attack 'Diamond Lil.' The reason its MiG kill was so celebrated was that a B-52 which got within range of a fighter almost always lost the fight. B-52s were built on the assumption that enemy fighters would be kept at bay by their own fighter escort, and so they had minimal defensive guns.

A WWII B-17 carried, oh, 10 to 14 (depending on model) .50 machineguns facing in every possible direction; they flew in dense formations so that there were hundreds or thousands of guns covering each direction. Facing WWII fighters, the B-17s still took severe losses.

A B-52 had only one defensive gun position, in its tail, which could cover no direction save rearwards: early models had four .50s in it, later ones a 20 mm. It had, in short, a lot less defensive capability, yet was up against modern jet fighters with hundreds of knots speed advantage, air-to-air missiles that could kill from miles off, and heavier guns for close-in. If an enemy fighter closed on a B-52, odds of survival were low.

Diamond Lil was thus commemorated for its rare feat of downing the attacking enemy fighter, instead of being downed by it.

A feat which Moore apparently finds appalling."

Moore thus confirms the absurdity of the blame-America-first position popular among the Hollywood Left, by showing that such views require the ignoring of obvious facts — such as the difference between financial aid to a dictatorship and humanitarian aid to refugees, or between fighting enemy pilots and perpetrating war crimes against civilians.

*DVD Release Update*
Special notice from Spinsanity.org :

"The DVD captures Moore exaggerating this still further, saying during a speech at the University of Denver on February 26, 2003 that the B-52 participated in the massive Christmas Eve bombing campaign. "And they've got a plaque on there proudly proclaiming that this bomber, this B-52, killed thousands upon thousands of Vietnamese -- innocent civilians." In both cases, his representation of the plaque is extremely dishonest."

[Seoulstriker]

Closing the Columbine footage tear jerker scene, we see a near-hysterical female Columbine High School student telling how the girl next to her was shot in the head and a black male student was murdered 'because he was black.' Right at that line about him being shot 'cuz he was black' the girl is stopped, the frame freezes, and in a zoom in fade accompanied by a few seconds of black screen, we immediately see a clip of Charlton Heston at an NRA convention, colonial long-gun held high over his head, saying: "I have only five words for you . . . From my cold dead hands!"

Guilty by association

This trick is an important one to notice and is one Moore makes use of later in the film. Moore intentionally showed us footage of the sobbing student and stopped the feed at the racist line to demonize Heston. This is the first, but not the last time Moore does this kind of trick.

'From my cold dead hands'

After this, we hear Moore telling us, ominously, that "just 10 days after the Columbine mass murders Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally."

The distortion is nauseatingly extreme. Heston's "cold dead hands" speech, which leads off Moore's depiction of the Denver meeting, was not given at Denver in defiance to Columbine. It was given a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina, and was his gesture of gratitude upon being given the handmade musket he's holding, at that annual meeting. A key word there is 'annual.' Although Moore successfully makes it appear that Heston has held the rally in response to the Columbine massacre - this wasn't the case.

The portrayal is that the line is made in defiance of Columbine while at an insensitive rally in Michigan, when it's actually a thank-you speech given a year later in North Carolina. It was a statement to reaffirm the right to own firearms, no different than saying the same thing with a steak raised over your head to show opposition to fanatical groups like PETA. It had nothing to do with any tragic event.

David Hardy from Hardylaw.net was the first to uncover this very tricky scheme with a close analysis of the scene and the facts from the real events.

After the 'cold dead hands' line, Moore then cuts the shot -- a visual of a billboard and his narration. This is vital. He can't go directly to Heston's real Denver speech or he gives away his secret. If he did that, you might ask how Heston in mid-speech changed from a purple tie and lavender shirt to a white shirt and red tie, and the background draperies went from maroon to blue. Moore had to separate the two segments.

Defiant rally

But now wait a second pal. Whether Moore deceived the audience about Heston defiantly saying the 'dead hands' line right after Columbine or not doesn't change the fact that a rally was held. Annual meeting or not -- How dare Charlton Heston hold a peaceful assembly through an organization that promotes responsible use and ownership of firearms where people had just been killed by malicious and illegal use of firearms, one might say. Well, 2 fun facts that debunk this:

FACT: - Mayor Webb (who at the last minute told the NRA to cancel the convention) had eagerly solicited the NRA convention for Denver (2)

FACT: - Heston was required by law to hold this meeting by its non-profit charter from the state of New York, so cancellation was impossible. However, even if he wasn't legally required to hold it; the annual meeting in Denver was set to be held at that place and date years in advance. No way to change location, since you have to give advance notice of that to the members, and there were upwards of 4,000,000 members.

FACT: - Much to the disappointment of NRA members, Heston took initiative to cancel the fun and merriment that normally surrounds these gatherings (normally several days of committee meetings, sporting events, dinners, and rallies), holding only its annual members' meeting, in the afternoon session we are shown.

Moore has to hide this fact to continue his deception so he uses another editing trick. He cuts Charlton Heston mentioning the cancellations out in a second edit that is covered by splicing in a pan shot of the crowd. Here is Heston's following announcement Moore didn't let you see, that says the NRA has in fact cancelled most of its meeting (as said prior - all that was possible):

"As you know, we've cancelled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. As your president, I apologize for that."

This quote, above all others from Heston's speech unequivocally crushes Moore's claim that he was holding the rally in defiance or any kind of insensitivity. The impossibility of him not seeing the full video of this quote, and his failure to apologize after the films release makes this blatant trickery and deception.

Moore Lying

Thanks totally to David Hardys critical analysis and information, we know that when this scene continues with the speech, it carefully edits it to change its theme. Moore has actually taken audio of seven sentences, from five different parts of the speech, and a section given in a different speech entirely, and spliced them together. Each edit is cleverly covered by inserting a still or video footage for a few seconds.

Hardy walks through the whole scene from the beginning here:

"Right after the weeping victims, Moore puts on Heston's "I have only five words for you . . . cold dead hands" statement, making it seem directed at them. As noted above, it's actually a thank-you speech given a year later in North Carolina.

During clapping, Moore has an interlude - the visual of a billboard and his narration - all covered by a smooth audio stream of clapping.

Cut to Heston noting that Denver's mayor asked NRA not to come, and shows Heston replying "I said to the Mayor: As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already here!" as if in defiance."

The comment gives a clear impression. It looks like the mayor said "we don't want you here - don't come here" and Heston said "Sorry! This is a free country and I can do whatever I want!"

But that's not what happened at all. Not only, as I said above, did the mayor solicite the NRA to come to Denver in the first place - Moore actually put an edit right in the middle of the first sentence, and another at its end! Heston really said (with reference his own WWII vet status):

"I said to the mayor, well, my reply to the mayor is, I volunteered for the war they wanted me to attend when I was 18 years old. Since then, I've run small errands for my country, from Nigeria to Vietnam. I know many of you here in this room could say the same thing."

Moore cuts it after "I said to the Mayor" and attaches a sentence from the end of the next paragraph: "As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land." He hides the deletion by cutting to footage of protestors and a photo of the Mayor before going back and showing Heston.

Moore has Heston then triumphantly announce "Don't come here? We're already here!" to make him look proud of his defiance. Actually, that sentence is clipped from a segment five paragraphs farther on in the speech. Again, Moore uses an editing trick to cover the doctoring, switching to a pan shot of the audience as Heston's (edited) voice continues.

What Heston said there was:

"NRA members are in city hall, Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy and the Olympic Training Center. And yes, NRA members are surely among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the students at Columbine.

Don't come here? We're already here. This community is our home. Every community in America is our home. We are a 128-year-old fixture of mainstream America. The Second Amendment ethic of lawful, responsible firearm ownership spans the broadest cross section of American life imaginable.

So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy."

Review:

Michael Moore manipulates these actions by Heston to completely change their meaning 100%. This scene is important for Moore's tricky harvest -- here he is planting the seeds of hate in the audiences now fertile mind to grow solidarity in his demonization of Heston. He goes to such lengths to defame him because he must make sure that the viewer is on his side when he attacks Heston later in the film.

Unfortunately, the trickery works like a charm, and without transcripts or fact sheets in front of them, the audience is totally deceived by Moore's perversion of reality. Don't be fooled.

[Skaman]

Look people, keep this civil, were here to discuss a gun problem, not flame eachothers countries.

Now for my rebutle :lol: , someone said, well the USA only spends 20% of their national budget on the military. ONLY 20 PERCENT!!! You do realize that military expenditures have taken priority as adressed by the President over all other things. Excessive, yes I would say so. But does spending billions on f 22's to attack camle jockies make the USA feel safe? Well yes it does.

Another person states "if we remove handguns, it will be rifles, then knives"- and I do think this person was being serious. I would like to use my own country of Canada as a primary example of how this is falsified.
1920's or 1930's,-Handguns made illegal in Canada. The year is 2003. Rifles still legal, and you bet, knives too! You know what the other perk to having weapons of concealment removed, well, a drop in murder related crime ya see. Its far easier to commit a crime irrationally and right on the spot withiout thinking if you have your pistol sitting on the dinner table or tucked in your pants. But if your rifle which stretches a metre long is locked safely at home, you might just not bounce on your impulse to liquify someones head. Think about it.

[Fargin]

Sometimes the benefits of a low attention span outweighs the disadvantages.

[spier]

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com


read that site then tell me what you think of BFC.[/b] :bash:I don't think very highly of Michael Moore and his works, but that site is just hilarious! The idiocy on display makes BFC look good.

Btw. kids, BFC was a piece of propaganda, as you'd expect when the producer is a well known propagandist. However, as a comparison, it isn't noteworthy more inacurate than your average Fox News broadcast. The reason why people reacted to BFC is that it was leftist, not your usual neo-con propaganda.

Btw^2. kids, this isn't an anti-gun movie, if you think it is then I suggest you see it again or, preferably, go away. Forever.

[Seoulstriker]

Look people, keep this civil, were here to discuss a gun problem, not flame eachothers countries.

Now for my rebutle :lol: , someone said, well the USA only spends 20% of their national budget on the military. ONLY 20 PERCENT!!! You do realize that military expenditures have taken priority as adressed by the President over all other things. Excessive, yes I would say so. But does spending billions on f 22's to attack camle jockies make the USA feel safe? Well yes it does.

Another person states "if we remove handguns, it will be rifles, then knives"- and I do think this person was being serious. I would like to use my own country of Canada as a primary example of how this is falsified.
1920's or 1930's,-Handguns made illegal in Canada. The year is 2003. Rifles still legal, and you bet, knives too! You know what the other perk to having weapons of concealment removed, well, a drop in murder related crime ya see. Its far easier to commit a crime irrationally and right on the spot withiout thinking if you have your pistol sitting on the dinner table or tucked in your pants. But if your rifle which stretches a metre long is locked safely at home, you might just not bounce on your impulse to liquify someones head. Think about it.


first, the military spending of the US as a percentage of GDP is not 20%. Military spending in the US is ~ $600 billion. The GDP of the US is ~ $9600 billion dollars. The percentage is 6%.

Second, you have a serious lack of intelligence demonstrated in what you wrote above: the US does not use the F22. It was a prototype design that was never implemented because of high costs. we do not attack "camel jockies" as you say, but we attacked the regimes which hold and sponsor terrorism.

[Skaman]

I just had to check out this site for myself. Well, the first thing that peaked my attention was the article on Canada, any boy, the author of this website sure has gone out of his way to portray the "real canada" --cough cough..

60% of our income on taxes, im afraid not sir. For I live In canada and can firmly deny this. This point is only one of many points the author desperately uses in hope of stealing the show from micheal moore and covering up moores spotlight and arguable evidence. Just because its on a webpage, dosent mean its the word of god guys. For all we know, this could be an eloborate propaghanda page set up by the NRA or some guy who is scared hes gonna lose his collection of m60's and 9mm's. Its seems moore would have went an awful lot out of his way to stage nearly all the scenes in his film. Give me a break..... :roll:

[Seoulstriker]

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com


read that site then tell me what you think of BFC.[/b] :bash:I don't think very highly of Michael Moore and his works, but that site is just hilarious! The idiocy on display makes BFC look good.

Btw. kids, BFC was a piece of propaganda, as you'd expect when the producer is a well known propagandist. However, as a comparison, it isn't noteworthy more inacurate than your average Fox News broadcast. The reason why people reacted to BFC is that it was leftist, not your usual neo-con propaganda.

Btw^2. kids, this isn't an anti-gun movie, if you think it is then I suggest you see it again or, preferably, go away. Forever.


ummmm... what is idiotic in the website? can you cite specific examples?

do you know what Neo-con actually means? it is a term coined by the American Left to mean "conservative jew" (ie Paul Wolfowitz).

ummmm... have you actually read what the website describes? it describes systematic disinformation, distortion, and lies evident in BFC. could you please care to read it before you smash it?

if you had read it, you would understand what a piece of garbage BFC actually is. I am not coming from a guns point of view. I am merely analyzing its worthiness to be called a documentary, I am merely analyzing whether it is telling the truth.

[Skaman]

My goodness, I think someones getting sensitive. But hey, your own neigbourly American claimed it was 20%...strange. Nontheless, 600 billion is not alot of money is it? Thats overkill and a serious misalication of taxpayers funds. But it makes you feel safe in your clean suburban home while millions of others struggle to makes ends in their povrished and run down neighbourhoods.

And sir, if you want to harp on me on my identification of which fighter did what, and who blew up osama and sadam, as its sooo pertinent right?
Well I think it was f 16's and f 18's no? Not that its important, yet I will include this to satisfy your comment.

[Seoulstriker]

I just had to check out this site for myself. Well, the first thing that peaked my attention was the article on Canada, any boy, the author of this website sure has gone out of his way to portray the "real canada" --cough cough..

60% of our income on taxes, im afraid not sir. For I live In canada and can firmly deny this. This point is only one of many points the author desperately uses in hope of stealing the show from micheal moore and covering up moores spotlight and arguable evidence. Just because its on a webpage, dosent mean its the word of god guys. For all we know, this could be an eloborate propaghanda page set up by the NRA or some guy who is scared hes gonna lose his collection of m60's and 9mm's. Its seems moore would have went an awful lot out of his way to stage nearly all the scenes in his film. Give me a break..... :roll:


do you know what 60% of taxes refers to? go to: http://www.sfu.ca/~mvolker/vbt-tax-facts.htm

the highest marginal tax rate was 54%. don't forget to add the effects of the high corporate taxes on the individual's income to start with. you get about 60%. The US has around a total tax burden for middle-class --> higher-class of 45%.

[96B]

The military expenditures are far lower than our GDP. Someone stated that it was about 6% which sounds about right, I believe we spend about 400 billion a year which I think is larger than most of the others combined.

The YF-22 was the prototype, the F/A-22 Raptor is the production version of the aircraft and should be entering service within the next couple years with about 300 aircraft being produced in total. The original number wanted back in the 90's was about 800 aircraft, but the costs were very high and the numbers were severely dropped in the coming years. The many military budget cuts after Desert Storm no doubt played a big role in that. According to Robin Moore, Clinton cut the military by about 40% as far as funding, size etc.

I NEVER stated that knives would be banned, I was being sarcastic by saying why not go ahead and ban knives since they are the cause of many murders and attacks. Furthermore, my point was that once pistols were banned, the military style rifles would be next. Hunting rifles are not what I was referring to being banned, it was the military rifles that many people possess either my interest or as a hobby etc. As a point of fact, hunting rifles are much more powerful than most military rifles with the exception of a few. The main thing about the military rifles that makes them more dangerous would be their ability of a high rate of fire even without automatics. If people want to kill, they will do it any way they can.

Yet again I still stand that although gun banning may decrease the murders and certain crimes, the weapons would still be able to be smuggled into the country. It is a right we all have to own guns or rifles and we should defend our freedoms. That is what makes America differant from Canada and everyone else, the many freedoms that we have but so many do not appreciate. But you know what they say, you dont know what you had until its gone.

[Seoulstriker]

My goodness, I think someones getting sensitive. But hey, your own neigbourly American claimed it was 20%...strange. Nontheless, 600 billion is not alot of money is it? Thats overkill and a serious misalication of taxpayers funds. But it makes you feel safe in your clean suburban home while millions of others struggle to makes ends in their povrished and run down neighbourhoods.

And sir, if you want to harp on me on my identification of which fighter did what, and who blew up osama and sadam, as its sooo pertinent right?
Well I think it was f 16's and f 18's no? Not that its important, yet I will include this to satisfy your comment.


no, $600 billion is not a lot when you consider first that it is only 6% of GDP and second that the US is the only world superpower. The US has a responsibility to protect the free world from Islamofascist terrorists and from tyrranical despots. why do you refer to Osama and Saddam as "camel jockeys"? Osama is pure evil, willing to mass murder millions and millions of people in the name of Islam. Saddam has killed hundreds and thousands of people for the sake of his own power. They are evil. They are not "camel jockeys" either. Please stop using racist language when you post.

[Seoulstriker]

The YF-22 was the prototype, the F/A-22 Raptor is the production version of the aircraft and should be entering service within the next couple years with about 300 aircraft being produced in total. The original number wanted back in the 90's was about 800 aircraft, but the costs were very high and the numbers were severely dropped in the coming years. The many military budget cuts after Desert Storm no doubt played a big role in that. According to Robin Moore, Clinton cut the military by about 40% as far as funding, size etc.

The F-22 will never enter service. The JSF will take the place of the F-22. There is simply no need to employ the F-22: no threat exists in the world that would necessitate that.

[Skaman]

I dont want to get into Canadas taxation policy, which is not relevent to this forum and the USA's issue of gun control. As I do not know how to post links, I will attempt to clear this up quickly.

1. What you make In Canada determines how much you are taxed, also the province you live also has some bearing on your tax bracket.

2. The provine you identified represents the peak of taxation in Canada and does in no way represent the rest of the nation.

3. Example, if you make 40,000 dollars, you will be taxed about 7 500 dollars, if you make 20, 000, you will be taxed nothing, if you make 100, 000, you will be taxed 42, 000 dollars. These are all appoximates, and not to the dot, but you get the idea.

[Skaman]

I must be missing something. 600 million is not alot....hmmm. I would rather see that money spent on adressing civil and humanitarian issues. Beofre the USA cleans up the middle east, how about they clean up their povrished neighbourhoods and remove this stereotypical fear of the blackaman, and remove garbage programs like "cops" that solidify this fear. Guns, Guns, Guns, gotta have our guns, because we need to protect ourself. Wow, you must be facing imminet danger. Killer bees, sharks, car accidents, black guys, car bombers, the taliban, there sure is alot to be afrad of, and by god, your m4 with a laser sight, drum mag, and military fatigues sure are gonna help with that.

[spoonman]

Now why doesn’t every one just admit they own loads of guns cause they look so damn cool and they can’t wait to shoot some one because the movies make it seem so exciting?.

Deep down inside it’s the truth.

please do not project your thoughts and feelings unto others who much more mentally stable than yourself.

[Seiyuuki]

Now for my rebutle :lol: , someone said, well the USA only spends 20% of their national budget on the military. ONLY 20 PERCENT!!! You do realize that military expenditures have taken priority as adressed by the President over all other things. Excessive, yes I would say so. But does spending billions on f 22's to attack camle jockies make the USA feel safe? Well yes it does.

Bush never addressed that the military take priority over all thing. Republican are traditionally perceive to be more focus on the military while the Democrat are traditionally perceive to cut back on the military. 20% of the US national budget is much much much more than 20% of Canada national budget.

[Skaman]

You know what, he did say that.

[Seiyuuki]

My goodness, I think someones getting sensitive. But hey, your own neigbourly American claimed it was 20%...strange. Nontheless, 600 billion is not alot of money is it?

First off, before I stated the 20%, there was a section which I stated I THINK...which mean I was 100% sure, so don't try implying my accuracy. As for me being the "neigbourly American," the verdict is still out on that.

[Skaman]

Im saying, Bush did say that, unless just like micheal moores movie, it was STAGED! :roll:

[Seiyuuki]

ducimus18, how long have you live in the US?

[TacoDelRio]

I must say, I am rather confused. I have lived in the United States of America for my entire short 18 year life. Violence? Once I got picked on by some kids because I wasn't asian, but that's hardly violent, it's child's play.

Gun control: Gun control is important. I think everyone should exercise it. Do you know what gun control is?

GUN CONTROL IS USING BOTH HANDS!

I own multiple firearms, but I protect my household with my shotgun. It would be dumb to say that civilians could only own one firearm. That's like saying car collectors could only own one car! Doesn't make sense.

Overall, though:
1. America is HARDLY violent (no stoning, etc.)
2. Guns aren't bad
3. Safety is up to the individual
4. Criminals like unarmed victims :bash:

I myself practice safe gun handling. I DO NOT want to be considered so stupid that the government must protect me from myself by taking my guns away.

Think about two "great" dictators: Adolf Hitler, and Iosef Wissarionovich Dzugashvilli (Josef Stalin).

1. Hitler's victims, primarilly Jews, Slavs, "Great" Russians, and Gypsies MOST LIKELY would've been able to delay their fate had they possessed the ability to defend themselves. Hitler had gun registration (a nice way to say "you don't have the right to defend yourselves) earlier than 1935. He had his beloved henchmen kill over 6 million Jews, and countless other people of races not deemed to be "Aryan", which is pretty much everyone minus the Germans. Even then, some Germans didn't qualify for this "elite race".

2. Iosef Stalin's victims of his infamous purges would have been capable of defending themselves from this crazyman had they the capability to really defend themselves.

Let's do the math, folks.

mocking_loudly wrote:
No offence but you yanks are crazy bastards with the gun fetishs.

No offense, Mocking, but I guess "you Brits" are all crazy bastards with "the" idiocy fetishes.

And again:
Benefits - I don’t have to worry about my neighbours / college’s / friends shooting me.

What the hell? My neighbors won't shoot me. Why? They don't have a reason. I'm nice to everyone. My friends don't shoot me. I don't know what kind of friends you have (or don't have), mocking, but my friends are friends for a reason. I trust my friends. You should make sure you know who your friends are, if they are so trigger happy.

On another note, I didn't know that an educational facility (college’s) could shoot.

Those are just some more of my opinions and thoughts, with a few facts mixed in to spice things up.

PFC Dacey p-)
US Army

[a. enders]

Gun laws as I see them:Keep them out of the hands of psychotics and folks with history of violent crimes.For people who are neither,they should be able to go out and get any weapon that isn't,let's say "military grade" as a broad blanket (Y'know,full-auto 5 million round drum clip,armor piercing ammo,yaddayadda),if they damn well feel like it.If I have the scratch on my ass to go get a Glock 19 and I have a FOID card and all that,I'm a respnsible person,and I'm neither a psychotic nor an ex-convict for violent crimes,I should be able to.Why not?If I had the cash I'd be driving a Prosche around.

My sister and I,as well as my mother,go round and round over this because they are both rabidly anti-gun.They present the fact that guns are designed to kill...yes....Should we hold gunmakers,sellers,or owners respnonsible when some nutso or punk kid decides to shoot someone?No.THat's as stupid as having a lawsuit against Craftsman because your brother was beaten to death with a wrench.It's a tool.A very dangerous tool that requires responsibility,but still a tool.

Yes,no?Too disjointed and nonsensical?You decide.Indeed...... ;)

And..uh...I haven't watched Moore's film yet,but I think I will.And I think I'll probably groan over the twisted facts,but when did that NOT happen?Documentaries like this one (it's more like investigative journalism in my opinion) are meant to sway your own opinion towards theirs,if not just make you think about their points for awhile.How many times have we seen "documentaries" on the famine in Africa and not think "Hey,we should help them."(Always curious as to why the crew never seems to help people,regardless of the "documentarian nonaction BS)

[96B]

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f22/f22_back.html

"The fast, agile, stealthy F/A-22 will take over the air superiority role with Air Combat Command starting in 2005. The Air Force plans to procure 339 F/A-22s, and production is scheduled to run through 2013"

The government has spent billions over the last decade planning and developing the F22, they are not simply going to abandon it.

The best personal defense weapons are handguns. Hunting rifles are self explanatory. Military style rifles are either interest or hobby related. Please quit implying the motive for owning all guns is for personal defense when in fact most weapons as such are owned for other purposes such as collecting or hobby.

[Seoulstriker]

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f22/f22_back.html

"The fast, agile, stealthy F/A-22 will take over the air superiority role with Air Combat Command starting in 2005. The Air Force plans to procure 339 F/A-22s, and production is scheduled to run through 2013"

The government has spent billions over the last decade planning and developing the F22, they are not simply going to abandon it.

The best personal defense weapons are handguns. Hunting rifles are self explanatory. Military style rifles are either interest or hobby related. Please quit implying the motive for owning all guns is for personal defense when in fact most weapons as such are owned for other purposes such as collecting or hobby.

damn, so they are apparently going through with the program, at least according to the producer... hmmmm. I thought the purchasing deal was over once Rumsfeld and company wanted to modernize the warfare capabilities of the armed forces. That is evident in the cancelling of the "Crusader" program, etc.

Oh well.

[vryhpyammoadded]

As for Mr. Moore's show, I've not seen it and cannot comment on it. As for opinions on gun control, I have many so here, have some!

Over all I think the majority of US people arm themselves defensively because they understand it is the nature of man to be predatory and that gun owners desire the ultimate ability to say NO to the most unreasonable demands an individual or group might force on them. There is no desire to use the gun unless a perceived unreasonable force is to be used against them first. Think of it as a personal form of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).
To some owners the gun represents power while with most the gun represents liberty and justice, sport and history. With the majority of gun owners it’s not paranoid to own a gun it’s pragmatic.
I prefer reducing the selfishness and managing perception (tempers) rather than eliminating guns myself.

[DE_Six]

60% of our income on taxes, im afraid not sir. For I live In canada and can firmly deny this. This point is only one of many points the author.

Where do you live? Yukon? I live in Quebec, and 60% is damn close to what I pay. Provincial and federal taxes combined, the bill hasn't been under 55% in at least 10 years!

[mocking_loudly]

Sorry MrSkorotsnoy I’m not a Brit. :lol:

Okay you guys can have all the guns you want and live in a culture of perpetual fear and Ill live in sunny AUSTRALIA on the nice cosy beach.

Remember to duck ;) .

[Trigger]

Okay you guys can have all the guns you want and live in a culture of perpetual fear and Ill live in sunny AUSTRALIA on the nice cosy beach.
Actually you're living in nice cosy state of misconceptions about life in America. Nobody I know lives in 'perpetual fear' despite what the media might have you believe about us 'crazy yanks'. You can be pompous and point out all the statistics about violence in your country vs. mine but if the day ever comes that I must defend my home and family, whether it's against a 'black helicopter' or some street criminal, I'll grab the biggest gun I can get my hands on in the time permitted. In a world of very few absolutes, I want the outcome of that encounter to be as one-sided as possible in my favor.

[mocking_loudly]

Thats right!, KILL KILL KILL.

Now what was I doing?.......making toast.

[California Joe]

I think it'd be cool to shoot a burglar with a flintlock and then scalp him and when the cops showed up go "what?" Heh.

Michael Moore cracks me up, except when he's goofing on stuff I like. I imagine that's how all those auto executives felt......

[Stormtrooper]

You seem a little militant.

Ok I should have stated high-powered military style rifles.

Yes I'm certain every one here disagrees with me.

Define "High powered military style rifle", if you would.

Even a little .22 rifle can kill, and .22 is being used for training. ( .223 ammo gets expensive).

In WWII, M1 Garands were used. Compare a M1 to today's M16. Which rifle looks more "kick-ass"? The M16. But both are military rifles.

I really hope you haven't fallen into the trap of loaded phrases... for example "high velocity cop killer bullet".

[mocking_loudly]

Who cares?.

This topic died in the ass.

[Trigger]

Thats right!, KILL KILL KILL.

Now what was I doing?.......making toast.

Who cares?.

This topic died in the ass.
Translation:
aww, can't win, guess I'll take my ball and go home.

[martinexsquaddie]

cheapo Handguns
and crap like tech 9s ought to be on the banned list :roll:

[spoonman]

and anything made by jennings should be on there too.