Big Fat Liar Update
Yesterday, I decided I’d actually watch Bowling For Columbine. At a guess, I figure I started watching it about 30 minutes into it. I caught the bit about the NRA and the KKK. Moore essentially uses this logic:
The NRA and KKK were started in the same year. Shortly after these two organizations were formed, there was a ban on black people owing guns. That’s all the information he gives. Period. No specifics.
Though I’m not a fan of the NRA, I did a little digging. Per the NRA, they were formed in 1871 by former union soldiers. The KKK was formed in 1866.
So, Moore has lied once.
The KKK was formed in Tennessee. The NRA was formed in New York. Moore makes no attempt to state this. He doesn’t say they were both formed in the same place but he does imply it by not mentioning otherwise.
Not a lie but definitely a half-truth.
The ban on black people owning guns is oversimplified. He doesn’t state where the ban occurred. Gun control’s early origins are definitely motivated by racism. I can find that in the 1870s, there was not a ban in Tennessee (where the KKK started) but there was legislation passed stating that guns owned could only be Colts. Colts were expensive and poor blacks couldn’t afford them. There was no ban. (source the book Lost Rights).
So, Moore has lied twice.
In addition, it should be noted that the NRA (founded in 1871) never really got involved in legislation until 1934, in response to the Gun Control Act of the same year. The NRA’s site claims they never lobbied until 1975. I tend to doubt that but 1934 seems like a good number. Prior to 1934, the NRA promoted the shooting hobby.
Three strikes, Moore was out. I turned the TV off. In a 3 or so minute segment, Moore lied three and a half times. I felt no need to watch the rest.
September 23rd, 2003 at 3:38 pm
I can find that in the 1870s, there was not a ban in Tennessee (where the KKK started) but there was legislation passed stating that guns owned could only be Colts. Colts were expensive and poor blacks couldn’t afford them. There was no ban.
Much like the so-called “Saturday Night Special” legeslation that has gone from fad to Liberal fashion statement. Essentually, this “ban” is nailed to the new sale price of a gun with no regard to safety features, quality, etc.
Want to get around that ban? Sell zip guns for $200. However, you will be violating a slew of gun manufacturing regulations, all of which “Saturday Night Specials” meet while staying inexpensive.
September 23rd, 2003 at 5:16 pm
Unc, there’s been a bunch of parsing of Moore’s movie, including a move to have his Oscar rescinded since the film is propaganda and not documentary. Try here: http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
September 24th, 2003 at 7:49 pm
Moore is undeniably an asshat, but he responds to many of the criticisms of his film here.
He does NOT address the points SU makes, but addresses many of the others I’ve seen tossed about.
Other than that, as I haven’t seen the movie, either, I can’t really comment.
I should disclaim that I have somewhat weird views on guns. I oppose gun prohibition laws, but don’t have a problem with gun registration requirements, provided they’re done at the state level (as with driver’s licenses) and not at the federal level.
I should also disclaim that my wife is a gun owner, and that I’m looking to join her. I’d like a recreational pistol. Something with more pop than the .22 that she has, but where the ammunition is relatively cheap.
September 24th, 2003 at 9:29 pm
I should disclaim that I have somewhat weird views on guns. I oppose gun prohibition laws, but don’t have a problem with gun registration requirements, provided they’re done at the state level (as with driver’s licenses) and not at the federal level.
Wow, we agree on something
I’d like a recreational pistol. Something with more pop than the .22 that she has, but where the ammunition is relatively cheap.
Any pistol in a military caliber (9mm and 45ACP) will have available bulk military ammo at any gun show cheap. But you have to buy in bulk. Or go here: http://www.ammoman.com
September 24th, 2003 at 11:04 pm
Here, then, is where we probably disagree. If ballistic “fingerprinting” were reliable (and it currently isn’t), then I wouldn’t have a problem with a state database of that, either.
I’m thinking I’ll probably go 9mm, just because it’s smaller and easier to carry. As for a concealed for the wife, any recommendations?
September 25th, 2003 at 8:40 am
I recommend for concealed carry:
Sigarms 239
Taurus PT145
Glock 30, 36
The sig is 9mm the others are compact 45s. I carry a 9mm. The wife has a 45. the reason is that i would have the wherewithal to shoot twice if need be. I fear my wife would be afraid to shoot more than once so she has a higher caliber pistol with more stopping power.
The sig and glock are more expensive. The taurus is less expensive but still high quality. It is double action only so if you get one for the wife, make sure she can pull the trigger easily.
September 25th, 2003 at 11:37 am
Spinsanity has this on BfC
[Start Excerpt] In a new column on his website titled “How to Deal with the Lies and the Lying Liars When They Lie about ‘Bowling for Columbine,'” filmmaker Michael Moore has admitted to altering a caption he inserted over a 1988 Bush-Quayle commercial in the film.
Moore lashes back at critics of the Academy Award-winning documentary in his column, denouncing “character assassination” and “make-believe stories.” After blasting his critics, however, he finally concedes that he inserted a caption over a Bush-Quayle campaign commercial that did not appear in the original ad, which we documented when the movie was originally released. Moore then corrected a factual error in the caption in the DVD and VHS versions of the film. Moore writes: [End Excerpt]
http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_09_21_archive.html#106429368980662837
September 25th, 2003 at 12:43 pm
The exact Moore correction is as follows:
September 25th, 2003 at 2:23 pm
Humm, where to begin with this den of Lefties . . .
I should disclaim that I have somewhat weird views on guns. I oppose gun prohibition laws, but don’t have a problem with gun registration requirements, provided they’re done at the state level (as with driver’s licenses) and not at the federal level.
Both of you keep your regulatory paws off of my 14th Amendment Rights PLEASE!
What part of the first freaking paragraph do you not understand?
The only worthy handgun caliber is .45, millimeters are for wrenches used on commie european cars.
Don’t tell Mr. Moore that TABASCO® Sauce was first manufactured by the McIlhenny Company in 1868 or he will tie it into the conspiracy too.
September 25th, 2003 at 4:28 pm
Guy, I think regulation is different from prohibition. I think registration is alright, in fact registration was initially used because citizens had to prove they owned guns (which was required at the time by many states).
September 25th, 2003 at 10:07 pm
Guy:
Re: Amendment #14, what’s your point? Presumably you mean that the Second Amendment is supposed to translate to the states, but frankly, I fail to see a conflict. Amendment #2 does not say “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be regulated.” It says “shall not be abridged.” In fact, it even says “well-regulated” right there in the amendment.
Based on the def I see, “abridge” is synonymous with “curtail.”
I fail to see how a gun registration curtails your right to keep and bear that gun.
September 26th, 2003 at 9:15 am
Nice Newspeak guys! Eric Blair would be proud.
You are now saying that regulating is not infringing? Great, then let’s just regulate your political speech because that is not “infringing”!
Before running down just what is to be “well regulated” in the Second Amendment, please look at the writing without a revisionist Manhattanite eye. It says NOTHING about regulating firearms.
September 26th, 2003 at 9:21 am
Guy is correct. Also, well regulated refers to properly trained and equipped. Not regulated in terms of requirements.
September 26th, 2003 at 9:51 am
Now if we could only get the NRA to care as much about the Constitution as they do about hunting they might get tough about these unacceptable, unconstitutional, unconcionable, frenchesque, machine gun restrictions we will be making some real progress.
September 27th, 2003 at 2:04 am
Great, then let’s just regulate your political speech because that is not “infringing”!
I didn’t realize political speech wasn’t regulated. And all this time I thought I couldn’t run that “George W. Bush is a fucking cocksucker” ad on TV. Thanks, Guy, for pointing out that I can!
You mean I can run ads saying “John Ashcroft rapes teenage girls” without any fear of legal retribution? Hey, it’s free speech, right?
I’m sorry, but Guy’s view of the second amendment is overly simplistic. According to Guy’s reading, I should be legally allowed to have thermonuclear weapons in my basement, because after all, those are “arms,” and the constitution protects my right to keep them!
If you outlaw thermonuclear weapons, then only outlaws will have thermonuclear weapons!
Sorry, but Guy’s views are what’s all wrong with the gun lobby. Common sense must be kept out of the equation at all costs.
It’s not enough that I can legally own a gun. I have a right to have a completely untraceable gun, so that when I shoot that guy who pisses me off, there’s no way to prove I did it.
Maybe the wild west wasn’t such a bad place, after all.
September 27th, 2003 at 2:08 am
Also, well regulated refers to properly trained and equipped. Not regulated in terms of requirements.
So what you’re saying is that you can’t require them to be properly trained and equipped, because that would be intrusive regulation, and that would infringe on rights. “Well-regulated” is really just a suggestion.
I actually support the second amendment, but the “guns for everyone, no restrictions people” scare me into reconsidering that position.
September 27th, 2003 at 4:33 am
ah, but I do think I should be permitted to have any and all arms. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for me to have an M-60, an armed B-52, or an M-1 Abrams. After all, the second amendment clearly states that the right to bear arms is so that the military is not able to overpower the people they are supposed to defend should they be controlled by tyrants. It also does not state that the government has the right to regulate the militia, just that a well regulated militia cannot be infringed. Funny…I seem to recall anyone who tries to form one being pegged as an insurrection and quickly brought down.
September 27th, 2003 at 8:31 am
So what you’re saying is that you can’t require them to be properly trained and equipped
No. i’m saying trained and equipped is what they referred to.
September 27th, 2003 at 9:08 am
I re-read my posts, and realized I came across at unneccessarily harsh. I was still really aggravated at the two bitches at the Krystal, and it came through in my other posts.
From a more level-headed perspective, I think the intent of the second amendment was as follows:
1. People have a right to own guns for self-defense, hunting, etc.
2. People have a right to collectively defend themselves should the government become oppressive. That is, if all other means for redressing grievances have failed, they can revolt.
I fail to see how a state-level gun registry violates either of these two purposes.
Assault weapons ban? Doesn’t violate the first, but certainly violates the second. Gotta go.
Concealed carry laws? Those advance the first intent, so those stay.
I guess the thing that has always nagged at me is that certain extremist elements of the gun lobby (and I’m not singling out anyone here) fiercely promote the rights of the “legal gun owner,” (which is fine) but then oppose any laws that identify “illegal” gun owners. They talk about not having new gun laws, but rather enforcing the ones we’ve got, while doing everything they can to ensure that the “ones we’ve got” are unenforceable.
And I have to admit that it’s alwasy struck me as a bit off that I need to take a proficiency test and get a license to drive, but I can buy a gun without having to demonstrate any proficiency with it whatsoever.
September 27th, 2003 at 7:54 pm
you can buy a car without a license, you just need to have a license to use it on public streets.
September 27th, 2003 at 11:35 pm
you can buy a car without a license
But you still have to register it.
September 28th, 2003 at 12:22 am
only to drive it on public streets. Only street-legal cars are registered…there are countless race cars and other offroad vehicles that require no license or registration at all, provided you do not drive them on a public street.
September 29th, 2003 at 8:32 am
tgirsch,
Political speech is the *only* form of speech consistantly and absolutely protected by the courts through the First Amendment restrictions on government. You can poo-poo the 14th all you like, but that is the one that carried the bill of rights down to State government.
You really go all out on the Newspeak don’t you? Your examples were slander (if false), not examples of political speech.
September 29th, 2003 at 11:09 pm
Guy:
All I’m saying is that the second amendment isn’t as cut-and-dry as you might like to think, either. If you start talking about “protected by the courts,” you’re talking about judicial precedent, and judicial precedent has not been kind to the second amendment.
You’ll pardon me if I remain unconvinced that the second amendment prohibits a gun registry. The way I read it, it would only prohibit an ownership ban.
September 30th, 2003 at 8:35 am
Actually, the courts have been supportive of the second until only recently.
October 27th, 2003 at 8:56 pm
If you’re going to criticize, at least get it right: the claim in the film was that the year that the KKK was deamed illegal was the same year that the NRA was formed, NOT that they were both formed in the same year.
Besides, didn’t the South Park guys do that whole cartoon montage in the middle of the film??
A few more things: (1) What movie ISN’T a bunch of propaganda, documentary or not? (2) Since when does truth have ANYTHING to do with the Academy Awards?? and (3) I’d be more proud of the Cannes honor if I were him, anyway.