Michael Moore Gun Story False
The Michael Moore story I posted about yesterday had some significant inaccuracies in it. Please click here for a detailed summary of those inaccuracies.
The details certainly cast the entire story in a new light, but I stand by my conclusion that Michael Moore is a hypocrite. Here’s why:
Tags: GeneralAs for the issue that we raised, the hypocrisy of Moore…in my opinion it still stands. It goes back to the first time we heard that Moore was hiring armed guards. He considers his own safety paramount, and feels that a weapon can protect him, but he doesn’t want the average American to have that same protection. The argument that can be made is “Well you can hire a bodyguard.” No, most of America can’t hire someone to watch over them 24 hours a day. It flies in the face of reason and logic to expect such a thing. We’re each responsible for our own personal safety. Since we cannot afford to hire armed guards…we arm ourselves. That is the very essence of the Second Amendment.
I think Mark’s comment on your previous post is still a justification. If Michael Moore has made enemies of gun owners (he is a member of the NRA) he’s chosen a dangerous enemy. My guess is if he had made a film calling for tulip control, he wouldn’t necessarily need the armed bodyguards. A florist or two, but not armed florists.
I’d have to agree with Don Myers on this one. I’ve seen “Bowling for Colombine” numerous times and I’ve never seen any instances where Moore critizes people owning guns. He simply argues for strict gun control. He doesn’t think Americans should be able to own Tech-9’s or assault rifles. Or even be able to simply buy munitions from the local Walmart.
I think someone can be pro-gun but pro-gun control at the same time. You can call him a hypocrite for a lot of other things he does, but I don’t think you can in this instance.
The problem here is that you continue to cast Mr. Moore as 100%-anti-gun-in-all-cases, or suggesting that he wants to prevent each and every American from owning a firearm. This is patently false.
Mr. Moore—and frankly, a sizable majority of Americans—believe in reasonable, common sense gun control, instead of the current system of unlimited firepower without a papertrail or even the barest veneer of accountability.
You’re so invested in attacking Mr. Moore that you’ll bend and twist his positions like a pretzel to do so, which is, to say the least, dishonest.
I’ve read and re-read that letter from de Becker that Moorewatch received, and all it is semantical wordplay aimed at putting distance between the Ham Hoover and the incident.
The facts of the story FOX published were, and still are, correct: The man was arrested for possession of an unlicensed firearm (wherever else it may be registered in the US doesn’t mean diddly in New York City); he stated as his occupation to the arresting officers that he was Michael Moore’s bodyguard.
He didn’t say, “I’m a professional bodyguard” or “I’m hired muscle” or anything else. Neither did the article.