Michael Moore's Bodyguard Arrested on Airport Gun Charge

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2005-01-20 07:47pm

Michael Moore's Bodyguard Arrested on Airport Gun Charge

Michael Moore now joins Rosie O'Donnell as another "do as I say, not as I do" liberal, who opposes the right of ordinary people to have handguns with which to defend themselves. But he has no qualms about having handguns used to defend him. I guess if you're rich and can afford to hire bodyguards then the same rules don't apply to you. What the peons are not allowed to use, you are. Yet another "man of the people" proves he is not even remotely a man for the people. What a hypocrite.

Petrosjko · Post by **Petrosjko** » 2005-01-20 07:53pm

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I guess we should be glad he wasn't packing an Uzi, like a certain senator's bodyguards happened to be packing on a certain inauspicious occasion...

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2005-01-20 07:54pm

Yeah, that doesn't really look good for him.

What gets me most, though, is that he's constantly deriding the "culture of fear," then runs out and plays into it by hiring a bodyguard? Oh, man.

Bob the Gunslinger · Post by **Bob the Gunslinger** » 2005-01-20 07:54pm

He and Sean Penn both really piss me off with their hypocracy. As a paranoid ADD mofo, I want the ability to defend myself. And guns, too.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-01-20 07:57pm

Are you kidding me? With the venom you see whack-a-nuts spew about Moore daily, he'd have to be NUTS not to have a bodyguard.

The bodyguard, who works for the Californian-based security firm Gavin de Becker & Associates, told police he had travelled to New York with Moore earlier this month.

He produced licences for his Mauser handgun from California and Florida, but not from New York, which prompted his arrest, authorities said.

Burk has been assigned to protect Moore at times in the past, but is not his personal bodyguard, Gavin de Becker said.

De Becker defended Burk, saying he had followed proper procedures at the airport. He called him “a leading professional in his field”.

A call to a spokesman for Moore was not immediately returned.

Moore, the director of Fahrenheit 9/11, won the documentary Academy Award for 2002’s Bowling for Columbine, a scathing look at the gun culture in America.

In an interview last year with Playboy magazine, Moore called the National Rifle Association a “radical, freaky group”.

That being said ... Moore will take a bunch of crap for this, although he had little or no control over it. Guess that media hype works both ways Mike, that's tough.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2005-01-20 08:01pm

Oh, and before Elfdart or Bored Shirtless, or another kneejerk liberal pops up and screeches that Moore really isn't trying to ban guns, and Bowling for Columbine wasmore anti-gun nut, than antu-gun, and he's a life member of the NRA etc. etc. Allow me to link to Michael Moore's own web site, for a transcript of an interview he did with Phil Donohue on October 28, 2002:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/ar ... e-20021028

Here's the relevant part:

DONAHUE: You're a member of the NRA and you went to Kmart and you actually moved them to stop selling the ammunition, as we see on your film.

MOORE: Yes.

DONAHUE: And that holds today?

MOORE: Yes, for handguns and for assault weapons. Hunting stuff, I don't care. They're still selling that. There's nothing against hunters here. I'm all for hunting.

DONAHUE: You're talking about long guns.

MOORE: Yes, I'm talking about stopping the selling of ammunition for weapons that are specifically designed to kill human beings.

DONAHUE: And you see that as pistols, handguns.

MOORE: Handguns or weapons where you can fire multiple rounds at a time. You don't need to essentially spray the woods to get your deer. If you do, you should be, you know, doing needle point or some other sport.

DONAHUE: OK, so let's understand. You'd like a ban on the sale of handguns.

MOORE: Yes. I believe that we don't need handguns.

DONAHUE: And a ban on the sale of brrr! That kind of gun.

MOORE: Anything that fires multiple rounds like that, absolutely.

He thinks that you and I (well, maybe not me, since I'm law enforcement) shouldn't be allowed to own handguns. But he has no problem at all seeing them used to protect his fat, hypocritical ass.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2005-01-20 08:06pm

I'm not sticking up for the guy, but it is possible Moore did not know the man was carrying it. You might not have the whole story here, dude.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2005-01-20 08:10pm

Chmee wrote:Are you kidding me? With the venom you see whack-a-nuts spew about Moore daily, he'd have to be NUTS not to have a bodyguard.
The bodyguard, who works for the Californian-based security firm Gavin de Becker & Associates, told police he had travelled to New York with Moore earlier this month.

He produced licences for his Mauser handgun from California and Florida, but not from New York, which prompted his arrest, authorities said.

Burk has been assigned to protect Moore at times in the past, but is not his personal bodyguard, Gavin de Becker said.

De Becker defended Burk, saying he had followed proper procedures at the airport. He called him “a leading professional in his field”.

A call to a spokesman for Moore was not immediately returned.

Moore, the director of Fahrenheit 9/11, won the documentary Academy Award for 2002’s Bowling for Columbine, a scathing look at the gun culture in America.

In an interview last year with Playboy magazine, Moore called the National Rifle Association a “radical, freaky group”.
That being said ... Moore will take a bunch of crap for this, although he had little or no control over it. Guess that media hype works both ways Mike, that's tough.

I don't duspute for a minute that Moore is wise to have a bodyguard. If I were him, I'd have one too. However, this in no way refutes the fact that he is a complete hypocrite. A poor, elderly man living in a high crime neighborhood may be in far more danger of violence on a daily basis than Michael Moore in his gated home in a rich, low crime community is - yet Moore would take away this man's right to defend himself with a gun, while reserving the right to use firearms in his own defense (albeit by proxy). Or a woman being stalked by a mentally imbalanced ex-boyfriend may be in more danger than Moore is, but again, he would deny her the right to a level of protection that he enjoys himself. No doubt Moore justifies this to himself by pointing out that he doesn't use the handgun himself, but has trained professionals to do it for him, and because they are trained professionals, somehow that makes it alright. But not everyone can afford to hire armed bodyguards to accompany them everywhere they go. In fact, the vast majority of people can't. But certain people live in situations where they face as much or more real danger of physical violence than Michael Moore does. And by vocally advocating that handguns be banned, while using handgun carrying bodyguards, he is tacitly advocating one standard for himself, and another for ordinary people who lack his financial resources. He's a hypocrite.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2005-01-20 08:14pm

Superman wrote:I'm not sticking up for the guy, but it is possible Moore did not know the man was carrying it. You might not have the whole story here, dude.

I find that extremely unlikely. A man with Michael Moore's financial background has the wherewithal to make sure that any employees of his are very carefully vetted. And very few, if any personal security specialists dealing with wealthy, high profile clients who receive credible death threats go about their business unarmed. How is one to deal with a potentially homicidal stalker if one has no recourse to deadly force oneself. I know a little bit about this business. The idea that Moore had no idea his bodyguard was carrying strikes me as not very credible at all.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-01-20 08:14pm

Perinquus wrote:
Chmee wrote:Are you kidding me? With the venom you see whack-a-nuts spew about Moore daily, he'd have to be NUTS not to have a bodyguard.
The bodyguard, who works for the Californian-based security firm Gavin de Becker & Associates, told police he had travelled to New York with Moore earlier this month.

He produced licences for his Mauser handgun from California and Florida, but not from New York, which prompted his arrest, authorities said.

Burk has been assigned to protect Moore at times in the past, but is not his personal bodyguard, Gavin de Becker said.

De Becker defended Burk, saying he had followed proper procedures at the airport. He called him “a leading professional in his field”.

A call to a spokesman for Moore was not immediately returned.

Moore, the director of Fahrenheit 9/11, won the documentary Academy Award for 2002’s Bowling for Columbine, a scathing look at the gun culture in America.

In an interview last year with Playboy magazine, Moore called the National Rifle Association a “radical, freaky group”.
That being said ... Moore will take a bunch of crap for this, although he had little or no control over it. Guess that media hype works both ways Mike, that's tough.
I don't duspute for a minute that Moore is wise to have a bodyguard. If I were him, I'd have one too. However, this in no way refutes the fact that he is a complete hypocrite. A poor, elderly man living in a high crime neighborhood may be in far more danger of violence on a daily basis than Michael Moore in his gated home in a rich, low crime community is - yet Moore would take away this man's right to defend himself with a gun, while reserving the right to use firearms in his own defense (albeit by proxy). Or a woman being stalked by a mentally imbalanced ex-boyfriend may be in more danger than Moore is, but again, he would deny her the right to a level of protection that he enjoys himself. No doubt Moore justifies this to himself by pointing out that he doesn't use the handgun himself, but has trained professionals to do it for him, and because they are trained professionals, somehow that makes it alright. But not everyone can afford to hire armed bodyguards to accompany them everywhere they go. In fact, the vast majority of people can't. But certain people live in situations where they face as much or more real danger of physical violence than Michael Moore does. And by vocally advocating that handguns be banned, while using handgun carrying bodyguards, he is tacitly advocating one standard for himself, and another for ordinary people who lack his financial resources. He's a hypocrite.

I think he would be a hypocrite if he said 'guns should be banned for other people, but not me.' But guns aren't banned ... and he probably gets death threats DAILY from the most twisted numb-nuts in the country since Bowling, people who for SURE have guns. He'd have to be delusional not to have an armed guard in those circumstances.

If he succeeds in banning handguns (that doesn't get my vote, btw, I carry) and he STILL has an armed bodyguard who's breaking the law, THEN he's a hypocrite in my mind.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2005-01-20 08:19pm

I find that extremely unlikely.

Yeah, but it's not impossible. He could have contracted this guy from a private service and not have known. It's possible that this guard was carrying without his knowledge.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-01-20 08:26pm

Superman wrote:
I find that extremely unlikely.
Yeah, but it's not impossible. He could have contracted this guy from a private service and not have known. It's possible that this guard was carrying without his knowledge.

Well since he wasn't even guarding Moore at the time, that seems fairly likely, doesn't it? You think Moore calls him up every morning, no matter where he is on the planet, and checks whether he's carrying? I hope he has better things to do.

Petrosjko · Post by **Petrosjko** » 2005-01-20 08:34pm

Well no shit he probably didn't know the guy was packing into the airport.

But the more likely possibility is that Moore specifically contracted armed bodyguards.

Like it or not, Chmee, it is hypocrisy. The fact that he advocates disarmament while having bodyguards at all is hypocritical. Were handguns to be banned, would he suddenly discontinue having bodyguards, armed with guns or no? Unlikely.

While Perinquus' hypothetical slumdwellers would be deprived of the means of defense, and be unable to afford tall bruisers to cover their asses.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2005-01-20 08:34pm

Chmee wrote:I think he would be a hypocrite if he said 'guns should be banned for other people, but not me.' But guns aren't banned ... and he probably gets death threats DAILY from the most twisted numb-nuts in the country since Bowling, people who for SURE have guns. He'd have to be delusional not to have an armed guard in those circumstances.

If he succeeds in banning handguns (that doesn't get my vote, btw, I carry) and he STILL has an armed bodyguard who's breaking the law, THEN he's a hypocrite in my mind.

RUBBISH!

Either handguns in private hands are permissable, or their not. Either they're allowed for personal protection, or they're not. If you have the courage of your convictions, you cannot advocate something be banned, but continue doing it yourself so long as it is not yet illegal. If you thought boxing was a brutal sport, and should be banned, how would you justify attending boxing matches yourself on the grounds that they weren't illegal? If you were a die hard animal rights activists, who advocated that no animals should be killed for human exploitation or consumption, how could you justify eating meat and wearing leather shoes on the grounds that there was not yet a ban on killing animals for meat or for leather goods? How the fuck can you advocate legally proscribing an activity in which you yourself participate, and not be a hypocrite?

Any way you slice it, he says he opposes private ownership of handguns. He states that in his opinion "we don't need handguns". He makes no qualifications to this statement whatsoever. He does not say "we don't need handguns, except for certain people who may have legitimate reason to fear assault by someone". He just says we don't need them. Well, if that applies to people in the two examples I described previously, how does it not also apply to him.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2005-01-20 08:34pm

Well since he wasn't even guarding Moore at the time, that seems fairly likely, doesn't it? You think Moore calls him up every morning, no matter where he is on the planet, and checks whether he's carrying? I hope he has better things to do.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Perinquus, you sound just like a right wing talk show host. Maybe we should reserve ALL judgement untill we know exactly what the situation is. You could be totally wrong here.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » 2005-01-20 08:39pm

Perinquus wrote:
Chmee wrote:I think he would be a hypocrite if he said 'guns should be banned for other people, but not me.' But guns aren't banned ... and he probably gets death threats DAILY from the most twisted numb-nuts in the country since Bowling, people who for SURE have guns. He'd have to be delusional not to have an armed guard in those circumstances.

If he succeeds in banning handguns (that doesn't get my vote, btw, I carry) and he STILL has an armed bodyguard who's breaking the law, THEN he's a hypocrite in my mind.
RUBBISH!

Either handguns in private hands are permissable, or their not. Either they're allowed for personal protection, or they're not. If you have the courage of your convictions, you cannot advocate something be banned, but continue doing it yourself so long as it is not yet illegal. If you thought boxing was a brutal sport, and should be banned, how would you justify attending boxing matches yourself on the grounds that they weren't illegal? If you were a die hard animal rights activists, who advocated that no animals should be killed for human exploitation or consumption, how could you justify eating meat and wearing leather shoes on the grounds that there was not yet a ban on killing animals for meat or for leather goods? How the fuck can you advocate legally proscribing an activity in which you yourself participate, and not be a hypocrite?

Any way you slice it, he says he opposes private ownership of handguns. He states that in his opinion "we don't need handguns". He makes no qualifications to this statement whatsoever. He does not say "we don't need handguns, except for certain people who may have legitimate reason to fear assault by someone". He just says we don't need them. Well, if that applies to people in the two examples I described previously, how does it not also apply to him.

So by that logic, since America favors nuclear non-proliferation, we should unilaterally disarm to lead the way!

Oh ... you mean that would be stupid, in a dangerous world? I agree.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2005-01-20 08:42pm

Superman wrote:
Well since he wasn't even guarding Moore at the time, that seems fairly likely, doesn't it? You think Moore calls him up every morning, no matter where he is on the planet, and checks whether he's carrying? I hope he has better things to do.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Perinquus, you sound just like a right wing talk show host. Maybe we should reserve ALL judgement untill we know exactly what the situation is. You could be totally wrong here.

No, not at all. Not even remotely. You are overlooking something that is glaringly obvious. It is inconceivable that a man of Michael Moore's means would hire a man to be a bodyguard, and not have his background checked out at least enough to know that he held concealed weapons permits in certain states. These are, after all, matter of public record. Would you trust your life to a man you hadn't checked out at least that well? Not unless you are crazy you wouldn't. And as I have said, i don't think any of us here, whether we like or dislike Moore, make the mistake of thinking him insane. If Moore had to hire him because of credible death threats he had to know that this man was an armed guard, licensed to carry in some states. The idea that he did not know this man had a concealed weapons permit is simply too farfetched to be credible. And knowing this, he still employed him, which indicates this level of hypocrisy.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2005-01-20 08:46pm

It is inconceivable that a man of Michael Moore's means would hire a man to be a bodyguard

Hey, when I was in college, I did a little work in the security field. You know many idiots would carry their guns on sites where they were not permitted? It happened all the time. It even cost the company some contracts. Guys who have their permits love to carry because they feel safer, or whatever...

Again, you could be totally wrong.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2005-01-20 08:48pm

Chmee wrote:So by that logic, since America favors nuclear non-proliferation, we should unilaterally disarm to lead the way!

Oh ... you mean that would be stupid, in a dangerous world? I agree.

False analogy. Nations are not people, and do not always act like people. The United States opposes nuclear proliferation, and yet maintains a nuclear arsenal as a matter of national security. It may be hypocritical, but that politics in the real world. The top dog will do what it thinks is necessary to stay on top. It's not fair, but that's how nations act. Nations act out of self interest as much or more than morality.

But that doesn't mean it's not hypocritical. Michael Moore is acting out of self interest as well. But he is still a hypocrite because he would deny that same ability to act out of self interest to others. Michael Moore is a fucking hypocrite. Too bad. Get over it.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2005-01-20 08:57pm

Superman wrote:
It is inconceivable that a man of Michael Moore's means would hire a man to be a bodyguard
Hey, when I was in college, I did a little work in the security field. You know many idiots would carry their guns on sites where they were not permitted? It happened all the time. It even cost the company some contracts. Guys who have their permits love to carry because they feel safer, or whatever...

Again, you could be totally wrong.

No I couldn't. You are completely missing the point. Michael Moore is willing to emply men who carry handguns - he is willing to have handguns used to protect his life - even though he thinks "we don't need handguns". So how can he make a statement like "we don't need handguns" and hang on to his integrity? he can't. Oviously he does think he needs handguns. So why don't the rate of us rate this level of protection?

It doesn't matter that his bodyguard may be carrying off duty, the fact is he does carry, and Michael Moore must know he does carry. But if Moore feels it is wrong for private citizens to have firearms then he should not hire a man whe carries a gun at all. Off duty, on duty, in some states, not in some states, on the third Wednesday of every month, or whatever. If he truly thinks "we don't need handguns" then that must apply to him as much as everyone else, and to everyone who works for him, at all times.

But if he thinks he does need a gun for defense, then he also ought to be honest enough to allow that others might also have just as real a need for a handgun for self defense. He doesn't allow this, and that's why he's a hypocrite.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2005-01-20 09:04pm

Perinquus, again you have proven nothing. Yes, he could have known about it but it's entirely possible he did not. Like I said, I have seen idiot guards carry their weapons where and when they are not supposed to. You don't have all the facts.

Falkenhayn · Post by **Falkenhayn** » 2005-01-20 09:06pm

Michael Moore: Good for nothing and no one.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2005-01-20 09:14pm

Superman wrote:Perinquus, again you have proven nothing. Yes, he could have known about it but it's entirely possible he did not. Like I said, I have seen idiot guards carry their weapons where and when they are not supposed to. You don't have all the facts.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

It is not possible he did not know the man had a concealed weapon permit. It is not conceivable that a man in Moore's position, with Moore's wealth and resources, and of Moore's obvious cleverness, facing credible death threats, would hire a man to defend him from such threats and not know that he had a license to carry a gun, for even the most cursory, lackadaisical investigation would reveal this fact.

It. Is. Not. Credible.

Period.

If you think this is plausible, then you are a naive, credulous fool.

If he thinks private citizens should not carry, than he should not have employed an armed guard. It's just that simple.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2005-01-20 09:20pm

Chmee wrote:Are you kidding me? With the venom you see whack-a-nuts spew about Moore daily, he'd have to be NUTS not to have a bodyguard.

Right, because we all know that the best way to fight of mean words is with bullets.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2005-01-20 09:24pm

Perinquus, you insist Moore knew his bodyguard was packing. PPOR BITCH!

Moore isn't a hypocrite any more than someone who wants to abolish the Post Office collects letters from his own mailbox.