Michael Moore's Bodyguard Arrested on Airport Gun Charge

[Perinquus]

I really don't want to jump into this debate, but I must ask if Moore has ever advocated that cops and similiar private sector professionals like security guards and bodyguards not be allowed to arm themselves?

I've already covered that angle, if you read back a bit. It in no way means Moore isn't a hypocrite, because:

A. security guard or not, it's still a private citizen, and

B. that means that if you face a serious threat of death or injury at the hands of other people, then it's all good if you happen to be rich like Michael Moore, and can afford to hire a team of bodyguards. But if you are like most people, you cannot afford this sort of thing. But if you are being stalked, or if you live in a high crime area, or if you run, say a liquor store or a jewelry store, or have to carry signficant amounts of cash to the bank to make drops, you may face every bit as much danger as a rich celebrity who has received death threats - and who is also living in a safe, crime-free, gated community does.

Either way, it means Michael Moore is an elitist hypocrital ass. He thinks his wealth and fame entitles him to a level of protection and security that the rest of us should not have.

[Perinquus]

So it goes something like this:

Moore: I think handguns shouldn't be freely available for private use.

Unknown number of gun nuts, encouraged by people like Clint Eastwood: IF I SEE YOU YOU DIE!!

Moore hires professional bodyguards, who he never said should be barred of using guns anyway, because he never aspired to be a martyr for the cause of disarming said gun nuts.

Moore detractors, salivating: OMG!! HYPOCRISY!!

Nice little strawan you've got here. First off, see above. Second off, Moore has also pissed off lots of people for completely different reasons. Making films like "Roger and Me", "Fahrenheit 9/11" and writing books like "Stupid White Men" have probably made him just as many enemies, and earned him just as many death threats. The fact remains he is willing to avail himself of a level of protection - i.e. the ability to employ lethal force in his own defense - that he also advocates denying to other people.

This isn't some kind of rabid rant. He really is a hypocrite.

[MKSheppard]

Tossed out as no reason was given for it being in my hall of shame.

[Colonel Olrik]

Nice little strawan you've got here. First off, see above. Second off, Moore has also pissed off lots of people for completely different reasons. Making films like "Roger and Me", "Fahrenheit 9/11" and writing books like "Stupid White Men" have probably made him just as many enemies, and earned him just as many death threats.

Irrelevant. Although more reasons why he should have protection, those aren't the people shouting hypocrisy right now.

The fact remains he is willing to avail himself of a level of protection - i.e. the ability to employ lethal force in his own defense - that he also advocates denying to other people.

He'd prefer the US to turn into a society more like the EU, where normal people don't feel the need to carry handguns - and those who honestly do either get a permit or rely on the police and private protection companies. If that's a good or bad thing is not the topic of discussion, just that he wants it and he's not the only one. But he knows that, despite his wishes, he doesn't live in a society like the EU, and doesn't want to be a martyr for the Cause.

This isn't some kind of rabid rant. He really is a hypocrite.

No, he's not, not because of this. He's just not an idiot, and you can climb down of your high horse.

[Perinquus]

Nice little strawan you've got here. First off, see above. Second off, Moore has also pissed off lots of people for completely different reasons. Making films like "Roger and Me", "Fahrenheit 9/11" and writing books like "Stupid White Men" have probably made him just as many enemies, and earned him just as many death threats.

Irrelevant. Although more reasons why he should have protection, those aren't the people shouting hypocrisy right now.

What? Because some people are calling him a hypocrite he feels more in danger? So basically you believe that people who hate his guts for his anti second amendment stance are more likely to threaten him that people who hate him for any other reason? Support this assertion please.

In any case, you're dodging the issue. Is he, or is he not resorting to the use of handguns to defend himself from perceived danger, yes or no?

Does he advocate that ordinary citizens should not be allowed to have handguns, yes or no?

Then whey don't the standards that apply to other people also apply to him.

Is the average person who faces a credible threat, and who buys a handgun for protection necessarily in less danger than Michael Moore? Is the danger to this person's life necessarily less real? Then why does Moore get the benefit of this level of security, and the average person doesn't. Because he's rich enough to hire guards instead of having to carry a gun himself? How is that not elitist? How is it not hypocritical?

The fact remains he is willing to avail himself of a level of protection - i.e. the ability to employ lethal force in his own defense - that he also advocates denying to other people.

He'd prefer the US to turn into a society more like the EU, where normal people don't feel the need to carry handguns - and those who honestly do either get a permit or rely on the police and private protection companies. If that's a good or bad thing is not the topic of discussion, just that he wants it and he's not the only one. But he knows that, despite his wishes, he doesn't live in a society like the EU, and doesn't want to be a martyr for the Cause.

If that's the kind of society he wants to live in, then he should go to Europe and live in it. At least in doing so, he could hang onto his integrity. But as long as he lives here, and makes compromises with his principles in order to deal with harsh reality, he had better be prepared to allow other people to make the same compromises. If he doesn't, then he's a hypocrite. Period.

Basically you're saying he has an excuse for violating his own principles on this issue. Why? Why does he get a pass where others don't? Because he's rich? Because he's famous? Again, how is this not elitist and hypocritical?

This isn't some kind of rabid rant. He really is a hypocrite.

No, he's not, not because of this. He's just not an idiot, and you can cllmb down of your high horse.

Again, you are excusing him from living up to his own stated principles. Sorry. It doesn't wash. If he gets to use handguns for protection, then he has no business saying others should not.

He's talkin' the talk, but he ain't walkin' the walk. That makes him a hypocrite.

[Keevan_Colton]

Excuse me Per, get a fucking clue, nothing says he was working for Moore at the fucking time does it?

If he was off working for someone else and carrying a gun, where's the fucking hypocraciy on Moore's part?

The only version of this story in the press is the FOX news version which is on several sites, word for word. Till something with real details appears, shove your fucking shite back up your ass.

[Jade Falcon]

Regarding Moore's NRA membership, wasn't it in fact found out that his NRA membership was a load of bullshit.?

[Elfdart]

Regarding Moore's NRA membership, wasn't it in fact found out that his NRA membership was a load of bullshit.?

No.

[Andrew J.]

Is the average person who faces a credible threat, and who buys a handgun for protection necessarily in less danger than Michael Moore? Is the danger to this person's life necessarily less real?

Probably.

Then why does Moore get the benefit of this level of security, and the average person doesn't. Because he's rich enough to hire guards instead of having to carry a gun himself? How is that not elitist? How is it not hypocritical?

Why can't the average person get eveything that rich people have? That's the nature of a free-market economy. Besides, the difference between "having a gun" and "not having a gun" is much less than the difference between "having bodyguards" and "not having bodyguards". Logically, you should be almost as angry at people that don't favor
gun control but have private security anyway.

If that's the kind of society he wants to live in, then he should go to Europe and live in it.

So people that want to effect change in America should give up? Should all the gay-rights activists go to Holland? Everyone who wants lower crime rates go to Switzerland?

[Master of Ossus]

Is the average person who faces a credible threat, and who buys a handgun for protection necessarily in less danger than Michael Moore? Is the danger to this person's life necessarily less real?

Probably.

Someone who's being stalked is in less danger than Michael Moore?

Michael Moore has to avoid Clint Eastwood's doorstep, but I seriously don't think he's in such need for security that he should feel free to violate his own stance on something like this.

Why can't the average person get eveything that rich people have? That's the nature of a free-market economy.

The point is that Michael Moore has continuously denounced the very same thing he's benefiting from. If Bill Gates came out tomorrow and said "Kids, no one should have any more money than anyone else," and then kept trying to expand his business empire that would be hypocrisy. Similarly, Michael Moore has publically called for bans on handguns even when he was benefiting personally from the protection that they provide.

Besides, the difference between "having a gun" and "not having a gun" is much less than the difference between "having bodyguards" and "not having bodyguards". Logically, you should be almost as angry at people that don't favor
gun control but have private security anyway.

What the fuck are you smoking? The issue is not whether or not Michael Moore is wealthy. The issue is that he's called for bans on handguns, even when he was employing people to protect him using such weapons.

The Michael Moore apologism in this thread is truly pathetic. Stop dodging the issue and trying to turn it into a discussion of capitalism.

Michael Moore wants to take away everyone ELSE's right to firearms, but his own actions have revealed that he has no intention of giving up his OWN right to such protection. That is hypocrisy. If you can't answer that point, then don't post in defense of him in this thread.

[Keevan_Colton]

MoO, how about something that says this guy was carrying while working for Moore?

FOX have no details on what he was doing at the time, only that he has worked for Moore. Why dont you and the others get some actual fucking evidence/details and then climb up on your high-fucking-horses, until then, dont let reality trouble you.

[Beowulf]

MoO, how about something that says this guy was carrying while working for Moore?

FOX have no details on what he was doing at the time, only that he has worked for Moore. Why dont you and the others get some actual fucking evidence/details and then climb up on your high-fucking-horses, until then, dont let reality trouble you.

First rule of gunfights: bring a gun. If your job is to defend a person against some random wacko with a gun, do you: A. depend on your elite Kung-fu skillz, or B. shoot the guy?

[Perinquus]

MoO, how about something that says this guy was carrying while working for Moore?

FOX have no details on what he was doing at the time, only that he has worked for Moore. Why dont you and the others get some actual fucking evidence/details and then climb up on your high-fucking-horses, until then, dont let reality trouble you.

He is a firearm carrying man in Michael Moore's employ. And there is simply no plausible way that Michael Moore could be unaware of this. If he employs such a person in the capacity of bodyguard, he is sheltering under the umbrella of protection provided by privately owned handguns, while simultaneously trying to shove everyone else back out into the rain.

You're about the tenth person to bleat "we don't know if he was working for Moore at the time", and it didn't wash the first time. He carries a gun and he works for Moore as a bodyguard, and there's no way Moore doesn't know he packs a gun. Moore's a hypocrite. Deal with it.

[Keevan_Colton]

He is a firearm carrying man in Michael Moore's employ.

Who has been in Micheal Moore's employ, the article is unclear about who he was working for right now.

And there is simply no plausible way that Michael Moore could be unaware of this.

Prove it.

If he employs such a person in the capacity of bodyguard, he is sheltering under the umbrella of protection provided by privately owned handguns, while simultaneously trying to shove everyone else back out into the rain.

Or, the fact that right now, the wack-a-loons still have guns might be part of it? And again, prove he was carrying while working for Moore.

You're about the tenth person to bleat "we don't know if he was working for Moore at the time", and it didn't wash the first time.

Horseshite, it is the single most important point, so why dont you prove it.

He carries a gun and he works for Moore as a bodyguard, and there's no way Moore doesn't know he packs a gun. Moore's a hypocrite. Deal with it.

Fuck up shit for brains, do you have reading comprehension problems or do you just like listening to FOX?

Prove he was carrying while working for Moore or that he was working for Moore when this happened then you can crow about hypocracy, until then:

SHUT THE FUCK UP SHITHEAD

[Perinquus]

Is the average person who faces a credible threat, and who buys a handgun for protection necessarily in less danger than Michael Moore? Is the danger to this person's life necessarily less real?

Probably.

You're opinion. Nothing more. And actually dealing with victims of crime on a daily basis gives me a somewhat better perspective here. You're wrong. Moore's not in more danger than many of these other people are. In fact, since he lives in rich, crime free neighborhoods, no doubt has the best security system on his home money can buy, and has an army of personal assistants to screen him from the public, he is almost certainly in considerably less danger than a great many average people who are being stalked, who operate stores in gang ridden communities, who work late at night as cab drivers or store clerks, etc. etc. These people are far more likely to meet a violent death than Michael Moore. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Try again.

Then why does Moore get the benefit of this level of security, and the average person doesn't. Because he's rich enough to hire guards instead of having to carry a gun himself? How is that not elitist? How is it not hypocritical?

Why can't the average person get eveything that rich people have? That's the nature of a free-market economy. Besides, the difference between "having a gun" and "not having a gun" is much less than the difference between "having bodyguards" and "not having bodyguards". Logically, you should be almost as angry at people that don't favor
gun control but have private security anyway.

Why, they're not hypocrites. They merely extend protection farther than the average person, based on their greater resources. They don't try to deny the means of that protection to other people while keeping it for themselves.

If that's the kind of society he wants to live in, then he should go to Europe and live in it.

So people that want to effect change in America should give up?

No. But they should have the courage of their convictions and do themselves what they insist others should do. If Michael Moore thinks that other people should do without the protection of privately owned handguns, he himself should do the same, or prepare to be recognized as the hypocrite he is. If, on the other hand, he feels that he is in sufficient danger that it would be unwise to do without this protection, then he ought to recognize that many other people face potentially lethal risks themselves, and also feel they need this means of protection. And if he were intellectually honest, this might lead him to admit that maybe some honest citizens do actually need handguns. But he doesn't. He advocates taking away their right to this means of defense, while simultaneously keeping it for himself. No one has yet answered the question of how this is not hypocrisy.

[Perinquus]

He is a firearm carrying man in Michael Moore's employ.

Who has been in Micheal Moore's employ, the article is unclear about who he was working for right now.

And there is simply no plausible way that Michael Moore could be unaware of this.

Prove it.

Fuck off moron. Why don't you ask me to prove that things fall when you drop them, or something else equally obvious. Why don't you ask me to prove O.J. didn't really kill Nicole, and has been assiduously looking for the real killer ever since. Why don't you ask me to prove something else that only the most incredible moron would ever doubt in the first place?

This issue has been dealt with already. Do you honestly believe that Michael Moore, feeling himself to be sufficiently endangered to need bodyguard protection, will hire someone without checking into his background? Do you really believe that he would hire someone in this capacity without requiring that person to submit a resume, and references? Bearing in mind that any actions this person takes while in Michael Moore's employ are things for which Moore himself could be held liable, do you really fucking believe that he would not have such an employee's background checked first. If his guard, in trying to protect Moore, overreacted, and broke the arm of someone who was just trying to get close to Moore and get an autograph, and was found to have no weapon and to have posed no threat, this person could sue Moore for millions. Do you think a man as intelligent as Michael Moore is not fully aware of the liability issues here? And being aware of these matters, do you seriously believe Moore will neglect a simply background check? And given that one of the very first things such a check would reveal is the possession of a concealed weapon permit by this individual, how do you suppose that Moore could fail to learn of this?

Dude, if you think Moore didn't know, not only that this individual had a CCW permit, but a lot more about him besides that, you're too fucking stupid to live.

If he employs such a person in the capacity of bodyguard, he is sheltering under the umbrella of protection provided by privately owned handguns, while simultaneously trying to shove everyone else back out into the rain.

Or, the fact that right now, the wack-a-loons still have guns might be part of it? And again, prove he was carrying while working for Moore.

I don't have to you idiot. All that matters is that Moore employs armed guards. That fact that he employs them - that fact all by itself - indicates that Moore is willing to avail himself of the protection of handguns, while simultaneously trying to deny that protection to others. That's hypocrisy.

You're about the tenth person to bleat "we don't know if he was working for Moore at the time", and it didn't wash the first time.

Horseshite, it is the single most important point, so why dont you prove it.

No, it's nitpickery of the highest order.

Basically, you are arguing that because the guard was apprehended with this weapon, and may not have been actively carrying out duties for Moore at the time he did so, it doesn't come back on Moore. I'll agree, the criminal offense of carrying a weapon into a prohibited area may not come back on Moore, if he didn't do so while on instructions from Moore.

But the matter of carrying a weapon into a prohibited area is not the issue. The issue is that he carries a gun AT ALL, for a man who advocates banning them from private ownership. If this man had stayed in Florida (or one of the 20 odd other states that recognize Florida's permits), there would have been no offense. But he would STILL have been carrying a gun while working for Moore, and THAT is the issue. He would still have been carrying a gun for a man who wants to take them away from everyone else. It would still indicate that a man who favors banning guns, favors taking away from others the protection they provide, but keeping it for himself. Hypocrisy.

He carries a gun and he works for Moore as a bodyguard, and there's no way Moore doesn't know he packs a gun. Moore's a hypocrite. Deal with it.

Fuck up shit for brains, do you have reading comprehension problems or do you just like listening to FOX?

Prove he was carrying while working for Moore or that he was working for Moore when this happened then you can crow about hypocracy, until then:

SHUT THE FUCK UP SHITHEAD

I guess this is where I am supposed to be bowled over by the force of your emotion. As if that were a valid substitute for a reasoned argument. And you still haven't answered the question of how a person can advocate something, while doing the opposite himself, and not be a hypocrite.

Too bad. So sad. Moore is a hypocrite. And you're a moron.

[Illuminatus Primus]

He's a hypocrite anyway you cut it. He said he opposes any weapon designed to kill people. Hiring any security group or bodyguard will inevitably support the procurement, training with, and use of such weapons.

[Perinquus]

But the matter of carrying a weapon into a prohibited area is not the issue. The issue is that he carries a gun AT ALL, for a man who advocates banning them from private ownership. If this man had stayed in Florida (or one of the 20 odd other states that recognize Florida's permits), there would have been no offense. But he would STILL have been carrying a gun while working for Moore, and THAT is the issue. He would still have been carrying a gun for a man who wants to take them away from everyone else. It would still indicate that a man who favors banning guns, favors taking away from others the protection they provide, but keeping it for himself. Hypocrisy.

In the absence of an edit button, let me clarify a point here before Pinhead shows up again and bleats PROVE HE WAS WORKING FOR MOORE!!! again.

I should have chosen my words better. I don't mean working as in he was actively carrying the instructions of Michael Moore at that time. I mean it in the sense of "being an employee of Michael Moore".

[Master of Ossus]

MoO, how about something that says this guy was carrying while working for Moore?

And, there it is.

Michael Moore will be surrounded by more than just fans at the screening of “Fahrenheit 9/11” in Crawford, Texas tonight.

The gadfly filmmaker plans to show his controversial documentary Wednesday in the town where Bush vacations. Moore originally intended to attend the screening but MSNBC-TV reported Wednesday afternoon that the filmmaker would not attend.

As The Scoop reported earlier, Moore has been getting death threats, and a source says the situation has gotten worse.

In fact, fellow filmmaker Spike Lee, while promoting his own film “She Hate Me,” has told interviewers that “they’re out to get” Moore who “has an armed guard 24/7.”

Moore’s rep couldn’t be reached for comment.

Maybe Moore didn't know that his bodyguard was armed, even though it was known by OTHER filmmakers? Maybe he was "armed" with a stick or some pepper spray, instead of a gun?

FOX have no details on what he was doing at the time, only that he has worked for Moore.

Actually, Burke claims to be working for Moore in the progressive tense in the article.

Why dont you and the others get some actual fucking evidence/details and then climb up on your high-fucking-horses, until then, dont let reality trouble you.

Fuck off, bitch. The evidence presented was more than sufficient, already.

What fun apologies will the apologists pop up with, next?

[Keevan_Colton]

MoO, how about something that says this guy was carrying while working for Moore?

And, there it is.

Michael Moore will be surrounded by more than just fans at the screening of ?Fahrenheit 9/11? in Crawford, Texas tonight.

The gadfly filmmaker plans to show his controversial documentary Wednesday in the town where Bush vacations. Moore originally intended to attend the screening but MSNBC-TV reported Wednesday afternoon that the filmmaker would not attend.

As The Scoop reported earlier, Moore has been getting death threats, and a source says the situation has gotten worse.

In fact, fellow filmmaker Spike Lee, while promoting his own film ?She Hate Me,? has told interviewers that ?they?re out to get? Moore who ?has an armed guard 24/7.?

Moore?s rep couldn?t be reached for comment.

Maybe Moore didn't know that his bodyguard was armed, even though it was known by OTHER filmmakers?

See, that wasnt so hard, after a deluge of death threats from gun nuts he got someone with a gun. There's at least a bit of context there. Also, I would suspect if the gun nuts had to give up their guns he'd be happy without and armed guard, but while they're literally gunning for him personally...well.

Anyway, conceeded.

FOX have no details on what he was doing at the time, only that he has worked for Moore.

Actually, Burke claims to be working for Moore in the progressive tense in the article.

There isnt a direct quote and the language is ambigious, employs him...sometimes? Add in it's FOX news who are more than a little economic with the truth (and absolute role models of bad journalism) and you've got something that needs propped up.

Why dont you and the others get some actual fucking evidence/details and then climb up on your high-fucking-horses, until then, dont let reality trouble you.

Fuck off, bitch. The evidence presented was more than sufficient, already.

What fun apologies will the apologists pop up with, next?

Get fucking bent, the evidence presented was not sufficient, it was just something ambigious from FOX.

[tharkûn]

See, that wasnt so hard, after a deluge of death threats from gun nuts he got someone with a gun. There's at least a bit of context there. Also, I would suspect if the gun nuts had to give up their guns he'd be happy without and armed guard, but while they're literally gunning for him personally...well.

Oh please if a right wing 2nd amendent nutter offed More, I'd lay good money on it being done with a rifle. Moore is fine with hunting rifles, even though they are the most reliably lethal weapons on the market. Banning handguns wouldn't do jack didly squat to eliminate the threat.

Indeed if the predicate for legimate employment of a handgun in self-defense is that the other guy might use a handgun against you, then everyone will always meet that standard. Banning handguns doesn't make them disappear, there are too many already in circulation and the black market works wonders. Even if handguns were banned tommorrow, Detroit liquor store clerks would face the threat of handgun armed thugs trying to kill them for decades to come.

There isnt a direct quote and the language is ambigious, employs him...sometimes?

Moore employs a security firm who provides a number of different bodygaurds who have guarded a number of individuals. He is not a personal retainer of Moore, merely the hired gun who shows up when his boss tells him to.

[Andrew J.]

You're opinion. Nothing more. And actually dealing with victims of crime on a daily basis gives me a somewhat better perspective here. You're wrong. Moore's not in more danger than many of these other people are. In fact, since he lives in rich, crime free neighborhoods, no doubt has the best security system on his home money can buy, and has an army of personal assistants to screen him from the public, he is almost certainly in considerably less danger than a great many average people who are being stalked, who operate stores in gang ridden communities, who work late at night as cab drivers or store clerks, etc. etc. These people are far more likely to meet a violent death than Michael Moore. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Try again.

He's a celebrity that travels around a lot. Even not considering his controversial political views, he's probably in more danger than the average gun-owner.

Note: people that are being stalked, convenience store clerks, and cab drivers are not "average" when it comes to danger by any stretch of the imagination.

Why, they're not hypocrites. They merely extend protection farther than the average person, based on their greater resources. They don't try to deny the means of that protection to other people while keeping it for themselves.

They don't have to.

No. But they should have the courage of their convictions and do themselves what they insist others should do. If Michael Moore thinks that other people should do without the protection of privately owned handguns, he himself should do the same, or prepare to be recognized as the hypocrite he is. If, on the other hand, he feels that he is in sufficient danger that it would be unwise to do without this protection, then he ought to recognize that many other people face potentially lethal risks themselves, and also feel they need this means of protection. And if he were intellectually honest, this might lead him to admit that maybe some honest citizens do actually need handguns. But he doesn't. He advocates taking away their right to this means of defense, while simultaneously keeping it for himself. No one has yet answered the question of how this is not hypocrisy.

You say Michael Moore needs handguns, and then you say that honest people need them. I don't follow.

But seriously, Moore probably doesn't think many other people are in as much danger he is. Whether it's true or false, or why he thinks that, is beyond my knowledge. I'll defer to your experience and say that many people with above-average danger levels are in more need of protection.

Even so, I think you're overreacting a little bit. It's not like handguns are the sole means of personal defense. Mace, tasers, knives, and in a desperate situations, hunting weapons are viable options.

Honestly, I agree with you. I think handguns should be legal. My real problem is that you hold Moore to standards of honesty unreasonable for human beings. So he's a hypocrite; so am I, so are you. There are no principles, only goals and means, for all of us.

[tharkûn]

He's a celebrity that travels around a lot. Even not considering his controversial political views, he's probably in more danger than the average gun-owner.

So what? The average gun owner has a hunting rifle, not a hand gun. Only 1/3rd of all guns in the US are handguns.

Note: people that are being stalked, convenience store clerks, and cab drivers are not "average" when it comes to danger by any stretch of the imagination.

So what? Does he make any exception for people in danger? No he simply states he favors banning handguns, end of sentence.

If his position is that only licensed individuals can own handguns or that only people who can demonstrate a need can have handguns then he isn't a hypocrit. Unfortunately his position is merely to ban them.

Even so, I think you're overreacting a little bit. It's not like handguns are the sole means of personal defense. Mace, tasers, knives, and in a desperate situations, hunting weapons are viable options.

Mace isn't worth squat you can't make contact. Tasers can be readily stopped by insulators, and knives ... didn't you watch Indiana Jones? Hunting weapons suck when you are in a confined space, such as a car or behind a counter.

My real problem is that you hold Moore to standards of honesty unreasonable for human beings.

Why is it unreasonable to ask a person to do what they say?

[Perinquus]

You're opinion. Nothing more. And actually dealing with victims of crime on a daily basis gives me a somewhat better perspective here. You're wrong. Moore's not in more danger than many of these other people are. In fact, since he lives in rich, crime free neighborhoods, no doubt has the best security system on his home money can buy, and has an army of personal assistants to screen him from the public, he is almost certainly in considerably less danger than a great many average people who are being stalked, who operate stores in gang ridden communities, who work late at night as cab drivers or store clerks, etc. etc. These people are far more likely to meet a violent death than Michael Moore. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Try again.

He's a celebrity that travels around a lot. Even not considering his controversial political views, he's probably in more danger than the average gun-owner.

Note: people that are being stalked, convenience store clerks, and cab drivers are not "average" when it comes to danger by any stretch of the imagination.

Perhaps not average. But they are certainly not uncommon in any case. Their need is no less than Moore's because they have no money. Why does he think he should get the benefit of armed protection when they shouldn't?

Why, they're not hypocrites. They merely extend protection farther than the average person, based on their greater resources. They don't try to deny the means of that protection to other people while keeping it for themselves.

They don't have to.

Neither does more. But he does it anyway. And the fact that he does it while denying other's rights to it is what makes him a hypocrite.

No. But they should have the courage of their convictions and do themselves what they insist others should do. If Michael Moore thinks that other people should do without the protection of privately owned handguns, he himself should do the same, or prepare to be recognized as the hypocrite he is. If, on the other hand, he feels that he is in sufficient danger that it would be unwise to do without this protection, then he ought to recognize that many other people face potentially lethal risks themselves, and also feel they need this means of protection. And if he were intellectually honest, this might lead him to admit that maybe some honest citizens do actually need handguns. But he doesn't. He advocates taking away their right to this means of defense, while simultaneously keeping it for himself. No one has yet answered the question of how this is not hypocrisy.

You say Michael Moore needs handguns, and then you say that honest people need them. I don't follow.

But seriously, Moore probably doesn't think many other people are in as much danger he is. Whether it's true or false, or why he thinks that, is beyond my knowledge. I'll defer to your experience and say that many people with above-average danger levels are in more need of protection.

Even so, I think you're overreacting a little bit. It's not like handguns are the sole means of personal defense. Mace, tasers, knives, and in a desperate situations, hunting weapons are viable options.

Oh are they now? If you live in an economically depressed part of town, you can't afford a car, and you have to walk home several blocks at night in a high crime area you can use a hunting weapon? So what... you just stick that scope sighted, bolt action rifle down your pants and off you go? And using one for home defense is really not recommended either. When that .30-06, or even 30-30 bullet overpenetrates the body of the burglar who is standing in your bedroom at night, goes through two interior and exterior walls, and then outside and through your neighbor's vinyl siding, to finally come to rest in the large intestine of his teenage daughter - heretofore sleeping peacefully in her bed - and turns it into jellied protoplasm, and then she later kills herself because she can't face living the rest of her life with a colostomy bag...

Do you begin to perceive why hunting rifles are not ideal for self defense, especially in an urban environment, where thecrime rate is higher, and you are more likely to need a weapon? Even a shotgun, in some ways ideal for home defense, is not always ideal, because a long gun is more less handy in the close confines of a room, and is more easily taken away from you if your assailant gets close. This is particularly true of shotguns configured as hunting weapons, with their longer barrels. Try maneuvering through your house with a shotgun that has a 25" full choke hunting barrel to see what I mean.

And tasers, OC spray, etc. are limited in their usefulness. I've been pepper sprayed. Right in the face. I had to be sprayed in the police academy. I was then required to handcuff a resisting suspect (played by a member of the acadmeny staff) step up to the firing line, load an empty pistol, and knock down a 10-inch pie plate target at 15 yards, with no more than five rounds. (Had I failed to do so, I would have been required to come back another day and go through that all over again, from the beginning.) And the purpose of this was to show us that you can force yourself through the pain of that stuff and continue to fight effectively. It's not easy, but you can do it. Most people back off when sprayed. Not everybody does. Especially if they are drunk, on drugs, hyped on on adrenalin, or just one of the 5% or so of people who are virtually immune to that stuff. And if you are upwind of your target, most of the spray will blow back on you, and not get on him. Or if it is raining, most of it will never reach him. Tasers are limited also. So much so that the manufacturer strongly recommends they never be used except where lethal force is available as a backup. Nonlethal weapons are very limited. Sometimes, a gun is the only effective weapon for a given situation. That's the fact of the matter.

Honestly, I agree with you. I think handguns should be legal. My real problem is that you hold Moore to standards of honesty unreasonable for human beings. So he's a hypocrite; so am I, so are you. There are no principles, only goals and means, for all of us.

As tharkûn said, why is it unreasonable to ask a person to do what they say?

[Master of Ossus]

He's a celebrity that travels around a lot. Even not considering his controversial political views, he's probably in more danger than the average gun-owner.

Note: people that are being stalked, convenience store clerks, and cab drivers are not "average" when it comes to danger by any stretch of the imagination.

Nonetheless, Moore is saying that other people (even ones in situations much more dangeruos than his own) should not be allowed handguns or other firearms for the purposes of defending themselves. Who does he want to entrust with the power to decide whether someone should get to own a firearm? Himself?

He's obviously being hypocritical.

They don't try to deny the means of that protection to other people while keeping it for themselves.

They don't have to.

No, and if one of them DID use such a weapon while trying to categorically prevent others from using identical weapons they WOULD be hypocrites, just like Michael Moore.

But seriously, Moore probably doesn't think many other people are in as much danger he is. Whether it's true or false, or why he thinks that, is beyond my knowledge.

Irrelevant, since he's trying to ban the weapons from EVERYONE. He's made no exceptions for the woman being stalked by her ex-. He's made no exceptions for people who work dangerous jobs in dangerous neighborhoods. He simply wants the weapons banned.

Even so, I think you're overreacting a little bit. It's not like handguns are the sole means of personal defense. Mace, tasers, knives, and in a desperate situations, hunting weapons are viable options.

In some situation they are, but they are by no means effective in all situations and there are circumstances in which a handgun is ideal.

Honestly, I agree with you. I think handguns should be legal. My real problem is that you hold Moore to standards of honesty unreasonable for human beings. So he's a hypocrite; so am I, so are you. There are no principles, only goals and means, for all of us.

How is it unreasonable to ask public figures who speak out publically against someone else's rights to abstain from those rights themselves? If someone demanded the closure of an abortion clinic and then came back the next day to terminate a pregnancy you would NOT consider that person a hypocrite?