This is topic Heston Stepping Down As President Of The NRA. in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002010

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 04-24-2003, 08:14 PM:
 
Supposedly he is making his last appearance as president of the NRA this weekend.

I wish him a nice retirement....
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-25-2003, 11:36 AM:
 
I guess he's decided to leave some other poor sucker in the firing line (OK, bad pun) when Michael Moore decides to make a sequel!
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 04-25-2003, 11:55 AM:
 
I have this feeling that Mr. Moore and Mr. Heston are really "not that great of friends."

According to the Seattle PI, The NRA got more bad publicity last year in Michael Moore's Oscar-winning documentary "Bowling for Columbine." The NRA currently is championing an effort to revoke the Oscar for Moore, who interviewed a strident but feeble-looking Heston after using a star map to get to his house.

To me, this is playing "Dirty Pool."

Mr. Moore was in the Greater Seattle area on April 16th and gave a speech. I wanted to attend, but the event was sold out.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/117758_michaelmoore16.html

I have a suspicion that this thread is going to turn political. Brad, can you put it in an appropiate place, such as the arena or the trash?

[ 04-25-2003, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: Paul G. Thompson ]
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 04-25-2003, 08:21 PM:
 
Exactly how does the NRA think it can change the results of Academy voting? And why should they care if he won the Oscar? I frequently disagree with the winners, but it just doesn't seem that important considering the various aspects of this entire episode.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 04-25-2003, 08:58 PM:
 
Hillary, your guess is as good as mine. NRA got egg on its face and should just deal with it and accept it.
 

---

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 04-26-2003, 12:37 PM:
 
I quit the NRA (I was a member of rifle and pistol clubs, and a summer camp riflery counselor) after the assassinations of
Robert Kennedy and Martin L. King. The NRA refused to support any kind of gun legislation that might reduce crime, and after my letter went unanswered, I resigned my membership.
I felt Heston was used as a "good old boy" figurehead, (like Ronald Reagan) to preserve the status quo.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 04-26-2003, 01:10 PM:
 
Gerard, it was the same for me. The only difference is that I never was a member of NRA nor do I ever become a member. I have four pistols locked up in my safe (combination lock instead of some stupid $1.98 padlock.)I believe the legalization of assult rifles should not be. They are designed to do one thing, and that is to kill humans. I would never own one, period!

Seems like a catch 22....if all forearms were illegal, only the outlaws that use them to rob, plunder, or kill. That leaves you and I defenseless. No law will ever stop the shady character from having them. However, I do believe in gun control up to a point.

Everyone knows that if someone wants a weapon of some sort, they will have that weapon in their possession in 15 minutes or less. And it does not matter if they are 14 or 104 years old.

Guns appear to be a weapon of choice because they are so easy to get.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 04-26-2003, 02:04 PM:
 
I don't know Paul . . .

I read the link you provided about Michael Moore. I think he's a little cocky too. Yeah, only a handfull of pro-Bush / pro-troops people show, but take into account the probably hundreds of thousands in this country alone who believe his comments are wrong, and thats a fairly serious group he alienated.

Kinda reminds me of Nixon's "Silent Majority"
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 04-26-2003, 04:42 PM:
 
This past Thursday, in a nearby middle school, a 14 year old shot and killed his Principal, and then shot himself in the head. I wonder if the NRA will hold a rally here in the near future. Seemed like Heston had a habit of that kind of timing.
 

---

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 04-26-2003, 05:20 PM:
 
Having run "Bowling for Columbine" a number of weeks, I began to get irritated at Moore's biased tactics and smug style, which were especially evident during the Heston interview. They really undermined Moore's credibility during the emotionally weighty moments.

However, I also doubt Heston could have fared any better with another interviewer. His complete lack of serious thought about the social and cultural aspects of gun issues is pretty disturbing for the head of what must be the world's largest gun advocacy group.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-26-2003, 05:47 PM:
 

quote:

---

However, I also doubt Heston could have fared any better with another interviewer. His complete lack of serious thought about the social and cultural aspects of gun issues is pretty disturbing for the head of what must be the world's largest gun advocacy group.

---

quote:

---

I hope that it is understood that Charlton Heston does have parkenson's diease and when he gave that "interview" with Michael Moore, he isn't/wasn't exactly in a very good state of mind.

---

No, I didn't know that - IMHO, that makes Moore's exploitation of him even more cynical and further reduces his film's credibility.
 

---

Posted by Patrick McDonough (Member # 1363) on 04-27-2003, 08:23 AM:
 
What I dont get is if Mr. Moore is in to making the NRA look like asses than why is he an active member? sounds kind of two faced to me.(No Batman reference intended)
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 04-27-2003, 08:28 AM:
 
About the time of the release of "Bowling for Columbine," it was announced that Heston was suffering from Alzheimer's. Once again, I find the timing of that announcement rather cynical to throw sympathy towards Heston. Since the announcement came after Moore's interview, he was not aware of Heston's condition. But since he WAS still president of the NRA, and officiated at those rallies held so closely after the Columbine and Flint school shootings, Moore's questions weren't unduly harsh. His heavy-handed manner is another thing entirely. Chasing after Heston with that photo woudn't have come across very well if he were going after Moses himself.

There were strong indications that Reagan was experiencing the early stages of Alzheimer's while still in office, and Heston isn't there yet, so in respect to the NRA issue and the Moore interview, I don't feel too sorry for him. But I feel very sad for what he'll have to go through now.

So this doesn't veer too political; Regardless of his activism (I also advocate the right of gun ownership within reason), his films will stand, and should always be enjoyed for what they are.
 

---

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 04-27-2003, 09:29 AM:
 
Your right Hillary. It is Alzheimer's that he is suffering from. I had forgotten which one but now I remember the Dateline NBC story about it when they were comparing Heston's life to Regan's life. I think that Heston's illness would have been made public anyway but I have the agree that the "Bowling for Columbine" piece probably had something to do with timing. I would expect that they would have wanted to wait until after he resigned as president of the NRA, to make an announcement of this kind.

I would like to see someone dig up some dirt on Michael Moore and then chase him around and shove a camera in his face and see how he likes it. It would be a good project for an aspiring film student anyway. At times (baised on his tactics) I don't see much of a difference between Moore and a paparazzi.
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 04-27-2003, 10:11 AM:
 
Apparently there are a few of Moore's former staff who aren't too fond of him. Yet there are some who've worked for him for years, so it just may be personality issues.

He addressed several of the charges against him in a Playboy interview, and seems to at least believe everything he says. I've heard people say he drives an SUV, when in actuality he drives a Dodge Caravan. Chicken-shit stuff like that. There are other examples which escape me at this moment.

There are so many bullies for the right, and when one surfaces for the left, everyone wants to pounce on him for something, yet the others aren't held accountable for their actions and statements (those hawkish types who got Viet Nam-era draft deferrments and the like). For the most part, at least Moore walks the walk--those people who were shown being evicted in "Roger & Me" were each given two years rent money from the proceeds of that movie.

Nobody's perfect, but bringing this back to Heston, he could have shown more sensitivity in regards to those ill-timed rallies.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-27-2003, 12:54 PM:
 
Hillary, I have disagree with the "bullies" on the left side of politics being more singled out. There are few things more politically fashionable or "safe" than making wisecracks against groups like the NRA, the religious fundamentalist right and hawkish types in general. Movies, music, print media, the fashion industry and art industry all do it all of the time.

Usually the citizens in the moderate-to-right area of politics remain silent. So it is kind of rare for guys like Michael Moore to get jumped on for his views.

I'm not a big a fan at all of the NRA. The group needs a very serious change in its leadership and views since it has alienated a great many of its members. Heston and H. Wayne LaPierre both seem really silly at times. I do feel sympathy for Heston developing Alzheimers disease. No one should ever have to go through with that.

I believe citizens should be able to own guns. However, I think a fair amount of qualification should EARNED before a purchase can be made. Background checks should be mandatory. I have a clean record so I have nothing to fear in a background check. Gun safety courses should be mandatory. Gun registration should be mandatory. You have to be licensed to drive a car. It only makes sense that the same thing should extend to firearms.

As to the rash of shootings happening lately (such as the 14 year old who killed a school principal), banning guns will not stop this shit. That would only be a cosmetic, fake solution.

The real solution to the problem is changing our culture. Our popular culture deliberately confuses selfishness and creulty as traits of strength and independence. People who are nice are pussies basically. We make anti-social behavior sexy. So I think our society is getting more and more fucked up by it every day. All of the marital/boyfriend-girlfriend homicides are just a spike showing a much larger problem in that people generally don't know how to care about one another as well as we did in decades past. Look at the rate of divorce in this nation. Look at all the kids growing up with parents split apart. Look at how kids and teens prey upon each other with new levels of viciousness and ever raising stakes in the game. In decades past that game got left behind in high school, but these days it continues on with many adults. If you have a problem, you're not going to get help from anyone about it. So you might as well take matters into your own hands.

If someone is screwed up enough to think violence is a means to solve a problem, he is going to use whatever weapon is available. Guns are popular. But so are knives. A 32 year old bouncer was stabbed to death at a New York night club just recently when he told a smoker violating the new ban to put out his cigarette. Do we need to ban knives? Or how about cars? Remember the estranged wife in Houston who ran over her husband numerous times with a Mercedes?

More has to be done to make people really care about each other than just being isolated.
 

---

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 04-27-2003, 01:28 PM:
 
Just thought that I would add this link:

http://www.revoketheoscar.com/

I think that the whole thing is really pointless. But just in case anyone here is curious as to what these people have to say. I must admit that the links off of this website are pretty interesting to say the least. Especially if it is true that the C. Heston speeches used in the film were actually given over a year after the tragedy and not a couple of weeks like Moore has claimed.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 04-27-2003, 01:41 PM:
 
Well said Bobby!

I hate to use the old cliché but "Guns don't kill people, People kill people". Guns, as well as knives, cars, hands, etc are all used as weapons. We have way too many gun laws now, and not enough enforcement.

It all goes back to the lack of personal responsibility and individual accountability. So many people want to blame everyone and everything else for their and society's problems. Instead of taking responsibility for their own selves and actions, they want to cover their ass and wiggle out of their accountability. Many would much rather whine and moan and cry in their beer about how bad things are. GOD! I don't have time for that! If you're not happy, do something constructive to change it.

Flame Off...Ummm for now!

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 04-27-2003, 02:50 PM:
 
Damn right, Phil. I agree with you 100%.
 

---

Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 04-27-2003, 03:02 PM:
 
Bobby,

Yesterday I tried to come up with a way of saying exactly what you did. It got wordy and preachy, so I didn't post it.

You said eloquently in one paragraph what I feel.

quote:

---

I believe citizens should be able to own guns. However, I think a fair amount of qualification should EARNED before a purchase can be made. Background checks should be mandatory. I have a clean record so I have nothing to fear in a background check. Gun safety courses should be mandatory. Gun registration should be mandatory. You have to be licensed to drive a car. It only makes sense that the same thing should extend to firearms.

---

Thank you.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 04-27-2003, 03:36 PM:
 
I am led to believe that Moore's interview of Heston was well before it was known Heston had Alzheimer's disease. Moore has the ability to leave the interviewee "sputtering and popping." He did basically the same with Dick Clark and the upper echelon of General Motors Corporation.

Heston didn't seem to show any signs of Alzheimer's during the interview. I think Moore caught Heston with his "pants down" and Heston knew that.

Personally, I would hate to be interviewed by Moore on any subject. Moore knows what questions to ask, amd more importantly, knows when to ask them. Moore also knows what the answer is before the question is even asked. He does his research quite nicely.

I have seen hundreds like Moore in the military. In short, "Don't try to bullshit the brass." It will backfire. Moore made an ass out of Heston and Heston knows that. What other reason can you think of where Heston and his followers would use the law of retribution to try to recall Moore's Oscar? I know of none other than to "get even."

Naturally, this is just my opinion.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-27-2003, 06:12 PM:
 
The problem I have with Michael Moore is he comes off like a slick lawyer running a cross-examination in a trial. Instead of being subjective like a real journalist, he asks certain questions in ways that steer more toward the conclusions he has already made.

This kind of thing is common in politics. Only ask the questions whose answers will support your bias. Try to put words into the mouth of the interviewee. Data mine the polls and statistics in such a way to spin the argument into your favor. IMHO, that's what he does. Moore does an excellent job of it too. If his documentaries were more "balanced" they would not get as much of an emotional reaction. In the end that's what gives me the biggest problem. If I'm watching a documentary I sure don't want to feel like I have been manipulated. Perhaps that's the difference between "documentary" and "infotainment."
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 04-27-2003, 06:42 PM:
 
Moore is not subtle, has a singular angry point of view, and has been very successful at getting his word out. I guess from my (left of center) perspective, it may just seem that those on the opposite end don't get as much heat for their transgressions.

In film school, it was stressed that there is no such thing as a totally objective documentary. Once you select a camera angle and compose a shot, you have influenced your subject matter. Frederick Wiseman is a great example. His documentaries, "Titticut Follies" and "High School" have no narration and seem totally verite, yet injunctions were filed banning those films from being shown within the respective areas depicted. So Moore takes that subjectivity to an extreme. Perhaps there should be a new word for that style of advocacy filmmaking.

Bobby, you make a great deal of sense regarding firearms. Lack of personal responsibility and a "me first" attitude pervade our culture. One commercial sells you candy, the next sells you a diet plan. Concern for the well-being of others, including often children, neighbors, classmates and principals appears to have evaporated. Until empathy becomes a greater part of our nature, this disturbing trend will continue.

I don't believe that guns are the problem any more than automobiles cause drunk driving. We talk about licensing. Maybe parents should have to take courses on proper parenting, with classes in teaching empathy and compassion to their children. But it's not "cool" to care. I wish I had the answer. Moore admits he doesn't have a solution. And it's doubtful the NRA has one either.

Back off my soapbox now.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 04-27-2003, 07:47 PM:
 

quote:

---

What I dont get is if Mr. Moore is in to making the NRA look like asses than why is he an active member?

---

Can you say 'Mole'?

It's pretty freakin' obvious. What better way to destroy an institution than to do it from the inside...

-Aaron
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-27-2003, 08:01 PM:
 
The topic of responsible parents is quite arguably at the very center of what ails this nation. Many things require education and licensing, whether you want to become a doctor, pilot, lawyer or just be able to drive a car.

We really don't have squat on qualifying people to become parents. Maybe it is something we should do. If it were practical and didn't violate a number of constitutional amendments, I would be in favor of people not being able to breed at all until they proved they were ready and able to be parents. Parenthood is a completely life-altering responsibility and staggering financial committment. Well, such a thing it pretty extreme and of proportions belonging in a Orwell or Huxley novel. I guess my emotions have me that disgusted in wanting such a Draconian solution.

We have a number of retirement homes and other services in this city that have had to change their structure so grandparents could bring in the kids they're having to raise. Their own grown children meanwhile are too busy out partying to have anything to do with their progeny. Children who grow up with little positive attention from parents have many more problems. And some create more problems for more people. I would say the whole "free love" and just screw recreationally attitude is a large part of why we have over 2 million people in jail.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 04-27-2003, 08:10 PM:
 
Amen to your comments Bobby. Some of the things parents do (and don't do) are absolutely mind-boggling. If a license were required to become a parent I'm afraid at least 50% of the applicants would flunk the exam (unfortunately though that would probably not discourage most of the washouts from breeding anyway). I am also increasingly dismayed at the negative influence of the Internet on kids (while acknowledging the obvious positives). Parents, pay attention, set an example, and use some common sense.
 

---

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 04-27-2003, 08:12 PM:
 
Exactly.

In my world, alot of people that I know grew up plastered to a TV set for most of their adolescent life.

I used to go to customers homes for TV repairs. You'd be amazed how many times I have been cursed by a ten year old for turning OFF the TV for service! The parents rarely said anything...
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 04-27-2003, 08:16 PM:
 
Aaron,

Michael Moore has been a LIFETIME NRA member since a teenager, and has won marksmanship awards. His membership existed long before NRA became the powerful lobby that it is, and as such, at odds with Moore's philosophy regarding firearms. He's all for hunting (not something I particularly agree with), but that's about it. Before making "Bowling for Columbine," Moore pondered the possibility of running for NRA president himself, and attempt to bring it back to its original mission. Probably (rightly) figuring he had a snowball's chance, he decided to make the movie instead.

Be wary of what may seem too freakin' obvious.

[ 04-27-2003, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: Hillary Charles ]
 

---

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 04-27-2003, 08:21 PM:
 
Ronald Reagan was a fine actor in his day.

Charleton Heston is a fine actor, too.

Sometimes, I see some Moses in the NRA news-spin.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-28-2003, 01:51 AM:
 
On the 'people cause crime, not guns' issue, private firearm ownership is to all intents and purposes illegal in the UK (you can keep shotguns for pest control purposes, but they are strictly licensed and cannot be removed from the premises where they are registered), yet we have the fastest growth in gun-related crime in Europe. There are parts of London and Manchester - many controlled by West Indian and South American drugs gangs - where street shootings are now totally routine. The police generally don't do much about it on the basis that if one drug dealer wants to shoot another drug dealer the best thing is probably to let him get on with it. But this situation must have made life hell for ordinary residents in these places, especially the poorer ones who can't afford to move out.

The point is that if firearms cannot be obtained legally, organised criminals will get them some other way. What heavy regaulation of gun ownership does achieve, however, is to keep them out of the hands of minor criminals and morons. Apart from the Thomas Hamilton case in 1995 we've never had a school massacre (and that was a completely unique case of a convincing psychopath who had legally owned pistols for several years before the incident) certainly never an accidental fatal shooting in the course of committing a trivial offence.

I can't help thinking that if gun ownership regulations were relaxed you would get idiots buying them for 'self defence' purposes and then mistakenly shooting people who were going about their lawful business, and that minor criminals and yobs would kill a lot of innocent bystanders. Michael Moore had a valuable point there, but sadly it got lost amid his biased ranting. The situation we have is that a Yardie drug dealer is likely to be walking around with a gun, but a small-town football hooligan is not. That's probably the best we can hope for.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 04-28-2003, 02:09 AM:
 
If ya take away the the rights of people to own guns, only the low-lifes will have them.

See the Texas laws that allow citizens to carry "side arms". There has not been a wild-west shoot-out cuz guns have been legalized and the pistol-packing people have not gone "crazy". I don't agree with your theory at all.

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 04-28-2003, 02:36 AM:
 
Its interesting to note that the major push to make it illegal to carry firearms in public in major cities like Chicago didn't occur until the Black Panthers began making a point of arming themselves.
--------------------
On a completely unrelated note, there were most certainly signs of Reagan's deteriorating mental state while he was still President. One somewhat famous incident occoured while he was chatting with the reporters of the White House press corps. He began to tell a story of how he was on a ship in World War II and how he feared for his life as his ship was straffed by enemy planes.

The problem of course was that Reagan wasn't in the navy in WWII, he was never on a ship that got straffed. He did play a sailor in a movie though whose ship got straffed.

This incident happened in 86 or 87, I can't remember. The man was president for at least a year after that.
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-28-2003, 04:17 AM:
 

quote:

---

If ya take away the the rights of people to own guns, only the low-lifes will have them.

---

quote:

---

That sounds drastic, but the article said it also helped fight crime because when somebody wants to rob other people in the tube he is unlikely to buy a ticket.

---

I'll bear that in mind - and remember to buy a ticket - the next time I go mugging old ladies on the Newcastle Metro!
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 04-28-2003, 10:00 AM:
 
Newcastle has a metro? Is it a tunnel through which horsedrawn carriages drive?
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 04-28-2003, 10:29 AM:
 
Tyne and Wear Metro.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 04-28-2003, 10:44 AM:
 
Hey, I work in New Castle

Oh sorry, wrong country

BTW, Edinburgh is right down the road too
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 04-28-2003, 01:54 PM:
 
Bruce said:

quote:

---

"Charleton Heston is a fine actor, too."

---

Agreed. I respect Heston as an actor.

But that does not mean I have to respect him as a person. I lost that respect when I saw Bowling For Columbine. Heston appeared to be a very cold person who didn't care about that little girl or the kids that were killed at the high school.

I am sorry, but an attitude like Heston appeared to display towards innocent human beings that were murdered in cold blood will destroy my respect in a matter of seconds. And, it did just that. Call me what you want, and flame me if you so desire. That's the way it is, and that's the way I truly feel.
 

---

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 04-28-2003, 02:56 PM:
 
Although I earned my letter in riflery in college and dutifully read my American Rifleman Magazine for many years, I object to some of the current practices permitted in the US today--or perhaps until 9/11:

I think sniper training courses should be limited to the active military and specialized law enforcement members ONLY.

I think "...a well-regulated militia..." mentioned in the First Ammendment refers to one by a State or Federal government,
not a group formed for a political purpose or grudge.

I think fully-automatic weapons should be limited to military and police; anti-tank, explosive and cop-killer bullets should be illegal for all civilian persons. Ditto for .50cal
and 20mm weapons.

I have no qualms about registering firearms and would like to see a uniform system for all 50 states to trace weapons stolen or used in crimes.

I have watched investigative reports on the gun industry on 60 Minutes, 20/20 and, most importantly, Jim Lehrer's PBS programs. These have convinced me that the gun manufacturers DO know which dealerships they ship to are providing a significant percentage of the weapons used in crime, despite denials from corporate executives. If the FBI and even journalists can find this out, those denials seem false to me. After such disclosures, several gunshops have been closed, after operating for years, providing easy purchase of guns to runners transporting them across state lines to inner cities where they are sold on the streets. Thus class-action lawsuits against manufacturers are not as crazy as I once thought.

While most gun clubs consist of decent families engaged in character-building sports of competitive target-shooting, hunting and ballistics research, I have met even NRA members with unsavory backgrounds and agendas who hide behind the First Amendment and the NRA to continue dishonest and even criminal anti-social practices.

Gerard (EX-NRA member and former riflery instructor.)
 

---

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 04-28-2003, 05:25 PM:
 
*Post Edited to shorten content and make easier to read.

Bowling Truths:

The introduction of Bowling is a purported clip from an NRA documentary, announcing that the viewer is about to see a National Rifle Association film. Obviously, Bowling is not an NRA film, and so Moore makes it clear right at the beginning that Bowling is not a documentary (based on true facts), but rather a mockumentary (based on fictitious "facts").

The first mockumentary "fact" is the title itself. The Columbine murderers were enrolled in a high-school bowling class. After the NRA introduction, the film begins on the morning of April 20, 1999, the day of the Columbine murders. Narrator Moore announces that on that day, "Two boys went bowling at six in the morning." This serves as a setup for a later segment looking at the causes of Columbine, and arguing that blaming violent video games (which the killers played obsessively) or Marilyn Manson music (which the killers enjoyed) makes no more sense than blaming bowling.

In fact, the two killers ditched bowling class on the day of the murders. The police investigation found that none of the students in the bowling class that morning had seen the killers that day. The police report was completed long before the release of Bowling for Columbine, so the title itself is a deliberate falsehood. (I don't use the word "lie" because the mockumentary genre allows for the use of invented facts.)
After the April 20 lead-in, Bowling begins an examination of middle-American gun culture, and indulges the bicoastal elite's snobbery toward American gun owners.

Moore comically reports an incident in which some reckless hunters tied a gun to their dog to take a funny picture, and one of the hunters was shot. According to the police reports, the foolish hunters had only a still camera, but Bowling presents a fabricated video clip which purports to have been filmed by the hunter's friend. Because the clip appears to be a home movie, Bowling makes hunters seem viciously callous: The "hunter" holding the camera continues recording after his fellow hunter has been wounded, rather than immediately stopping to help the friend.

A montage of U.S. foreign-policy atrocities (to the tune of "What a Wonderful World") concludes with the statement that the U.S. gave $245 million to the Taliban in 2000-01. The next shot is of the World Trade Center in flames.

In fact, that money was not given to the Taliban government, but rather to U.S. and international agencies that distributed humanitarian aid to the people of Afghanistan. In other words, the fact that the United States gave money to Food For Peace and for girls' schools for Afghan refugees is supposed to prove that the America deserved to be attacked by al Qaeda.

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 obvious: that the United States government and al Qaeda both perpetrate murder by airplane.

In fact, the plaque on the B-52 at the AFA is not 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."

A long mockumentary segment reports on the NRA convention in Denver in May 1999. The segment begins with NRA president Charlton Heston holding an antique rifle above his head and delivering the signature line: "From my cold dead hands." Actually, Heston never displayed a rifle or uttered that line at the Denver convention.

Moore bashes the NRA for being insensitive by holding its convention in Denver two weeks after the Columbine murders. That insensitivity is heightened by the implication that Heston did the "cold dead hands" rifle display there. Viewers are not informed that the NRA convention had been scheduled many years in advance, that Mayor Webb (who at the last minute told the NRA to cancel the convention) had eagerly solicited the NRA convention for Denver, or that the NRA drastically reduced its four-day convention, holding only its annual members' meeting, in an afternoon session LEGALLY REQUIRED by its non-profit charter from the state of New York.

The audience is informed that the National Rifle Association was founded in 1871, "the same year the Klan became an illegal terrorist organization." The voice-over says that this was just a coincidence, but the cartoon shows gun owners helping Klansmen to murder blacks.

The phrasing of the Klan line leaves the impression that the Klan was created in 1871, even though the group was founded in 1866 in Tennessee. What happened in 1871 was congressional passage of the Ku Klux Klan Act, which allowed the president to suppress the Klan by denying Klansmen the writ of habeas corpus. (The Klan was, of course, composed of men who fought on the losing, pro-slavery side of the Civil War.)

President Ulysses S. Grant signed the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 into law, and worked for the rapid extermination of that terrorist organization. Grant dispatched federal troops into South Carolina, Louisiana, and Florida to destroy the Klan and to protect black voting rights. In an April 1872 report to Congress, Grant pointed out the continuing problem in some southern counties of the Ku Klux Klan attempting "to deprive colored citizens of their right to bear arms and the right of a free ballot."

President Grant also signed the Enforcement Act of 1870, which made it a federal crime for the Ku Klux Klan or similar conspiracies to interfere with the civil rights of freedmen — including their Second Amendment right to arms.
Frederick Douglass justly called Grant "the benefactor of an enslaved and despised race, a race who will ever cherish a grateful remembrance of his name, fame and great services."
The 1871 founders of the National Rifle Association were thus diametrically opposed to the Confederates who founded the KKK. The NRA founders were Union officers who had fought on the winning, anti-slavery side of the Civil War. Dismayed by the poor quality of Union marksmanship during the war, the NRA's founders aimed to improve the shooting skills of the American public at large. The first NRA president was Ambrose E. Burnside, who had served as commander of the Army of the Potomac.

The supposedly racist nature of white gun owners is reinforced by Bowling's statement that an 1871 law made it illegal for blacks to own guns. No such law existed, although it is true that many gun laws from the late 19th century — such as licensing and registration laws, or bans on inexpensive guns — were selectively enforced in the South so as to deprive blacks of firearms. These are the same kinds of laws that Moore promotes today. Indeed, he turned the Bowling for Columbine premier into a fundraiser for the Brady Campaign, which works hard to outlaw inexpensive guns used by poor people for protection.

Moore's clever techniques of inversion reach an apogee with the Willie Horton ad. Political historians 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.

The official Bush campaign ran its own advertisement, "Revolving Doors," which attacked the furlough program but did not mention Willie Horton.
But Moore pastes text from the National Security PAC ad over film from the Bush commercial, thus creating the impression that Bush invoked Willie Horton. Moore falsifies the advertisement by pasting onscreen the text: "Willie Horton released. Then kills again." This libels Willie Horton, who perpetrated a rape but not a murder during his furlough.

Moore films the over-the-counter purchase, no questions asked, of some ammunition in a Canadian store. The Canadian government has pointed out that such a transaction would be illegal, since the buyer is required to present identification. Moore did not respond to a request from the government's Canadian Firearms Centre to explain whether he staged a fake purchase, edited out the ID request, or broke the law.

A long segment on Kayla Rowland, a six-year-old girl who was fatally shot in school by a male classmate the same age. Moore blames Michigan's requirement that welfare recipients work at a job. Because the killer's mother, Tamarla Owens, commuted to work in a shopping mall 70 hours a week, and because she still could not pay her rent, she was about to be evicted. She thus moved in with her brother, and then her unsupervised son found a handgun, brought it to school, and killed Kayla Rowland.

Actually, Owens earned $7.85 an hour from one job ($1,250 a month, almost entirely tax-free), plus at least the minimum wage from her second job, and received food stamps and medical care. Her rent was $300 a month. Michigan had rent-subsidy and child-care programs too, but Owens apparently did not know about them. So, contrary to the impression created by Moore, Michigan's welfare-to-work program is generous: Even without the rent subsidy, Owens earned more than enough to pay the rent. Perhaps Owens's caseworker should have told her about the available subsidies, but the caseworker's mistake hardly means that the Michigan system is the Dickensian horror portrayed by Moore.

Moore tells the audience that Ms. Owens and her son were living with Owens's brother. He doesn't tell the audience that their home was a crack house, or that the stolen gun was received by the brother from one of his customers, in exchange for drugs.
"No one knew why the little boy wanted to shoot the little girl," says Moore. Actually, the killer was the class bully; said that he hated everyone at school; had been suspended for stabbing a child with a pencil; and, subsequent to the shooting, stabbed another child with a knife.

We now get a quick cut to Charlton Heston speaking at a gun-rights rally in Flint, holding a rifle above his head. Moore explains that Heston came to Flint after Rowland was killed. Later, when interviewing Heston, Moore tells him, "You go to these places after they have these horrible tragedies." There's a considerable distortion here. Kayla Rowland was killed on February 29, 2000. Heston appeared at a Bush campaign rally in Flint over half a year later, in mid October

credit Steve Krauz

[ 04-28-2003, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: Michael Gonzalez ]
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-28-2003, 09:13 PM:
 
The point of the insanely long post above is that EVERYTHING presented in Bowling for Columbine is wrong. However everything in the post above is fact. That's just how it is. Of course if that were true there would be a bit more of an outcry about the facts, I think. I like how the post above cuts down the audience. That's always a good way to win people over in an argument. Make them feel elite by "realizing" that Moore's movie gets the majority of the facts wrong, and therefore superior to anyone who believed anything in Moore's movie.

I have a couple of issues with the movie, but I really don't whine too much about them. It's a good movie and has a good point. Unless you don't agree with it. Oh well you can't please everyone. Just remember: No matter who YOU are, YOU are RIGHT about EVERYTHING!
 

---

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 04-28-2003, 10:29 PM:
 
Well I didn't write the article but I thought that it was very interesting. It seems that Moore did manipulate footage, staged scenes, omitted facts and outright lied in several instances in his movie. There is probably no public outcry (other then those who are targets in the film) because A) Not a lot of people have even seen the film and B) Those who had, because it is listed as a documentry, believed that the information contained therein was fact. Hell I didn't know about all the things wrong in the movie until this thread made me interested enough in the subject to do some research.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-28-2003, 10:50 PM:
 
Well just because you read somewhere on the internet that something about the movie is wrong doesn't necessarily mean it is, in fact, wrong. Also, just because Michael Moore said something in the movie doesn't mean it is correct.

Quite a few people have seen this film.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 04-29-2003, 01:48 AM:
 
I have seen this film, and I did check some of Michael Moore's statistics. He was not too far off on many of them. I think Mr. Moore wanted to make a point. He did just that. We are a violent society.

[ 04-29-2003, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: Paul G. Thompson ]
 

---

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 04-29-2003, 11:15 AM:
 
Regarding the long article above....

I've always been interested in the professional and ethical standards involved in documentary filmmaking... whether it is acceptable to restage a scene because, say, there wasn't enough light or the sound was muffled. If some of the article's accusations are true (and I suspect so; given Moore's manipulative behavior in front of the camera, it's reasonable to assume he was also manipulating footage in the editing room), then I pity Moore for thinking a more honest documentary wouldn't be as successful.

I consider the movie more of a "mockumentary", as the article says. You can't get many insights out of it because everything is simplified and biased toward Moore's point of view. It's essentially an eclectic portrait of human folly, but that's all it is-- entertainment.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 04-29-2003, 08:19 PM:
 
This'll make you wonder about something.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134685251_gundealer29.html

While you are at it, check this out, too.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134685269_malvo29.html
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-29-2003, 09:51 PM:
 

quote:

---

If ya take away the the rights of people to own guns, only the low-lifes will have them.

---

quote:

---

Only the worst, hard-core low life. Minor low-life won't bother. With guns effectively available to anyone who wants them, I'd have thought that the potential for accidental killings was way higher.

---

quote:

---

The idea that drug dealers and such are so specialized a breed of criminal making them separate from the average trouble maker is crazy.

---

I would still argue that in respect of firearms at least, organised criminals are in many ways a different issue from minor and petty criminals. In this country, where gun ownership is very heavily regulated and in most cases illegal, I would not know where to start if I wanted to get hold of a gun. I would not be given a licence to hold one legally (I have never done target shooting, nor am I a farmer), so I would have to get one illegally. I don't have the contacts in the criminal underworld to do that. Were I to walk into a pub in a notoriously crime-ridden area brandishing a wad of tenners and say 'Hello, has anybody got any Kalashnikovs for sale?', I somehow doubt if I'd get very far.

The point of this is that (other than the armed forces and a small number of specially trained police officers) only the criminal underworld has access to guns. If anyone could walk into a shop and buy that Kalashnikov, I think this country would be an even more dangerous place than it is already. A few years ago I was mugged by some teenage local yokels in a car park a couple of hundred yards from my mother's home in Wimbledon, south-west London (as in tennis - not, supposedly, a typical urban war zone!). The total damage amounted to cuts and bruises. I can't help thinking that if those teenagers had been able to buy pistols from their local supermarket the outcome could have been one hell of a lot worse.

I do take your point, namely that serious criminals aren't necessarily violent criminals. I totally agree that corrupt businessmen who rip off hundreds of thousands of small investors cause just as much damage to society as a gun-toting drug dealer.

The bottom line is that firearms are a form of technology developed for the one and only purpose of killing people. Furthermore they are designed to achieve that function quickly, efficiently, cheaply, from a distance and (in most cases) with no special skills needed by the operator. Therefore the fewer of these things there are in circulation, IMHO, the better.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 08-24-2003, 10:13 PM:
 
I was going to post something, but after reading it I decided not to put it in this thread. I'll post it elsewhere.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 08-25-2003, 07:41 AM:
 
Okay, Paul. Go right ahead.

 

---

Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 08-25-2003, 08:37 AM:
 
Paul Said:

quote:

---

I was going to post something, but after reading it I decided not to put it in this thread. I'll post it elsewhere.

---

When someone discovers where Paul hides his post please send me an e-mail, so I can read it.
 

---

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 08-25-2003, 11:51 AM:
 
It is going into the political forum. H ad to wait until today before I posted it.
 

---

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 08-25-2003, 03:02 PM:
 
Best wishes to Mr. Heston.
It's strange to me that actors get elected to any position - they are usually spectacularly unqualified to do aything outside acting, except perhaps bingo calling.
Standing a Ronny Reagan or Arni Swarzenegger up as a leader seems idioitic. The people who understand politics aren't surprised, but isn't there a risk that the masses will figure out that their "leaders" are a bunch of puppets reading from the scripts prepared by the moneymen who installed them?

Anyway...

quote:

---

I can't help thinking that if those teenagers had been able to buy pistols from their local supermarket the outcome could have been one hell of a lot worse

---

quote:

---

If one could buy guns at the supermarket, the teenage punks would soon be dispatched by a victim or bystander who had armed himself. Muggings are uncommon in Texas where finding someone without a pistol is a challenge. Armed robberies are the norm, true, but who would try to rob a liquor store/gas station/whatever there WITHOUT a gun, knowing that the clerk and many of the customers will be packing?

---

quote:

---

And no one needs to own automatic assault rifles.

---

Unless your theatre has a problem with unruly teens...
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-29-2003, 09:42 AM:
 
Actually I think its a good idea for him to step down after the interview in "Bowling For Columbine". He certainly made a fool out of himself!

If there were any statistics that were off in the film its probably only due to the time the statistics were researched by Michael Moore and the time it took to get the film into release.
Mark @ CLACO
 

---