[veganinohio]

Check out the trailer:<br><br><br><br><a href="http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/" target="_blank">http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/</a>

 

[Michael]

I'm not familiar with his work, and even though I had seen his face before I had never heard the name "Michael Moore" until Tame told me about his website. Anyway, that looks very interesting, I'd definitely go see it.

 

[veganinohio]

Rent "Roger and Me" and see what you think. I think it's a must see.

 

[GhostUser]

Michael Moore....he's the same guy that did TV nation, coorect? I have a feeling it will be a while before bowling comes to my area...we only have 2 art-house theatres, and they've been showing my big fat greek wedding for like the past 4 months.<br><br><br><br>
~becca

 

[Kreeli]

i can't wait to see this flick!

 

[veganinohio]

It's supposed to get a wider release this weekend. Apparently it is setting box office records for a documentary film.

 

[GhostUser]

The term "documentary" implies something based on fact, not emotion and hype, and as such I question whether such drivel qualifies as an example. Michael Moore is a self promoting egomaniac who twists "facts" to evoke emotion and support whatever political position he chooses to foster. That said, I am forced to rely on what others tell me about this movie, as I certainly will not support it by paying money to see it.<br><br><br><br>
Bank, NRA Life<br><br><br><br><a href="http://www.indiewire.com/film/reviews/rev_02Cannes_020522_Bowl.html" target="_blank">http://www.indiewire.com/film/review...0522_Bowl.html</a>

 

[veganinohio]

Hee hee. I'm sorry, but when someone criticizes a movie and then refuses to see it, I just have to laugh. I believe you were saying that Michael Moore doesn't know what he's talking about right before you wrote that. Haw!<br><br><br><br>
And yeah, why should anyone care about gun control in this day and age?<br><br><br><br>
The fact that anyone would be proud of being in the NRA this month makes me sick.<br><br><br><br>
By the way, did you include that link to the film review as support for your criticism? I read it, and it seems very much like a positive review to me. It does point out some flaws, but nothing as strong as your accusations of fact-fudging and egomaniacal behavior. The review on salon.com is much more negative if you're looking for a good one.

 

[Thalia]

The review also states that the film points out many paradoxes, such as Canada having the same rate of gun ownership but much less violence. It sounds as if according to the review, the movie is focused more on looking for the source of a violent culture, with more emphasis on the media than gun ownership, itself.<br><br><br><br>
So if you are implying that the movie is simply anti-gun propaganda, I think you may have pre-judged.

 

[GhostUser]

Guys, I concede that I haven't seen it, though I saw TV Nation on a whim many moons ago and am somewhat familiar with his "work". I'm also sorry that support of the NRA makes you sick, is this just one more item on a long list? I'm sickened that people would still deny others the means to defend themselves this month but hey, I've got a pretty long list myself <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/wink3.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=""><br><br><br><br>
Thalia, you may be right and no doubt the link implies such. We'll see (or not). <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/smiley.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="">

 

[Thalia]

Are there more moderate lobbies for gun owners? Surely someone can support the 2nd amendment without believing in everything the NRA believes in right? Just like not every pro-lifer belongs to Operation Rescue, or ARA to PETA. Being Pro-NRA is somewhat more provacative than just saying you are for gun ownership rights of some sort or pro-2nd amendment.<br><br><br><br>
Bankruptor, are you an actual dues paying member of the NRA? Can you tell us about what they support, specifically?

 

[GhostUser]

Thalia, I'm a Life Member, which means I paid the fee (I think it was like $500) 20 years ago or so and don't have to pay any more dues, though this doesn't stop them from constant solicitation for more, believe me. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/smiley.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=""><br><br><br><br>
I am one of the the "true believers" that thinks the NRA doesn't go far enough and that they often appease the gun control crowd with compromise. I also think that their positions are often portrayed as radical and, in support of this argument, the media and politicians often take specific positions out of context that most people would agree sound pretty radical in and of themselves without viewing the entire picture. I'm sure you've seen similar occurrences with political organizations which you support as well.<br><br><br><br>
As to their exact positions, the NRA is a pro firearms organization that furthers the shooting sports and private firearms ownership. This is accomplished through lobbying efforts and political support/contributions to pro 2nd candidates, through firearms safety education and training for youth, and through legal representation and support of various challenges to legislation or judicial decisions that infringe on these rights, among many other practices. If you want some specifics about what they are presently pursuing I'd refer you to their website and <a href="http://www.NRA.org." target="_blank">www.NRA.org.</a> One of the projects that they are focused on at the moment is the defeat of the renewal of the magazine capacity ban, which expires in 2003, which in my view was one of the more idiotic kneejerk reactions enacted into law. This will likely be characterized as something like "The NRA is opposed to renewal of the Crime Bill" or some such . . . <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/grin.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="">

 

[veganinohio]

<br><br>
Yeah, I guess that is just one thing in a long list. So what?

 

[GhostUser]

So, we're both kinda activist types, just with different agendas. That's all.

 

[veganinohio]

edit: (I'm going to back out of what I said here--it was stupid and just not true--I'll leave the following sarcasm, though). Everything's just peachy!

 

[GhostUser]

Au contraire, I'm all in favor of changing MANY things, even my diet (well, a little . . . )

 

[Thalia]

So how many bullets can a magazine hold now, and what limit if any would the NRA like to see, if technology or whatever could allow unlimited bullets per magazine?<br><br><br><br>
What is the reasoning? That it is a form of infringement on the 2nd amendment?

 

[GhostUser]

Thalia, since 1994, any newly manufactured magazine can't accept more than 10 rounds, per Federal law. Any that were manufactured prior to this time (and there are oodles) are grandfathered. Prior to that time the only limit was practical, as in how many can the firearm reasonably hold without becoming too cumbersome and unwieldy. The magazine capacity ban has done nothing to reduce crime (as expected) but it has proven to be a major hindrance to sport shooters who are forced to scour the used parts bins and other sources for "pre Clinton" mags. The only way that this bill was able to pass through Congress was with the stipulation that it would "sunset" (expire) in 10 years, and it will do so in 2003 if not renewed. My position, and I'm sure it is the NRA's as well, is that this is an unreasonable restriction with no evidence that it provides any societal benefit whatsoever, and further that it infringes upon Second Amendment freedoms.<br><br><br><br>
Let me just say though that several of my own family members do not own firearms and will not allow them in their homes for what they perceive to be moral or safety reasons. That's fine and I support everyone's right to live as they please. However, when the government attempts to dictate how *I* choose to live, and further attempts to restrict or infringe any law abiding individual's ability to defend themselves or their family from crimes of violence, then its time for a change in my view . . . .

 

[veganinohio]

How many rounds does it take to kill a person?<br><br><br><br>
I agree, it's definitely time for a change. The world perceives Americans as gun-toting freaks, and they're right.

 

[Thalia]

One reason I don't own a gun, nor does my family, is the statistic I have read several places that 51% of (human) deaths by shootings (not sure if just handguns or what) are suicides.<br><br><br><br>
Not to mention death by drunk/angry/jealous etc. family members.<br><br><br><br>
So by doing that I feel my family and I have emliminated a huge source of potential gun violence in our lives.<br><br><br><br>
My parents used to have a dog to warn them (and possibly scare off) potential criminals who may want to enter and hurt us.<br><br><br><br>
bankruptor says:<br><br><div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">I'm sickened that people would still deny others the means to defend themselves this month...</div>
</div>
<br>
I'm not sure if vio was originally referring to the sniper when he said "this month" or what. But I am sure there are plenty of gun owners to take out the sniper, the terrorists, etc. If only they knew where to point their guns. And if we knew that...