[Legion]

Canada: A Culture of Fear

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/bowli...nes/canada.htm

OH, CANADA!
After over an hour spent on the horrors of the United States, Moore switches to the peaceful utopian poppy field and candy cane society of Canada. He begins by arguing that Canada and the United States are very similar — except that Canada has a generous welfare state, and no culture of fear.

It is quite apparent to anyone that Canada is a fairly decent and safe place to live (especially if you like to pay 60% of your income in taxes). It's true that Canada does have a lot of guns compared to England or Japan, but Canada's per-capita gun ownership rate is about a third of the American level.




Race in Canada

Moore says there are lots of black people in Canada and to prove it - he shows us!:



Yes, Moore shows 3 ethnic minority women walking down the street with the caption 'Toronto Canada' as if to say "SEE! I told you they're here!"

Moore then tells the audience that 13 percent of the Canadian population is minority ethnic, the same as in the U.S. Well, actually, it's about 31 percent in the U.S., (but maybe he just got the number backwards by accident). More significantly, blacks and Hispanics, who are involved in well over 50 percent of American homicides (both as victims and as perpetrators) make up about 2.5 percent of the Canadian population. In the United States, each group makes up about one-eighth of the U.S. population.

Comparing U.S. gun-death totals with Canada's, Moore offers a U.S. total that includes death by legal intervention (e.g., a violent felon being shot by a police officer) while omitting this same category from the Canadian total.

Unlocked doors

We see Moore, in Toronto, expressing his amazement that people in this city don't lock their doors. He even goes to a few doors, tries them, and, sure enough, they are not locked. But if Moore wanted to find places where you can leave the door unlocked, he didn't need to leave the U.S. I do that now. David Hardy in his own dissection of BFC says he does as well and did so when he lived in the Washington DC metropolitan area, at a time when it was the homicide capital of the U.S. Hardy says "I lived in a suburb where crime was close to unknown, and locking the doors when you were home was just an obstacle to going outside. And, no, it wasn't a fancy gated community populated by millionaires. A Hispanic family lived across the street, a fellow government worker next to me, a Navy vet diagonally across from me."

But the point is that we see here that Toronto is a safe haven. Only problem is that it isn't

An article in the London Free Press (11/2/02) refers to "Bloody Sunday" in Toronto in which there were, recently, "four frightening fatal shootings.... four shocking murders" in one night. Did I just say shootings?! Yep, these murders were committed with guns.

An article in Canada's National Post (11/28/02) says:

"Toronto's recent wave of street murders -- more than 40 since the beginning of 2001 -- debunks the claim that Ottawa's gun registry is making Canadians safer from crime.... Nearly all of the Toronto murders have been committed with handguns. Yet the guns have been subject to registration since 1934. In fact, registration has done nothing to stem the use of handguns in murder: In the past 15 years, the proportion of all firearm murders committed with handguns has nearly doubled in Canada from just over one-third to nearly two-thirds."

Moreover, by all measures, it appears that Canada's handgun registry is a dismal failure in solving crimes. As in the States, cops find guns used in crime when they find the criminals.

Wrong on poverty

Moore dismisses typical liberal concerns about poverty creating crime, noting that,

"Liberals contend [gun violence is a result of] all the poverty we have here. But the unemployment rate in Canada is twice what we have here."

By every measure of international comparison, though, Canada's poverty rate is significantly lower than that of the U.S., thanks to the generous social insurance programs that he repeatedly praises in the film.

Wrong on Crime in Canada

In BFC Michael Moore would have you believe that Canada is a crime free utopia. Larry Pratt from Gunowners.org looks at a shot where Moore asks a policeman in Windsor, Ontario, if he's ever heard of anyone shot in Windsor? Answer: "No." Any murders-by-gun? Answer: "Fifteen to 20 years ago." Says Moore: Therefore, there are "no Canadians shooting other Canadians" in the Windsor area which has about 400,000 people.

But, as Pratt details on his website, once again, this is wrong. The Canadian Press Newswire (3/17/2000), datelined Windsor, Ontario, reports two convictions for murder and one for attempted murder. The weapon used in these murders and attempted murder on December 4, 1997, was "a silver revolver."

But perhaps that's a little nit-picky. Mr. Pratt's research just proves that policeman didn't remember that incident. With all reasonability, Moore's generalization is essentially correct. However, the generalized representation is either very dishonest or very uninformed. The conversation and comment is about guns, but the argument of the scene is that Canadians aren't killing each other - not that they aren't shooting each other. Moore illustrates this in the unlocked doors sequence and makes it clear when he says the reasons Americans kill each other is because they are pumped with fear from the media and Canadians aren't (what he really means is 'the news' not 'the media' because of course he admits that Canadians watch our movies, listen to our music and play our same video games).

But reality in Canada is a little different than Moore's fictitious portrayal. Indeed There have been other horrible crimes of violence in Windsor besides this 1997 shooting, but Moore doesn't count or mention them, because they did not involve guns - which, as I said, is a very dishonest manipulation since his thesis here is really on violence in general; guns just being an example. In another Canadian Press Newswire story (3/2/2000), also datelined Windsor, Ontario, we're told of a woman who killed her abusive husband by plunging a 7.5 centimetre paring knife into his chest.

And in yet another Canadian Press Newswire story (2/2/01), datelined Windsor, Ontario, we're told of a man convicted of second degree murder for torturing and killing a co-worker who he beat, hog-tied and nearly decapitated with a serrated knife - yikes.

[kyleb]

[Legion]

Originally Posted by kyleb

lie2 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l)
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

de·ceive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-sv)
v. de·ceived, de·ceiv·ing, de·ceives
v. tr.
To cause to believe what is not true; mislead.
Archaic. To catch by guile; ensnare.

v. intr.
To practice deceit.
To give a false impression: appearances can deceive.

fic·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fkshn)
n.

An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented.
The act of inventing such a creation or pretense.
A lie.

A literary work whose content is produced by the imagination and is not necessarily based on fact.
The category of literature comprising works of this kind, including novels and short stories.
Law. Something untrue that is intentionally represented as true by the narrator.

our discussion is over. You have nothing to add to this debate nor can you refute the allegations. You simply deny them.

[RussSchultz]

You simply deny them.

No he doesn't.*

Brought to you by Monty Python's argument clinic. http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm

[Legion]

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

No he doesn't.*

Brought to you by Monty Python's argument clinic. http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm

then what does he? Yes he does.*

brought to you by Who's On First!

[kyleb]

i am glad you are ready to call it quits Legion, i have been growing tired of the discussion as well. however, i do want to post one last thing. i was seaching google images for something entirely unrelated and stumbled across a pic of Moore, i clicked on the link to find this quote from him which you might find interesting:

I don’t start with a rigid script. I don’t have a thesis that I have to shoehorn every interview into and I love being surprised and my own thinking being proved wrong.

[Gilhooley]

Michael Moore:
Well, guess what. Total number of lawsuits to date against me or my film by the NRA? NONE. That's right, zero. And don't forget for a second that if they could have shut this film down on a technicality they would have. But they didn't and they can't – because the film is factually solid and above reproach. In fact, we have not been sued by any individual or group over the statements made in "Bowling for Columbine?" Why is that? Because everything we say is true – and the things that are our opinion, we say so and leave it up to the viewer to decide if our point of view is correct or not for each of them.

Legion, your such a moron its just sad

[RussSchultz]

Uh, Moore escapes law suites because its within his right as satire to say just about whatever he wants.

But it doesn't make it true, simply because he hasn't been sued.

[Legion]

Originally Posted by RussSchultz

Uh, Moore escapes law suites because its within his right as satire to say just about whatever he wants.

But it doesn't make it true, simply because he hasn't been sued.

it more than likely wouldn't be cost affective. He'd just say his movies are for "entertainment value only" and demonstrate how they aren't factual and be done with it while all Moore-ons would continue to parrot his mantra.

[Legion]

Originally Posted by kyleb

i am glad you are ready to call it quits Legion, i have been growing tired of the discussion as well.

Saying nothing so often bothers you i take it.

however, i do want to post one last thing.

Maybe you should have posted things of substance before. You never addressed my points. You merely ridiculed them. You haven't take part in a debate you have just attempted character assisination.

i was seaching google images for something entirely unrelated and stumbled across a pic of Moore, i clicked on the link to find this quote from him which you might find interesting:

I do find it funny. He admits to starting with his conclusion then selects and then goes about proving his logic in a circular fashion. He is a true moron.

[Legion]

Originally Posted by Gilhooley

Legion, your such a moron its just sad

despite the fact it was just proven not to be true by FBI, records, historical accounts, etc? Try harder next time.

[Bigus Dickus]

I tried to watch Moore's BfC piece of trash fiction. I'm not a gun nut. I don't own any guns. I don't have a hard on for extreme conservatives, and would really like to see gun control measures strengthened.

But I got sick to my stomach watching that film. Knowing that ignorant Americans would fall for his lies. Knowing that liars like Moore are one of the biggest problems in our country, and on this planet. People like that who manipulate other people's emotions lead to murders, suicide bombings, and wars.

It is disgusting. And anyone that can defend Moore and his fictional creation is beyond disgust.

[kyleb]

omg now hes not just a liar but he insites suicide bombings!

[Nite_Hawk]

I tend to think of myself as a rather liberal person. I voted green last election, I tend not to vote along party lines. I dislike Bush, and dislike many of the things that the Republican party have done and are continuing to do in our country. Having said this, I agree with a number of people here in that Moore is dishonest with Bowling for Columbine. He intentionally is distorting history to institute an emotional response in his readers so as to align them with his own political agenda. The most commonly used technique by Moore seems to be by splicing different pieces of information together to create new information. Examples of this include:

- The speech supposedly given by Charlton Heston, though no actual speech was given as presented. Fragments of different speeches were used to create the new one.

- The commercial attributed to the Bush campaign as was presented by Moore never existed, it was a combination of commercials from different sources.

It's like programming. You can take fragments of a program or multiple programs and assemble them together, but what you've created by doing so is something that is completely independent of the original program. Any malady caused by this new program can not be attributed to the original program's author unless it exists in the original as well.

Moore is in effect, creating new information with his video by taking pieces of original works and assembling them into something new. He is then trying to attribute information created by the new assembly back to the original authors. This new information though, only exists due to the way in which Moore has manipulated the original presentation. Any such information derived due to the assembly created by Moore which is not in the original is his own, and thus is a fabrication. This information then at the best can be considered propaganda, but more than likely is deceit.

In addition to the above, there appears to be several cases in which Moore is incorrect about specific topics. Lockheed Martin certainly does produce weapons for the military, but Moore's specific facts about where and when are inaccurate. Though this by no means implies an intent to misrepresent the truth on the part of Moore, it certainly favors his argument while spreading disinformation about the topic.

In the end, we are left with a fairly large amount of information in the movie fabricated by Moore either through intent, or simply due to carelessness. For this reason, the movie can not be looked at as a critique of reality, but only as a critique of a reality in part conjectured by Moore. While this may be interesting and emotionally charged, it is not an accurate basis on which to make judgments about the real world, and certainly not an accurate basis on which to make judgments about people and organizations in the real world.

Thanks,
Nite_Hawk

[Bigus Dickus]

Originally Posted by kyleb

omg now hes not just a liar but he insites suicide bombings!

Learn how to read, or if you recently mastered that skill then try to refrain from immitating Moore by substituting your own warped view of reality for what people actually said.

Jesus.

I said "people like that." I didn't say Moore was responsible for inciting suicide bombings. My assertion is that people who direct terrorist activity use lies, deceit, and above all emotional manipulation to invoke a desired response in their audience. Moore does the same. Terrorist organizers are dangerous people. Moore is a dangerous person. I can say that without declaring that Moore is a terrorist organizer.

But then again, anyone who believes one single word Moore has uttered is used to ignoring reality to prevent their own fragile delusions from crumbling.




Nite Hawk - well said.

[kyleb]

Bigus Dickus, i was just giving you crap because i found it funny that you would compare Moore's attempt to sway our country from violence with people who do incite violence.

also Nite_Hawk, watch Heston's speech in the movie next to the transcript and not that it is not "fragments of different speeches" at all, everything shown was said at the speech in question. then watch the part were there is a clip from a the bush campaign and see that it is not presented to look like other clips were part of the same commercial. you have clearly been mislead, but not by Moore.

[Himself]

hrm, after weighing the pros and cons of each sides point of view I have come to the conclusion that Americans are nutty. Thank you.

[Bigus Dickus]

Originally Posted by kyleb

i am guessing i didn't bother reading the arguments, but i am afraid i lied. i look like a fool by misrepresenting the truth; quite clearly bs and character assignation. as i said already, i have yet to have the integrity to support your facts. emotional arguments based on conjecture tarnish the creditably of those presenting said arguments.

i will no longer trick people into thinking Moore is any different. Moore makes it rather obvious that the interview presented is wrong - simply a collection of fabrication, bs accusations, an inability to grasp rational thought, and opinions - a lie.

i know that i have obvious conjecture and opinionated arguments, and piles of it. i call it quits.

[pax]

Originally Posted by Bigus Dickus

I tried to watch Moore's BfC piece of trash fiction. I'm not a gun nut. I don't own any guns. I don't have a hard on for extreme conservatives, and would really like to see gun control measures strengthened.

But I got sick to my stomach watching that film. Knowing that ignorant Americans would fall for his lies. Knowing that liars like Moore are one of the biggest problems in our country, and on this planet. People like that who manipulate other people's emotions lead to murders, suicide bombings, and wars.

It is disgusting. And anyone that can defend Moore and his fictional creation is beyond disgust.

Moore is as much a product of a population who need political expression than one to create it all by himself. He gets an audience not with manipulation (a simplistic argument that can be made at any one who expresses himself) but mostly with some colorful, some true, some exaggerated and some wrong facts about american society. He's popular not with emotional manipulation. He's popular because millions of americans see him as hitting some good and hard hitting notes with his movies and books. They arent the best on the genre. And the best are rarely the most popular. But a lot of what he says has been said before by very reputable authors. Only not as stylishly.

Do you guys really expect to be taken seriously by saying that Moore has told nothing but lies? Ive checked on enough outrageous facts to know he's not all bs... I really hate the entire heston interview and the kmart bit and the little bit on the real origins of the NRA and KKK in 1871 (odd coincidence tho) but right wingers who list that error in their web pages dont say if the NRA fought for black rights to own guns as much as they fought for white people if at all...

How about showcasing a few entire Heston NRA speeches to compare with Moore's collage? I dont see a single link that shows this here. I did read one last year and the speeches are as blusterous as what Moore portrayed. No real diffs in content or style. Not that that makes any diff to the point BFC makes. Which admittedly is a very subjective one tho I find it at least worthy of investigation by sociologists. And I firmly believe in an individuals right to own even automatic weapons. Of course after good and regular background checks with clear standards of mental competence. Not that that would exclude many I dont think.

I think we can lighten up here. The neo cons can make their own movies and they have no lack of $ or excuse to do it. If they choose to make one that will denounce Moore himself Ill be sure to see it. Id rather they spend their energies on the next campaign tho. Might be a better idea to make a flick on the democratic nominee especially if general Clark wins seeing as Moore is making one on Bush... Ive got q's on Wesley Clark as to what kind of guy he is and if hes really deserving of the responsibility of president.

I find it amusing that other than a few web pages there have no real efforts to take on Moore in the media in the last 10 years. Moore says a lot of true things that hurt the right and they know bringing it back to the front burner in movies and on tv will only get that knowledge more coverage. Especially to the millions of fans he's made.

How could anyone be this much in the public eye and only tell lies?... cmon guys...

[Legion]

Originally Posted by Nite_Hawk

I tend to think of myself as a rather liberal person. I voted green last election, I tend not to vote along party lines. I dislike Bush, and dislike many of the things that the Republican party have done and are continuing to do in our country. Having said this, I agree with a number of people here in that Moore is dishonest with Bowling for Columbine. He intentionally is distorting history to institute an emotional response in his readers so as to align them with his own political agenda. The most commonly used technique by Moore seems to be by splicing different pieces of information together to create new information. Examples of this include:

I appreciate your objectivity

lie2 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l)
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

- The speech supposedly given by Charlton Heston, though no actual speech was given as presented. Fragments of different speeches were used to create the new one.

- The commercial attributed to the Bush campaign as was presented by Moore never existed, it was a combination of commercials from different sources.

It's like programming. You can take fragments of a program or multiple programs and assemble them together, but what you've created by doing so is something that is completely independent of the original program. Any malady caused by this new program can not be attributed to the original program's author unless it exists in the original as well.

WHich is to say that Moore was deliberately misrepresenting Heston with information he poses to be true which in reality is false.

Moore is in effect, creating new information with his video by taking pieces of original works and assembling them into something new. He is then trying to attribute information created by the new assembly back to the original authors. This new information though, only exists due to the way in which Moore has manipulated the original presentation. Any such information derived due to the assembly created by Moore which is not in the original is his own, and thus is a fabrication. This information then at the best can be considered propaganda, but more than likely is deceit.

See definition of lie

In addition to the above, there appears to be several cases in which Moore is incorrect about specific topics. Lockheed Martin certainly does produce weapons for the military, but Moore's specific facts about where and when are inaccurate. Though this by no means implies an intent to misrepresent the truth on the part of Moore, it certainly favors his argument while spreading disinformation about the topic.

I have yet to see him turn up a shread of information on laser weapons being produced in the littleton plant. Where is the finished product? There is no doubt Lockheed produces weapons. There dispute is over the littleton plant.

In the end, we are left with a fairly large amount of information in the movie fabricated by Moore either through intent, or simply due to carelessness.

who won and award for his efforts...

For this reason, the movie can not be looked at as a critique of reality, but only as a critique of a reality in part conjectured by Moore. While this may be interesting and emotionally charged, it is not an accurate basis on which to make judgments about the real world, and certainly not an accurate basis on which to make judgments about people and organizations in the real world.

I definately agree with you.

[Legion]

Pax are you struggling to find something he said worth believing in? None of us have stated Moore has lied without posting evidence of such behavior. He does it often enough that that anyone should doubt his credibility.

[Legion]

Do you guys really expect to be taken seriously by saying that Moore has told nothing but lies? Ive checked on enough outrageous facts to know he's not all bs... I really hate the entire heston interview and the kmart bit and the little bit on the real origins of the NRA and KKK in 1871 (odd coincidence tho) but right wingers who list that error in their web pages dont say if the NRA fought for black rights to own guns as much as they fought for white people if at all...

Have you read the links i have posted Pax? Pax what has he presented that you would say is fact and then explain how his fact supports his thesis. Did you read the NRA historical portion? Whether they helped blacks or not (which they did as there were black NRA groups in the south) has nothing to do with them being the intellectual offspring of the KKK. That is just absurd. How on earth can you expect anyone to take your argument seriously when you suggest such ridiculous things.

How about showcasing a few entire Heston NRA speeches to compare with Moore's collage? I dont see a single link that shows this here.

What exactly are you asking for? My links according to the topic present factualy evidence that Moore doctored those speaches. To put it simply Moore sought to misrepresent Heston.

Why are you so bound and determined to find even the slightest thing positive about Moore's work of fiction? I can't imagine you still consider him a viable source of information when he deliberately sought to misrepresent facts. Is it because Moore is the only person that confirms your equally ridiculous "observations" of americans?

I did read one last year and the speeches are as blusterous as what Moore portrayed.

How on earth does this give Moore liscence to lie? What on earth does your perception of the speach have to do with anything?

No real diffs in content or style.

Now i question your reasoning. THe NRA speaches are to rally the support of NRA members. Moore lies to convey a message to the public. Two completely different tactics.

Why do i get the feeling that you have found an enemy in the NRA pax? Did not Moore himself substantiate guns are not the cause of violence?

Not that that makes any diff to the point BFC makes.

Moore calls them all racists.

Which admittedly is a very subjective one tho I find it at least worthy of investigation by sociologists.

This is idiotic and irrelevant.

And I firmly believe in an individuals right to own even automatic weapons. Of course after good and regular background checks with clear standards of mental competence. Not that that would exclude many I dont think.

Alright. DO you support these gun owners right to organize?

I think we can lighten up here.

I think its about time you stopped being so damned myopic and examine the whole picture Pax. Moore is not an honest person. The only reason you choose to support Moore is that you share his belief that america lives in a culture of fear. Talk about relative and subjective . In my mind this invalidates all of your points in favor of Moore. You are willing to over the countless times he manipulates and mispresents facts. Does that not tell you something about your agenda? You are having to defend a known liar simply to have some one to share an opinion with. I don't know why you are going so far. His "facts" never supported his thesis to begin with. BFC is just an inconsistant collage of imagery, psuedofacts and lies. None ever point back to the thesis as their cause.

The neo cons can make their own movies and they have no lack of $ or excuse to do it.

Why do you keep repeating this statement? Because Moore has misrepresented the neo cons should to? How does this excuse his actions? Pax this is flemsy piece of apologetics.

If they choose to make one that will denounce Moore himself Ill be sure to see it.

I believe Larry Elder is doing a docu on Moore.

Id rather they spend their energies on the next campaign tho. Might be a better idea to make a flick on the democratic nominee especially if general Clark wins seeing as Moore is making one on Bush... Ive got q's on Wesley Clark as to what kind of guy he is and if hes really deserving of the responsibility of president.

Which will make Clark's loss all the more satisfying.

I find it amusing that other than a few web pages there have no real efforts to take on Moore in the media in the last 10 years.

Same thing is true for Ann Coultar.

Moore says a lot of true things that hurt the right and they know bringing it back to the front burner in movies and on tv will only get that knowledge more coverage. Especially to the millions of fans he's made.

Can you name all those "true" things pax? What has he said that hurts the right that is based on real facts?

How could anyone be this much in the public eye and only tell lies?... cmon guys...

Pax point out to me which parts of what he says is true? Since when does being in the public eye have anything to do with being sincere? You say he has millions of fans and I say there are millions more who are not. You speak of all the fans he has made and i shall speak of all those he has lost.

Pax are you trying to substantiate your beliefs by how many people buy BFC? Please do not speak down to us. We have provide plenty of evidence Moore is a liar. You have yet to show us a single reason as to agree with Moore's premise in light of the facts: A. Nothing Moore presents supports his thesis on fear and violence, B. He lies to try and make his point, C. using emotion rather than logic to come to his conclusions. Pax will you for a second as yourself why, if there is so much truth in what Moore is saying that he has to turn to deception to convey a point? If what he is saying is so true why can't he provide real facts? Why would he go to such great lengths to present his argument if not for any other reason then he had to?

[Legion]

also Nite_Hawk, watch Heston's speech in the movie next to the transcript and not that it is not "fragments of different speeches" at all, everything shown was said at the speech in question.

Kyleb the clip that is shown on the webpage and the message that you seem to have acquired from it are infact incorrect. Watch BFC. That is not the full scene. Apparently you didn't watch the clips yourself for if you did you would have realized Moore's clip doesn't complete the transcript.

the transcript

GOOD MORNING.

I want to welcome you to this abbreviated annual gathering of the National Rifle Association. Thank you for coming and thank you for supporting your organization. I also want to applaud your courage in coming here today. Of course, you have a right to be here.

As you know, we've canceled the festivities and fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. I apologize for that. But it's fitting and proper that we should do this ... because NRA members are, above all, Americans. That means whatever our differences, we are respectful of one another and we stand united, especially in adversity

Wellington Webb, the mayor of Denver, sent me a message: "Don't come here. We don't want you here, "

I say to the Mayor, I volunteered for the war they wanted me to attend when I was 18 years old. Since then, I've run small errands for my country from Nigeria to Vietnam. I know many of you could say the same. But the Mayor said, "Don't come."

I'm sorry for that. I'm sorry for the newspaper ads saying the same thing. "Don't come here." This is our country. As Americans we are free to travel wherever we wish in our broad land.

They say we'll create a media distraction. But we were preceded here by hundreds of intrusive news crews. They say we'll create political distraction. But it has not been the NRA pressing for political advantage, calling press conferences to propose vast packages of new legislation.

They say, "Don't come here." I guess what saddens me most is how it suggests complicity. It implies that you and I and eighty million honest gun owners are somehow to blame, that we don't care as much as they, or that we don't deserve to be as shocked and horrified as every other soul in America mourning for the people of Littleton.

"Don't come here." That's offensive. It's also absurd, because we live here.

There are thousands of NRA members in Denver and tens upon tens of thousands in the state of Colorado. NRA members labor in Denver's factories, populate Denver's faculties, run Denver corporations, play on Colorado sports teams, work in media across the front range, parent and teach and coach Denver's children, attend Denver's churches, and proudly represent Denver in uniform on the world's oceans and in the skies over Kosovo at this very moment.

NRA members are in City Hall, Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy and the Olympic Training Center. And yes, NRA members are surely among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the students of Columbine from evil, mindless executioners.

"Don't come here?" We are already here. This community is our home. Every community in America is our home. We are a 128-year-old fixture of mainstream America. The Second Amendment ethic of lawful, responsible firearm ownership spans the broadest cross-section of American life imaginable.

So we have the same right as all other citizens to be here ... to help shoulder the grief... to share our sorrow ... and to offer our respectful, reasoned voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy

One more thing. Our words and our behavior will be scrutinized more than ever this morning. Those who are hostile toward us will lie in wait to seize on a soundbite out of context, ever searching for an embarrassing moment to ridicule us. So let us be mindful ... the eyes of the nation are upon us today.

The clip from moore's webpage

Here is what you hear in the clip

-watch the clip carefully! Moore edits out a number of things he had in the movie.

The very first thing Moore has Heston saying is

"I have only five words for you: 'from my cold, dead, hands.'

You won't hear this in the clip and here is why: 'Cold dead hands" is nowhere in speech. It is actually from a speech given by Heston in Charlotte, N.C., a year later." Moore censored it from the clip he shows on his webpage.

Moore himself is suggesting all that you see and hear in this clip are represented of the speach as it was actually given. Taking Moore at his word why does Heston's tie change from grey to red a few seconds into the clip ?

GOOD MORNING.

I want to welcome you to this abbreviated annual gathering of the National Rifle Association. Thank you for coming and thank you for supporting your organization. I also want to applaud your courage in coming here today. Of course, you have a right to be here.

As you know, we've canceled the festivities and fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. I apologize for that. But it's fitting and proper that we should do this ... because NRA members are, above all, Americans. That means whatever our differences, we are respectful of one another and we stand united, especially in adversity

Wellington Webb, the mayor of Denver, sent me a message: "Don't come here. We don't want you here, "

I say to the Mayor, I volunteered for the war they wanted me to attend when I was 18 years old. Since then, I've run small errands for my country from Nigeria to Vietnam. I know many of you could say the same. But the Mayor said, "Don't come."

I'm sorry for that. I'm sorry for the newspaper ads saying the same thing. "Don't come here." This is our country. As Americans we are free to travel wherever we wish in our broad land.

They say we'll create a media distraction. But we were preceded here by hundreds of intrusive news crews. They say we'll create political distraction. But it has not been the NRA pressing for political advantage, calling press conferences to propose vast packages of new legislation.

They say, "Don't come here." I guess what saddens me most is how it suggests complicity. It implies that you and I and eighty million honest gun owners are somehow to blame, that we don't care as much as they, or that we don't deserve to be as shocked and horrified as every other soul in America mourning for the people of Littleton.

"Don't come here." That's offensive. It's also absurd, because we live here.

There are thousands of NRA members in Denver and tens upon tens of thousands in the state of Colorado. NRA members labor in Denver's factories, populate Denver's faculties, run Denver corporations, play on Colorado sports teams, work in media across the front range, parent and teach and coach Denver's children, attend Denver's churches, and proudly represent Denver in uniform on the world's oceans and in the skies over Kosovo at this very moment.

NRA members are in City Hall, Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy and the Olympic Training Center. And yes, NRA members are surely among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the students of Columbine from evil, mindless executioners.

"Don't come here?" We are already here. This community is our home. Every community in America is our home. We are a 128-year-old fixture of mainstream America. The Second Amendment ethic of lawful, responsible firearm ownership spans the broadest cross-section of American life imaginable.

the next line spoken doesn't seem to exist in this speach we have work to do, hearts to heal, evil to defeat, a country to unite....

So we have the same right as all other citizens to be here ... to help shoulder the grief... to share our sorrow ... and to offer our respectful, reasoned voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy

One more thing. Our words and our behavior will be scrutinized more than ever this morning. Those who are hostile toward us will lie in wait to seize on a soundbite out of context, ever searching for an embarrassing moment to ridicule us. So let us be mindful ... the eyes of the nation are upon us today

-by Heston's admittion the meeting had all its activities cancelled dispite moore's accussations of a "big progun rally" being held. They couldn't avoid having some kind of a meeting as this annual get event is required by law

Kylab you continue to deny Moore's wrong doing though all the evidence seems to substantiate what the refutations have already stated: Moore spliced the film to misrepresent Heston

then watch the part were there is a clip from a the bush campaign and see that it is not presented to look like other clips were part of the same commercial. you have clearly been mislead, but not by Moore.

you haven't seen the movie have you?

1. Willie Horton. The first edition of the webpage had a section on falsification of the election ad regarding Willie Horton (the convict, not the baseball star). This was one of the earliest criticisms of Bowling--Ben Fritz caught it back in November, 2002.

To illustrate politicians' (and especially Republican politicians') willingness to play the "race card," Bowling shows what purports to be a television ad run by George Bush, Sr., in his race against Governor Dukakis. For those who weren't around back then -- Massachusetts had a "prison furlough" program where prisoners could be given short releases from the clink. Unfortunately, some of them never came back. Dukakis vetoed legislation which would have forbidden furlough to persons with "life without parole" sentences for murder, and authorities thereafter furloughed a number of murderers. Horton, in prison for a brutal stabbing murder, got a furlough, never returned, and then attacked a couple, assaulting both and raping the woman. His opponents in the presidental race took advantage of the the veto.

The ad as shown by Moore begins with a "revolving door" of justice, progresses to a picture of Willie Horton (who is black), and ends with dramatic subtitle: "Willie Horton released. Then kills again."

Fact: Bowling splices together two different election ads, one run by the Bush campaign (featuring a revolving door, and not even mentioning Horton) and another run by an independent expenditure campaign (naming Horton, and showing footage from which it can be seen that he is black). At the end, the ad ala' Moore has the customary note that it was paid for by the Bush-Quayle campaign. Moore intones "whether you're a psychotic killer or running for president of the United States, the one thing you can always count on is white America's fear of the black man." There is nothing to reveal that most of the ad just seen (and all of it that was relevant to Moore's claim) was not the Bush-Quayle ad, which didn't even name Horton.

Fact: Apparently unsatisfied with splicing the ads, Bowling's editors added a subtitle "Willie Horton released. Then kills again."

Fact: Ben Fitz also noted that Bowling's editors didn't bother to research the events before doctoring the ads. Horton's second arrest was not for murder. (The second set of charges were aggravated assault and rape).


I originally deleted this from the main webpage, because in the VHS version of Bowling Moore had the decency to remove the misleading footage. But as Brendan Nyhan recently wrote in Spinsanity, he put it back in in the DVD version! He did make one minor change, switching his edited-in caption to "Willie Horton released. Then rapes a woman." Obviously Moore had been informed of the Spinsanity criticism. He responded by correcting his own typo, not by removing the edited in caption, nor by revealing that the ad being shown was not in fact a Bush-Quayle ad.

[ByteMe]

When were blacks allowed to have guns? All hell is gona break loose now.

[Legion]

Originally Posted by ByteMe

When were blacks allowed to have guns? All hell is gona break loose now.

Fact: The NRA was founded in 1871 -- by act of the New York Legislature, at request of former Union officers. The Klan was founded in 1866, and quickly became a terrorist organization. One might claim that while it was an organization and a terrorist one, it technically became an "illegal" such with passage of the federal Ku Klux Klan Act and Enforcement Act in 1871. These criminalized interference with civil rights, and empowered the President to use troops to suppress the Klan. (Although we'd have to acknowledge that murder, terror and arson were illegal long before that time -- the Klan hadn't been operating legally until 1871, it was operating illegally with the connivance of law enforcement.)


Fact: The Klan Act and Enforcement Act were signed into law by President Ulysess S. Grant. Grant used their provisions vigorously, suspending habeas corpus and deploying troops; under his leadership over 5,000 arrests were made and the Klan was dealt a serious (if all too short-lived) blow.

Fact: Grant's vigor in disrupting the Klan earned him unpopularity among many whites, but Frederick Douglass praised him, and an associate of Douglass wrote that African-Americans "will ever cherish a grateful remembrance of his name, fame and great services."

Fact: After Grant left the White House, the NRA elected him as its eighth president.

Fact: After Grant's term, the NRA elected General Philip Sheridan, who had removed the governors of Texas and Lousiana for failure to suppress the KKK.

Fact: The affinity of NRA for enemies of the Klan is hardly surprising. The NRA was founded by former Union officers, and eight of its first ten presidents were Union veterans.

Fact: During the 1950s and 1960s, groups of blacks organized as NRA chapters in order to obtain surplus military rifles to fight off Klansmen.