 |
|
Caligastia
|
|
Believe it or not Bill O'Reilly has been bugging me lately.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
cinch
|
|
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Jul 2002 time: 22:31
|
|
Copied And Pasted from Buck's link, in case anyone's too lazy/closed-minded to clicky:
"The Truth: In the spring of 2001, I saw a real ad in a real newspaper in Michigan announcing a real promotion that this real bank had where they would give you a gun (as your up-front interest) for opening up a Certificate of Deposit account. They promoted this in publications all over the country – "More Bang for Your Buck!"
There was news coverage of this bank giving away guns, long before I even shot the scene there. The Chicago Sun Times wrote about how the bank would "hand you a gun" with the purchase of a CD. Those are the precise words used by a bank employee in the film.
When you see me going in to the bank and walking out with my new gun in "Bowling for Columbine" – that is exactly as it happened. Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account. I walked into that bank in northern Michigan for the first time ever on that day in June 2001, and, with cameras rolling, gave the bank teller $1,000 – and opened up a 20-year CD account. After you see me filling out the required federal forms ("How do you spell Caucasian?") – which I am filling out here for the first time – the bank manager faxed it to the bank's main office for them to do the background check. The bank is a licensed federal arms dealer and thus can have guns on the premises and do the instant background checks (the ATF's Federal Firearms database—which includes all federally approved gun dealers—lists North Country Bank with Federal Firearms License #4-38-153-01-5C-39922).
Within 10 minutes, the "OK" came through from the firearms background check agency and, 5 minutes later, just as you see it in the film, they handed me a Weatherby Mark V Magnum rifle (If you'd like to see the outtakes, click here). "
-Michael Moore
Seems pretty straightforward to me that nothing was staged.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
The 2 Michaels (Moore and Savage) are the worst. While Moore is the lying propagandist, Savage represents the ignorant self-grandizing a-hole. Whenever the clock hits 4PM, I switch my radio from 910 to 810.
Matt Drudge ranks third on my list for his incessant boasting that only he represents the total absolute truth,
|
|
|  |
 |
|
cinch
|
|
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Jul 2002 time: 22:31
|
|
quote: Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
quote: Seems pretty straightforward to me that nothing was staged. |
What? Just because he says so? |
Yeah, pretty much. It's his word against the disprovers'. I guess I'll just have to go down to that bank and find out for m'self.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
cinch
|
|
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Jul 2002 time: 22:31
|
|
I should note that I'm not even a Moore fan, really. I mean, he doesn't piss me off as much as he seems to for other people, but I don't care that much for him.
Franken, though... That guy's aces.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999 time: 23:31
|
|
Gepap, pundits can't be propagandists?
Odin - quote: Even my US Government textbook and the US Supreme Court says that the 2nd Amendmnet doesn't give everybody the right to bear arms, only those in the national gaurd. |
Funny, there was no national guard when the 2nd Amendment was written. Does your US government text book explain that?
The word "militia" meant state militias as defined by the states at that time, and the states had 2 militias - one with more formal training and "on-call" and another comprised of the citizenry, the "irregular" militia, who would be called into action when needed to back up the smaller "regular" militia. These "irregular" militias fought in the Revolution, the War of 1812, The Indian Wars, the Mexican War, and the US Civil War. According to you (or these people you seem willing to rely on), the only right mentioned in the 2nd Amendment - the right of THE PEOPLE (not the right of the militia) to keep and bear arms is negated by the Framer's explanation and advice that the states were the ultimate arbiters of their liberty via militias. Does that make sense? Why did the Framers mention a right of the people to keep and bear arms if they meant only to guarantee state militias this "right"? Btw, states don't have rights, they have powers (read the 10th Amendment).
If you were serious, you'd read what the Framers wrote about the right to keep and bear arms - they were, after all, unanimous on the matter.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:31
|
|
On the second amendment, it was directed to restricting the power of the Federal Government from banning or regulating the "right" of the poeple to keep and bear arms, rifles, pistols and the like, so that they could form state militias. The founding fathers were concerned that the Feds could kill the militia by banning private ownership of weapons and being the sole source of weapons for the state militias, which would not be forthcoming.
This is a States vs. the Feds balance-of-power issue.
The second amendment is silent on the issue of whether a state could ban weapons. This issue has never been the focus of any litigation that I know of, and has not been addressed by the Supremes. The only case where the Supremes took up the issue involved a "sawed off" shotgun. The Supremes decide that a ban on this kind of weapon was outside the Second Amendment because it was clearly not a military weapon. However, clearly suggests that a ban on military weapons, such as assault rifles, by the Federal government falls squarely in the sights of the Second Amendment.
Last edited by Ned on 17-10-2003 at 08:42
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31. Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|