Michael Moore's bodyguard arrested on firearms charge

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Let us take it this way, the only thing the Americans put on telly/radio/whatever medium, is propaganda.

[X-ray]

@ Wilse

First off, two points to show that I am not unreasonable:

1) You're right that I shouldn't pigeon-hole you.
2) The story about Michael Moore's bodyguard being arrested on firearms charges is not as big a deal as it is made out to be, because Burk wasn't working for Moore at the time. Ironically, this was first raised by one of the sites that is critical of Moore, and a great source of interesting facts concerning Moore. (moorewatch.com) I found it out today.

However, I would like to explore one little point you made:

"...I didn't. I challenged your pathetically ignorant attempt to discredit and belittle it..."

I would hate to appear ignorant, so perhaps I can give you a different angle on Moore's deception of the viewer. An angle that does not involve a man who you perceive to be an 'arse'. And I'm going to be very reasonable now, not just because I know you would prefer it, but also because I don't want other users here to go away from this thread thinking that Moore can be trusted to put the facts forward in an honest way. And to save those who don't like clicking links, I will provide the salient points here.

Let's see another example of Moore's deception : the apparently innocuous clip of the rifle giveaway at the bank. He walks in to the bank, opens up an account, fills in some papers and walks out with a rifle, apparently in a very short space of time. There are three relevant issues here:

1) The apparent ease with which Moore got the rifle.
2) The special arrangement that was made for Moore to enable him to make (1) above appear real.
3) The nature of the weapon that he got (whether it was acquired easily or not).


Firstly, as concerns (1) above (from moorexposed.com) the transfer of that rifle was and is subject to the Gun Control Act, and could not have been acquired as easily as portrayed unless some staging was carried out prior to filming:

"...One note as to how far the staging may have gone: the bank is in Michigan, and Moore is a resident of New York City. I found a June 6, 1997 article indicating that he'd moved out of Flint and into a $1.2 million apartment in Manhattan, so he was already a resident by the time Bowling was filmed. The importance? Under the Gun Control Act, transfers to a nonresident of your state are tightly limited. A person who is not a licensed dealer cannot (with a few narrow exceptions, none applicable here) transfer a gun to a resident of different state, period. A licensed dealer can transfer a rifle or shotgun to a nonresident, but only if "the sale, delivery, and receipt fully comply with the legal conditions of sale in both such States." 18 U.S. Code sec. 922(b)(3). This requirement is well-known to firearm dealers, and violation is a felony, so they're serious about it. The buyer is also required to produce picture ID to establish his residence. New York City has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. One of them makes it illegal to transfer a rifle or shotgun to anyone who does not hold a rifle and shotgun purchase permit. NY Admin. Code sec. 10-303. The permit is supposed to be issued within 60 days of application, although in practice it takes much longer -- e.g., a 2001 comment, " I recently inquired at the Rifle and Shotgun section of the NYPD. The say it now takes up to six months to get the permit, before it was 3-4 months." So (assuming Moore didn't just slip the dealer his old Michigan driver's license, which would constitute two federal felonies and maybe a third), he probably also spent 6 months or so getting a permit, then persuading the Michigan dealer that he had covered all his NYC legal bases, then getting the rifle ordered in -- all before filming a scene designed to show how easy and quick it was for him to get a rifle...."

Moore has responded to that criticism on his website (MichaelMoore.com):

"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!". . . .
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 ."

To which Moorexposed replies, (relevant to point (2) above:

"...I thought the point in the movie was to illustrate how Mike just saunters into the bank, deposits money, and is handed a gun. Now it develops that the bank holds a Federal Firearms License, Moore had to take out a twenty year CD, had to fill out the federally-required paperwork, the bank had to run a criminal records background check on him through FBI. . . . you know, that casual attitude towards a gun transfer doesn't sound quite so casual any more. Update: the producers of Fahrenhype 9/11 got the bank personnel to appear on-camera. As I'd suspected, the bank doesn't keep a stock of Weatherby firearms (cost $600-15,000 each) in every branch. When the lady says that they have the guns in the vault, she isn't referring to the branch bank's vault, but to a central storage area the bank has. Normal procedure is the customer makes a pick from the catalog or samples on the wall, the bank puts in an order, it arrives several days later, and then the customer fills out paperwork and receives it. Moore had made arrangements in advance for the firearm to be shipped in for filming. So his denial avoids the real issue. Yes, he walked out with the gun that day, but no, this was not normal, but a special arrangement made for his filming..."

Now nobody has addressed point (3), because they haven't read up or researched this. A Weatherby Mark V Magnum rifle is a bolt-action rifle:

http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Firearms/Bolt-Rifles/Weatherby_Mark_V_Rifle.htm

Note the price of that rifle. The number of firearms crimes committed by means of a bolt-action rifle in any country world-wide is EXTREMELY low, and is negligible in terms of the overall number of firearms crimes. By firearms crimes I mean robbery, murder, any firearms offence, even pointing a firearm. If Moore had researched the use of firearms in crime, he would have found this out, and maybe he would have thought twice about having that segment.
Unfortunately there is a grave misconception amongst the general public about the use of firearms in crime, particularly in the erroneous belief that for all intents and purposes 'a gun is a gun.' Look at Wilse's response to my question about why Michael Moore had that rifle segment if he wasn't trying to slam gun ownership:

"Why not? Obviously encouraging people to own guns is not going to help the situation, since if you don't have a gun, you can't shoot anyone. Doesn't mean he blames that alone for it."

And that is the problem. People who aren't in the field don't have a clue about firearms crime. The only reason that I know about firearms crime is because I have researched it. I have to research it, because I am writing a book on it, and it relates to a qualification that I already hold. This research involves medical, police and forensic investigators in USA, SA, and the UK. Most firearms offences in the USA are committed with handguns. The same is true in South Africa even if you take into account the use of assault rifles and machine carbines in cash-in-transit heists (in other words even if you call an AK-47 or an FAL) a plain rifle, though both are fully automatic and fire intermediate cartridges, not magnum hunting cartridges like Moore's rifle. His rifle is for hunting and you'll rarely find bolt-action rifles like that being used in crime, because even criminals know that those rifles are not easily concealed and suffer from a decreased rate of fire which they understandably don't find appealing. I myself processed 150 gunshot victims in JHB in 2002, and collected statistics for 542 victims. There was ONE rifle injury, from a .303 bolt action rifle, and that was an attempted suicide. Now Wilse, you said in a previous post that you were not aware of a documentary needing to be researched. well, here is an example of exactly when it does need to be researched: when the film-maker includes a clip which has the purpose of outlining a particular point that only has relevance if proper statistics are supplied. And I don't mean fabricated statistics, I mean statistics that are scientifically-referenced.

Evidence of the need for research is further found in your erroneous quote to me of information you got from the film, concerning firearms ownership in the US and Canada. Moore deceived you and you tried to quote that false comparison to me. I've given you the proper figures from the Canada Department of Justice.

And then you asked me if I had seen the film, particularly the Canada segment. I regret to tell you that the Canadian authorities took a dim view of his segment. The worst part of it was the apparent purchase of ammunition in Ontario:

(from Moorexposed.com) "...Even the Canadian government is jumping in. Bowling shows Moore casually buying ammunition at an Ontario Walmart. He asks us to "look at what I, a foreign citizen, was able to do at a local Canadian Wal-Mart." He buys several boxes of ammunition without a question being raised. "That's right. I could buy as much ammunition as I wanted, in Canada."

Canadian officials have pointed out that the buy is faked or illegal: Canadian law has since, 1998, required ammunition buyers to present proper identification. Since Jan. 1, 2001, it has required non-Canadians to present a firearms borrowing or importation license, too. (Bowling appears to have been filmed in mid and late 2001).

-----------------------------------------------------------

Now Wilse, let me just add something very frank here: it is a source of extreme irritation and disappointment when we in the field (be it forensic, medical or supplementary) are not given due credit for the hard work and knowledge we have on our particular field of expertise. For somebody to quote crap from Bowling For Columbine to me is not only insulting but is an extension of Moore's agenda of deception and disregard for the real research that is being done by respected professionals around the world.

You might have got a few giggles out of his political satire (and that's fine), but don't think I'm going to sit back idley and let somebody repeat Moore's bullsh1t here, especially when he presents it as fact.

[X-ray]

@ Wilse

You said a while back:

"...Is there anything on that site that actually proves Fatso lied, or is just yet another site, whining about editing techniques?..."

It would be nice if you acknowledged that Moore did willfully deceive the viewer and definitely staged scenes, and provided content that was blatantly untrue, in a deliberate manner. You are almost there with this comment:

"...I'm well aware Moore makes 'propaganda pieces', as you call them..."


Now as for agendas, we seem to be on different wavelengths here. This is your comment to Red:

"...My point is that having an agenda does not disqualify one from making a documentary..."


I've already told you that a documentary has to provide content that is true, non-fiction. Anybody who sets out to willfully deceive the viewer, whether its by editing, splicing, or lying, is not making a documentary. When REAL documentary-makers set about filming they HAVE to see that they provide non-fiction content as a matter of course. Michael Moore's agenda has been one of deliberate deceit, lying, editing of multiple segments to provide new fictitious segments, and providing statistics that either don't exist or have been massaged out of proportion.

That is his agenda. And that is why he makes fiction. It is not by his definition, it is by the definition of what a documentary is. And that is why Attenborough doesn't do that. You know very well what I meant when I said that Moore has an agenda. Don't confuse that with a man who has a point to get across and uses facts and non-fiction to document the truth. Perhaps I should have said Moore has a nefarious agenda? Does that adjective help at all?

The Academy Awards nominators have a lot to answer for too. In rule 12 of what a documentary is, it specifically states that it has to be a work of non-fiction. The fact that BFC got an Oscar for best documentary is testament to the expert manner in which Moore has deceived the public. That includes you (you've been happy to quote Moore's bull to me here in this thread).

Let me remind you of Moore's acceptance speech:


"...On behalf of our producers Kathleen Glynn and Michael Donovan from Canada, I'd like to thank the Academy for this.

I have invited my fellow documentary nominees on the stage with us, and we would like to — they're here in solidarity with me because we like nonfiction.

We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times.

We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elects a fictitious president.

We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons.

Whether it's the fictition of duct tape or fictition of orange alerts we are against this war, Mr. Bush.

Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you.

And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up.

Thank you very much. "

---------------------------------------------------------

"...we like nonfiction.

We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times..."

This is after he deliberately lied and staged his scenes in BFC.
 :lol:

Why don't you just come out with it and admit that you HAVE been deceived and that BFC is fiction (that's the kindest term one can attach to that film).

[Wilse]

@X-Ray:

Now Wilse, let me just add something very frank here: it is a source of extreme irritation and disappointment when we in the field (be it forensic, medical or supplementary) are not given due credit for the hard work and knowledge we have on our particular field of expertise.

Really? You in the field?
Then can you explain to me why my girlfriend, in almost exactly the same field as you, doesn't find it neccessary to constantly remind everyone how knowledgeable she is?
She doesn't even find it neccessary to point out that a cheek bone is actually a zygoma, when speaking to imbeciles such as myself. ;-)

Isn't the desire to constantly remind others of one's qualifications a sign of insecurity?
Oops - sorry. I'm not qualified to make such an analysis. :-D

I may like Moore's films but I don't take them as the full picture, nor have I ever claimed to.
Like everything else I watch, I take them with the obligatory pinch of salt.

[Wilse]

@X-Ray:

It would be nice if you acknowledged that Moore did willfully deceive the viewer

Sure I will - just as soon as you admit that Attenborough, whom you now admit *does* have an agenda, has done the same.


As for the 'gun from the bank' bit, here are my thoughts:

I couldn't give a badger's tadger how many hoops you have to jump through to get the gun, or how pish said gun is.
The simple fact that a gun is offered as a way to attract custom is enough.
It straddles the blurred line between absurd and horrific.

[X-ray]

@ Wilse

"...Really? You in the field? Then can you explain to me why my girlfriend, in almost exactly the same field as you, doesn't find it neccessary to constantly remind everyone how knowledgeable she is?..."

-----------------------------------------------------------
Wilse, I don't have an argument with your girlfriend, and it might be best if you don't bring her into this. However, if she is in the same field as me, I would like to meet her. She will of course have the following in common with me:

1) A medical ethics clearance number for research into gunshot victims. Mine is M020204 and doesn't have an expiry date (most are for 5yrs). Mine was issued in 2002 at the University of the Witwatersrand. My gunshot logbook is in the thousands, so I MIGHT just know something about that subject.

2) A Trauma Imaging Group membership number. This she will definitely have if she is involved in ANY trauma, never mind forensics, which is a discipline covered by TIG. She may have attended one of my lectures for TIG.

3) The UK Forensic Radiography Team has specialists in several fields. They are currently using the mobile X-ray fluoroscopy unit from my theatre room to identify the remains of European tsunami victims in a temporary morgue in south London. They have invited me to head up the ballistics section of that team. I'm sure I'll see your missus there, because we are in the same field.

A little education for you, Wilse, since you obviously haven't found out from your girlfriend: there are many types of radiographers. Some of the more common ones are diagnostic, nuclear medicine, therapy, ultrasound (if trained in SA), forensic, interventional, cross-sectional imaging, G.I.T. and paediatric. It depends on the post-graduate certification and research that the radiographer does. I thought you knew that.

As for your snide comment about constantly reminding you how knowledgeable I am, it stems from your sarcastic comment about how clever I am and what a know-it-all I am being. If I give people here information, I back it up with facts and experience, not bullsh1t from a Michael Moore film. I would no more attempt to tell you anything about DJing than you should try to tell me about gunshots and forensics. There may actually be people here other than yourself who do want to know something that hasn't been recycled from the anus of Michael Moore.

"...She doesn't even find it neccessary to point out that a cheek bone is actually a zygoma, when speaking to imbeciles such as myself..."

Well that refers to my description of an incident (a humerous one) that occured in a hospital. As I recall it was in the Grumpy Old Men thread and you found it quite funny:

"...I'm going to get Susan to read this in a minute - I know she'll be able to relate.
Cheers sir!

 :pint: ..."

If you have suddenly taken offense at my inclusion of the medical term for something (which I just naturally wrote, with no hidden purpose at all), then tough. That post wasn't solely for your benefit, and it was written exactly as I recall the incident. And that was your first post in that thread - you replied to me, not the other way around. I'm not in the slightest interested in what your girlfriend's handling of an imbecile is. Perhaps you should direct that description of yourself to her.

"...Isn't the desire to constantly remind others of one's qualifications a sign of insecurity?..."

I don't know...maybe it's a sign that somebody is trying to educate a clueless tit who constantly demands proof of even the most obvious facts, and questions his knowledge of those facts, but is quite happy to provide pearls of wisdom from a work of fiction.

"...Oops - sorry. I'm not qualified to make such an analysis..."

Too right you're not. I would be interested to know what analysis you ARE qualified to provide.


"...I may like Moore's films but I don't take them as the full picture, nor have I ever claimed to. Like everything else I watch, I take them with the obligatory pinch of salt..."

That's good. Genuinely.

[X-ray]

@ Wilse

"...Sure I will - just as soon as you admit that Attenborough, whom you now admit *does* have an agenda, has done the same..."

Yup, I'll just consult one of the 5 or 6 websites that have been setup just to expose Attenborough for the lying deceitful sumbish he is. He is exactly like Moore, isn't he? Editing content and outright lying for his own agenda. He too stages scenes to mislead the viewer.
If Attenborough saw your comment he would biach slap you!


"...As for the 'gun from the bank' bit, here are my thoughts: I couldn't give a badger's tadger how many hoops you have to jump through to get the gun, or how pish said gun is. The simple fact that a gun is offered as a way to attract custom is enough. It straddles the blurred line between absurd and horrific..."

First of all, if you knew anything about that Weatherby, or even bothered to read the link I gave you on the rifle, you would know that that rifle is not 'pish'. It is a very nice quality rifle for HUNTING or long-range target shooting (as is done even in the UK). It's not for holding up banks, hijacking or commiting crime. There is no more harm done legally providing that rifle as an incentive to open an account than there is providing a motorcycle (some may argue that there are more deaths due to road accidents than due to ALL firearms deaths combined, including crime and deaths caused by handguns). What truly straddles the blurred line between absurd and horrific is the fact that you make these stark comments without having a clue about what that firearm is and what it is used for. Have you even fired a rifle? Do you know what 'bolt-action' means?

Just keep on arguing with me, Wilse, it's an eye-opener for all of us.

[Wilse]

since you obviously haven't found out from your girlfriend: there are many types of radiographers.

Eh, that's why I said 'almost'.

Not that it matters. :-D

As for your snide comment about constantly reminding you how knowledgeable I am, it stems from your sarcastic comment about how clever I am and what a know-it-all I am being.

Sooooooo..... the only reason you constantly remind us of your outrageously huge knowledge base, is because of my sarcastic comment?
And you've never done it before?

If so, I apologise, unreservedly.

[Wilse]

[X-ray]

@ Wilse

"...If my girlfriend got all gooey about guns, like you seem to, she wouldn't be my girlfriend..."

I enjoy target shooting, Wilse. I do not condone any use of firearms other than for target shooting, defense or hunting (although I don't hunt). I don't know why you think I get all 'gooey' about guns. And you might try some target shooting...it is surprisingly enjoyable, as many of the female radiographers from my work will confirm. Is there anything untoward about me and my colleagues because of the fact that we enjoy target shooting? Are we a threat to anybody?

"...Despite this, you completely miss the point that giving a gun away as an icentive is what bothers me.
Not how good the gun is.
Not how many background checks are carried out.
Not what 'bolt action' means.
IT'S A F*CKING GUN, OFFERED AS AN INCENTIVE!
Who gives a badger's what type it is?..."

Well, I do. And so do the authorities who are trying to tackle gun crime all around the world. You don't get it and you don't make any effort to get it. It is a bolt-action rifle, not a pistol. Do you know the difference? You seem to demonise all guns, as if they are only used to commit crime and kill people. You don't appreciate that there is a huge segment of the population that enjoys recreational shooting or hunting. If you still don't understand this, then it is because you REFUSE to understand it. I suspect Michael Moore has the same attitude: you two are similar in many ways.

"...why she doesn't bleat on in medical terminology, 24/7..."


Funny that you complain about that only now, when you previously said 'Cheers, sir' and that you knew your girlfriend would relate. Oh, wasn't that the post where I used that terribly-offensive word 'zygoma?' :roll:


"...Eh, that's why I said 'almost'. Not that it matters..."

Oh so your comment was in fact irrelevant to start off with? Or is she in the same field? Will that change in your next post? And did that post of yours actually have anything useful to add if it was not your intention to equate your girlfriend's field with mine? Why don't you post something relevant for once?


Edit: actually, screw any replies, just give me another "Cheers, sir" and a pint for being such an all-round nice guy (and bloody patient too!). I deserve that at least for injecting a little bit of reality into your diet of fiction and conspiracy  :-P

Actually, f*ck that, I deserve TWO pints!!

[Wilse]

@X-Ray:

Well, I do. And so do the authorities who are trying to tackle gun crime all around the world. You don't get it and you don't make any effort to get it

It's you who doesn't get it.
I'll have one last go:
A bank is offering a device designed for killing as an incentive to attract customers.
The type of device is completely irrelevant.

Nothing changed in my post - as far as your job is concerned, my girlfriend is in *almost* the same field as you.
You are both radiographers. That this can be broken down further is why I said 'almost'.

And I didn't take offence at your use of 'zygoma', I just found it amusing that you seem compelled to use such language, when 'cheekbone' would easily suffice, coupled with reminding everybody how qualified you are, every chance you get. This is a trait that can be seen in many of your posts.
FWIW, I still think it was one of the funniest stories I've read for ages. I don't have to agree with every bit of syntax to have that opinion.

As for the pints, next time I'm down in London, I'll buy you a beer if you like. ;-)

Cheers. :pint: