Menu Bar
Michael Moore's documentary on gun control in America with a central focus on school shootings.
RT 1h 56min and change
RT 1h 56min and change
Apr 25, 2008 11:25 PM
Re: Bowling For Columbine - Full Movie
Couldn't locate this through M&C's search.
Consider this a preemptive apology should this be a duplicate.
Consider this a preemptive apology should this be a duplicate.
By: Shiggety
Re: Bowling For Columbine - Full Movie
Biased and hardly a documentary. But still a great watch. Keeping in mind, of course, that every clip was staged to tell his predetermined story and conclusion.
I'm no fan of guns but there is the Second Amendment and unless you want to try to get that repealed, it's the law of the land. That said, I cannot fathom anyone being against a law that requires a 3 day waiting period in all instances before completing a purchase of a weapon. Anyone who says, "I need a gun and I need it NOW" ought to be given an opportunity to cool off.
I'm no fan of guns but there is the Second Amendment and unless you want to try to get that repealed, it's the law of the land. That said, I cannot fathom anyone being against a law that requires a 3 day waiting period in all instances before completing a purchase of a weapon. Anyone who says, "I need a gun and I need it NOW" ought to be given an opportunity to cool off.
By: spam_vigilante
Re: Bowling For Columbine - Full Movie
And the second amendment is vague, misquoted and incredibly misunderstood.
By: Stiver
Re: Bowling For Columbine - Full Movie
I think a lot of people dismiss Moore because of his tactics. However, he is still capable of making completely valid points from time to time.
I don't think he ever suggested that people reconsider the 2nd Amendment, or shouldn't be allowed to own guns. But as one of the victim's father stated, a fully automatic tech-9 sub machine gun serves no purpose to the general public. You don't go hunting with a machine gun, and you probably wouldn't want to defend your home or children with bursts of ammunition (even one of the militia guys was put off by someone stating they keep a loaded M-16 in their home).
Another point he makes about the media is also completely on target. Look to the discussion he has with Maryln Manson on how the news media not only demonizes all the wrong targets (which never include itself), but also hypes up the message of the shooters.
I think the best part of the movie was his trip to Canada. When you systematically eliminate all other causes for our murder rate (violent past, numerous guns, poverty, video games, music) all you're left with is the American news media and the way we think of and interact with our neighbors. (Okay, you're left with a few other things than that, but those are very good points).
Yes, the far left and the far right are both bastards when they slant their arguments, but that doesn't make the core messages any more or less correct.
I don't think he ever suggested that people reconsider the 2nd Amendment, or shouldn't be allowed to own guns. But as one of the victim's father stated, a fully automatic tech-9 sub machine gun serves no purpose to the general public. You don't go hunting with a machine gun, and you probably wouldn't want to defend your home or children with bursts of ammunition (even one of the militia guys was put off by someone stating they keep a loaded M-16 in their home).
Another point he makes about the media is also completely on target. Look to the discussion he has with Maryln Manson on how the news media not only demonizes all the wrong targets (which never include itself), but also hypes up the message of the shooters.
I think the best part of the movie was his trip to Canada. When you systematically eliminate all other causes for our murder rate (violent past, numerous guns, poverty, video games, music) all you're left with is the American news media and the way we think of and interact with our neighbors. (Okay, you're left with a few other things than that, but those are very good points).
Yes, the far left and the far right are both bastards when they slant their arguments, but that doesn't make the core messages any more or less correct.
By: Faffy
Re: Bowling For Columbine - Full Movie
The thing is the Second Amendment isn't about home defense or hunting. The Second Amendment was created because the forefathers believed that people couldn't truly be free if they were under the total rule of the government.
They believed that should the government possess all of the military might that they could easily subjugate the populace. One must remember that they had just finished fighting a revolution. One in which that ruling body had tried to disarm an unruly and possibly seditious populace.
We see the Second Amendment today through modern eyes where the military has tanks and jets and bombs and missiles et al. But in those times there were men and muskets and cannon and that was about it. So the difference between a fighting "army" and lambs to the slaughter were the muskets. You take those away and you can do whatever you want to them.
Today even if every American citizen had a "machine gun" it still wouldn't equal the might of the military. Or would it? The Powers of the world have in the past certainly been held to a stand still by mobs with little else.
The second amendment isn't about home defense or hunting or sportsmanship or whatever else. It's about making sure that you retain enough power for yourself to make sure that someone doesn't take away every other right on the Bill of Rights.
It sounds crazy I guess to some that we might need guns to protect ourselves from the government. But I think that is a difference between someone who trusts their welfare to the good graces of other men, and those that take responsibility for it themselves.
They believed that should the government possess all of the military might that they could easily subjugate the populace. One must remember that they had just finished fighting a revolution. One in which that ruling body had tried to disarm an unruly and possibly seditious populace.
We see the Second Amendment today through modern eyes where the military has tanks and jets and bombs and missiles et al. But in those times there were men and muskets and cannon and that was about it. So the difference between a fighting "army" and lambs to the slaughter were the muskets. You take those away and you can do whatever you want to them.
Today even if every American citizen had a "machine gun" it still wouldn't equal the might of the military. Or would it? The Powers of the world have in the past certainly been held to a stand still by mobs with little else.
The second amendment isn't about home defense or hunting or sportsmanship or whatever else. It's about making sure that you retain enough power for yourself to make sure that someone doesn't take away every other right on the Bill of Rights.
It sounds crazy I guess to some that we might need guns to protect ourselves from the government. But I think that is a difference between someone who trusts their welfare to the good graces of other men, and those that take responsibility for it themselves.
By: shorn
Re: Bowling For Columbine - Full Movie
Hence why I said that a fully automatic weapon serves no purpose "to the general public." State or local militias can go and have all the guns they want as far as I care, because they know what they're doing with them. It's the "casual" gun owners who tend to own weapons beyond their means and then have them misused.
By: Faffy
Re: Bowling For Columbine - Full Movie
State and local(though I don't know what you mean by local if you don't mean the national guard which would be the state militia, as I'm fairly certain you are not speaking of civilian formed militia groups) are government bodies and hence( I see no reason why I shouldn't also make use of the word as well, it sounds cooler that way) not within the purview of what I wrote. I am speaking of the regular citizen.
But regardless I also wasn't trying to banter back and forth upon what a normal citizen should and shouldn't own. But rather the argument isn't about what weapons might be used for home defense and hunting. Because the 2nd amendment is about having the means to protect yourself against a goverment who has grown to big for it's britches so to speak.
But regardless I also wasn't trying to banter back and forth upon what a normal citizen should and shouldn't own. But rather the argument isn't about what weapons might be used for home defense and hunting. Because the 2nd amendment is about having the means to protect yourself against a goverment who has grown to big for it's britches so to speak.
By: shorn
