Heston accepted the interview under not false but misleading pretenses. Moore said he was an NRA member, and Heston took it as a sign that Moore was a gun supporter.
Moore IS a gun supporter. At no point in the movie did Moore ever try to make a case for banning guns.
The movie said that the bank ITSELF was a licensed gun dealer.
Sllestak, did you even see the movie, or are you just posting knee-jerk, reactionary nonsense because Michael Moore is “liberal” therefore the movie must be “bad.”
BTW, what the hell has your precious little president ever produced in HIS over-priveledged, over-pampered life?
That hadn’t occurred to me. But do you seriously think Heston didn’t know who he was inviting into his home? (I’m asking)
Heston said in the movie that he was familiar with Moore’s work.
Moore is most emphatically NOT a ‘gun supporter’. He is a strong proponent of heavy gun control. He joined the NRA for the sole purpose of trying to get elected as president so he could tear the organization down. He eventually gave up on that goal, and then shamelessly used his NRA membership to try and gain some sort of credibility for being unbiased.
And now some cites for the credulous:
From Forbes:
Moore even lied about the title. From the same article:
What wrath is he risking?
The democrats ran the risk of not getting elected. Moore risks alienating a group further that wasn’t going to buy his books in the first place - and only fuels those sympathetic to his ideas to buy more.
More calculated self interest than bravery.
Moore’s already branded, but UA probally has a lot to lose. UA is a subsidiary of MGM, big companies like that are definately not looking for a PR nightmare like a nypost headline that reads, “MGM studio’s releases Anti-American film.” Thank goodness it didn’t happen, but with the 9.11 shot and the footage preceding it, as well as the amer. history cartoon short they were really pushing things.
Did you watch the movie? Moore has been an NRA member since he was a child. He won a sharpshooting award as a teenager, and is a former gun safety instructor.
At NO POINT in the movie does Moore make a case to ban guns.
Read the thread please, or at least watch the movie. One of the bank managers brags about having hundreds of guns in the bank vault and tells Moore that the bank itself is a licensed gun dealer. The Forbes article is simply wrong.
The question was clearly not asked seriously, but facetiously in response to suggestions that the Columbine killings were inspired by Marylin Manson, video games, etc.
[quote]
TITLE: Moore titled the movie Bowling for Columbine because, he suggests, the two kids who shot up Columbine High in Littleton, Colo., went to a 6 a.m. bowling class on the day of the attack.
ACTUALLY: Cool story, but police say it’s not true. They say the shooters skipped their bowling class that day.
[quote]
Given that the Forbes article was wrong about the last two points, I see no reason to believe them on this one either, but it’s not important in any case. Once again, the title was a facetious response to suggestion that the killings could be blamed on pop culture. Bowling was reputedly their favorite class.
I suggest you actually watch the movie instead of getting all your information from right wing propoganda rags. Forbes doesn’t even make good toilet paper. (too glossy)
[Cartman voice]Son of a BITCH[Cartman voice]
My kingdom for an edit function.
Diogenes the Partisan: so we should get our info from accurate, reliable, non-partisan left-wing sources, as opposed to all of those inaccurate, unreliable, highly partisan right-wing sources?
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I wasn’t aware of the BATF issuing Federal Firearms Licenses to business entities; I always thought that they went to individual people who then applied locally for business licenses to open and operate their business, whether it’s selling hot dogs and Cokesub[/sub] or handguns and bullets.
ExTank, I think Diogenes is saying you get the info about what actually took place in the movie from the movie. It is quite clear that he walked into the bank, was told they had the guns at the bank, filled out the forms at the bank, and walked out with the gun. The only thing that editing could have done is change the time frame such that his walking into the bank with no gun and walking out of the bank with a gun did not occur on the same day.
I do think he may have exaggerated some things in this movie for effect (which I disagree with), but it is quite clear what happened at the bank. Unless you think everybody involded in that segment was an actor …
Balduran: I think you mised the point that the BATF, to the best of my knowledge, doesn’t issue Federal Firearms Licenses to business entities. They issue them to people.
Businesses don’t have fingers which can be printed onto to record cards and maintained; businesses don’t have a “face” which can be photographed and maintained in a permanent record file.
The person who owns/operates a municipally licensed business can, and I can’t imagine too many municipalities (also consider federal and/or state banking regulations) that would allow a firearms dealership to operate out of a bank.
So, is it possible for a bank employee to be a federally licensed firearms dealer, *and * conduct his firearms business at the direction of the banks board of directors and operations manager?
In the abstract, I suppose it is hypothetically possible, though extremely gray where the law might be concerned; practically, I have to play the Bullshit card on this one. A bank, even the smaller municipal variety, simply has too much vested interest in running afoul of the law, however unintentionally, be it banking law or federal firearms law.
OTOH, A bank having an arrangement with a local firearms dealer (who may also be a business account holder at that bank), and issuing a “voucher” for a firearm of a certain type or value to someone buying a CD, providing that they pass the dealer’s federal background check, is a lot more feasible.
And, from my admittedly layman’s grasp of federal firearms laws and regulations, unambiguously legal. However morally repugnant it may be to Michael Moore and his ilk.
ExTank, an employee is on film saying the bank was a licensed gun dealer and Moore literally walks out with a gun. We aren’t shown background check paperwork, probably for the sake of brevity. If you think it’s bullshit find a source and cite it.
Also, Moore isn’t implying that a bank that gives away guns is morally repugnant, just a tad foolish and a good example of the pervasive influence of guns in America.
Plus, an emplyee of the bank says on film that the deal is contingent on a background check.
Moore makes no moral judgement about the bank. he treats the whole excursion as a lark, and simply asks in a clearly jocular manner if it’s a good idea to be giving out guns in a bank.
And yes, I was saying watch the movie. The Forbes article is simply not accurate in its DESCRIPTION of the movie. It mischaracterizes the content. If anyone is going to criticize the movie (which is legal, and starting a debate is the point of the movie) I wish that they would please do so in terms of what actually occurs on screen instead of what they read in a magazine.
Well…
I’m really looking foreward to seeing this movie. I’m a fairly moderate republican (just so you know), and I loved Roger & Me. I doubt it will show in Korea, however, so I’ll probably have to wait until it comes out in video. 
I did happen to see an Oprah segment featuring Mikey, and managed to see the cartoon history of the US on that show. Jesus! Could he have a more simplistic view of history or what? I realize that it was a short piece of the film, and done for comedic reasons, but Christ!
On slavery: the new, white American people were too lazy to do their own work, so they decided to sail off to Africa to get black slaves to do it for them! So… let me get this straight. Americans started the slave trade, and NO ONE else had anything to do with it?
On Native Americans: the new, white Americans saw them, were scared spitless, and immediately slaughtered all the scary indians! I see… disease had absolutely nothing to do with it, they were all shot in the head for being natives.
Watching this cartoon kind of pissed me off. Maybe in the context of the film it is a bit less moronic… I’ll wait to see. But I hope the rest of the film adheres more to actual fact than the history of the US as presented by that cartoon.
What is the warm and cuddly TRUTH about the American chattel slave system and the genocide of the American Indian?
The warm and cuddly TRUTH is Thanksgiving 
Oh, come on! There’s nothing warm OR cudly about the truth… but it simply isn’t as shown in the cartoon clip in Bowling for Columbine.
…or er… cuddly!
Come on Astro, the cartoon was intended to be a farce. (It was made by Trey Parker and Matt Stone of South Park) It wasn’t intended to be a serious, factual history. And IMO the cartoon WAS philosohically honest. White people DID kill the Indians and bring slavery to the continent…oh, and a lot of those diseases were spread to the Indians DELIBERATELY by whitey. They gave blankets, seeded with small pox to the natives. And just so you know, they actually DID kill hundreds of thousands of indigeonous people the old fashioned way–with guns.