Michael Moore is the left’s Rush Limbaugh.
That’s a simplistic view, but it’s also fairly accurate. Both men have legitimate views on some topics. Unfortunately, they’ve allowed their own sense of self-importance to get in the way of whatever message they’re trying to present, and thereby made themselves an easy target for the barbs of the ideologically opposed.
Yes, indeed, he’s quite dishonest about this one.
Moore joined the NRA (or renewed his membership after having it lapse for years, I forget) with the stated intent of becoming an influence and taking the organization down from the inside. He joined the NRA to try to do his little part to destroy it.
And then if anyone accuses him of being anti-gun, he’ll say “I’m not anti-gun, I’m in the NRA!”
Banks give away useful items as promotions for opening an account or making a bond fairly regularly, right? So what’s absurd about it? Oh - I forgot - guns are evil objects to which there’s no legitime purpose, and no decent human being would ever want one, right?
Is there a cite where he actually says this? Because IIRC, Moore joined the NRA when he was a tyke, and says he’s still in the organization because he wants to improve it from the inside – I don’t recall anything where he says he wants to destroy the organization, as you claim.
Moore is not the left’s Rush Limbaugh – at least, not yet. But if he continues on the path down the dark side…
There’s plenty of cites for it on previous threads covering the subject. He let his membership lapse after joining as a kid, and reentered to - well - I suppose ‘destroy’ is arguable - reentered to take the NRA out of lobbying. Destroy it as a gun-rights organization (which it barely is now, but I digress…)
In any case, it’s pretty disingenuous of him to claim he’s not anti-gun because he’s a member of the NRA, since he’s trying to take the NRA out of fighting anti-gun lobbyists.
That’s nice. How about putting a link in this thread, too?
From here
Is this sufficient? Not only does it seem to indicate his intentions in joining the NRA, but he specifically says his intention in making the movie was, at least in part, an attempt to dismantle the NRA.
But you only have the word of perfidious Moore that dissolving the NRA was ever the plan! Are you taking Moore on his word? 
You missed the most important part of the article:
So you honestly believe that his serious intension was to enrole 5 million people and take over the NRA?
Ever consider you’ve been whooshed?
I reckon that Moore usually has a very good point , but maybe he got a bit too creative in how he was making it in Bowling. Which is a pity, as it inevitably cheapens what he has to say, even if it did make a better movie.
And Stupid White Men irritated me because I couldn’t tell if and when he was joking, or when he was just being annoying. And he really did run out of ways to describe how and why he hated Bush by the end of chapter one, but had a whole book of it yet to go.
I believe I’ve read other quotes indicating his reasoning for joining the NRA, and not just that one, but I thought that’d be sufficient.
So what do you mean by whooshed? Do you really think his intent in joining the NRA was to become an active, supporting member?
Lear, it was. Long before the Oscars. The Oscars seemed to me more of a punch line to a running joke. Had he not engaged in such fear-mongering, the issue of fear being the impetus behind so many problems would have been less hypocritical and perhaps carried some weight. That was my assessment from the moment it came out, not later when the Oscars were awarded.
Moore would like to change the focus of the NRA, of this there can be no doubt. It’s my understanding that he wants to take it from being a lobbying organization into one that is more focused on gun safety issues and shooting tournaments. Whether this qualifies as ‘destroying’ it is left to your own judgement. I don’t think so and quite frankly, he’s going about it in the ‘proper’ way, attempting change from within. Moore’s a humorist first and foremost so the best way to read something that seems outlandish from him is to think, “is there any way this could be said tounge-in-cheek?” If there is, then that’s the way it’s probably meant.
And the bank thing is odd because, well, guns are often used to rob banks, no? I’ve never heard of anyone sticking up the local S&L with a toaster.
Banks are often held up by people who just made huge deposits in order to get the giveaways. Bwaha! People don’t hold up banks, guns hold up banks! Heehee.
Actually, Raygun, that tongue-in-cheek humor is the very thing the left fails to understand about Rush Limbaugh. A lot of what people think is his ego is really him laughing at his own expense. I mention that because someone said Moore and Limbaugh are similar, if on opposite sides. Although not perfect, I tend to prefer the Libertarian alternative to this type of humor, Penn and Teller. Perhaps not as self-mocking, but give them time.
Roger And Me was a brillinat movie and the first contact I had with MM. After that I read Stupid White Men and watched Bowling for Columbine, I’ve also read a few interveiws with him. My opinion as follows.
Roger And Me was a brilliant documentary, The best I’ve ever seen. It was incredibly funny, yet tragic and thought provocing. What has become his trademark was fresh in it, his naive approach and “bumbling well-meaning kind guy” personality. The book was interesting but far from as good. The humour isn’t very advanced, or well used. That was my main gripe with it. Bowling for Columbine was not as good as Roger and Me, but still good. It was a bit uneven and some parts of it contained posturing that was so blatant it lowered the impression of the movie. The message I got was not anti-gun, it was anti-fear. He plainly states that Canada has even more guns per capita then the US so guns can’t be the only problem. In the movie FEAR is portrayed as the cause of the excessive violence, if anything.
He’s a well-meaning guy. He has some pretty good opinions and is all in all a healthy reaction to a sick situation. His sense of humour doesn’t translate well into text and he’s a bit too “worked up” to be structured enough in his critisism. The critisism against him tends to be personal attacks and blatant fabrications, like people in this thread claiming that his movies are made up or that he’s a whiney idiot. That’s basically just people who don’t agree with him and can’t attack the issues. His main problem is that he gets a bit too obsessed and that he misses the nuances of things, but that’s also part of his strengths.
I’d recommend his movies, they’re really good, but you can skip the texts.
I think it’s important to note that, in the political spectrum, there are many different shadings on issues. It is entirely possible to be pro-gun but still want more gun laws. He’s not blatantly denying the right of the people to own firearms – he’s questioning the ease in which people may acquire guns and ammunition. (Admittedly it’s been a while since I watched Bowling for Columbine. If anyone has any direct quotes where Moore says outright that guns are the ultimate evil and should be avoided at all costs, let me know. Thanks.) There’s a BIG difference between being pro-gun and being anti-gun, but in between there are infinite variations.
It should also be noted that extremism in any form should be examined closely. Once you start, you just can’t stop.
And before anyone can say it, I’m not accusing anyone here of being an extremist, which the last sentences of my post could imply. It was not my intention.
It means that Moore’s quote,
“I had this grand plan – if they had four million members, I’d get five million Americans to join, vote for me, and then I’d dismantle the organization,” Moore said. “But then that just seemed like too much work, and I’m a slacker at heart, so I made a movie instead.”
…was a joke. The last sentence about “that seemed like too much work, so I made a movie instead” was the punch-line – making a movie was a piece of cake, compared to dismantling the NRA, which is impossible.
Read the quote again, and stick a winking smiley 
at the end. Then it’ll make sense.
Regarding Moore’s money: I recently watched his interview on Cspan 2 about his new book (which I’ve not read but plan to). The gentleman interviewing him seemed more interested in the money he makes than the book itself.
Moore admitted being very wealthy (how could he not?), and he did mention his large apartment “above a Baby Gap” and the stadium-filled lectures he gives, at which he earns millions. Moore said that he is one of those who will greatly benefit from Bush’s tax cut, and that he plans to give every dime to his democratic presidential candidate of choice.
He says that he spends his money on a nice home and a good education for his children. Other than that, he really doesn’t have much to do with his money. He says that he plans to give most of it away and use the rest to take care of his family. “I’m still the same guy from Flint, MI, with the same wife and the same values. The money I make is humbling and gives me a sense of awesome responsibility.”
Admittingly, his performance at the Oscars was off-putting, but in this interview, he didn’t seem whiny or pompous at all. To me, at least.
I realize it was a joke, but you don’t seriously believe his intentions in joining the NRA were to advocate the things the NRA advocates, do you? At best, he joined it to deflect criticism - “you can’t call me anti-gun, I’m an NRA member!”
In any case, he’s spoken negatively on the NRA in several places I’ve read him. I sincerely doubt his rejoining the NRA after colombine was intended to help bolster the organization.
He’s NOT whiny or pompous. His opinions are merely disagreeable to conservatives. They are desperate to find some sort of moral equivalence between Moore and draft-dodging chickenhawk and lying junkie hypocrite Rush Limbaugh. Unfortunately, Moore is not Limbaugh’s opposite number on the left, he’s a much better person than Limbaugh. Howard Stern is a lot closer to being in Limbaugh’s league than Moore.