-34 votes

Michael Moore's response to the Aurora tragedy - surprisingly libertarian

Michael Moore's sober response to the Dark Knight Rises shooting in Aurora, Colorado was surprisingly clear, succinct, and reasonable. He admitted that guns are not the problem -- rather, the problem is our willingness as a nation to engage in meaningless wars and solve our problems with violence.

I grew up in a rather neoconservative home, and despite my journey to the Paul Side I never expected to find myself agreeing with Michael Moore. But I was really impressed by this.

http://michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/its-guns-we-...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I read. It isn't. Not even close.

Just more misguided buffoonery from Moore.

--Norm

I Would Prefer

Not to waste time reading anything from Moore. I have paid attention to him over the years and know his stance on these issues. A video however I can play and listen too while I clean my gun :)

yeah

typical Moore, I really wonder what one sees libertarian there and why another puts it on the frontpage when it has like 3 votes.
EDIT: Even this my post has now more positive votes than that Moore's crap promoted here.

Moore is 100%

Fascist.

I firmly believe

that if Mr. Moore had the authority to do so, he would send men with guns, to take your guns, or kill you if you refused.

He is no friend of liberty.

As much as he looks down his nose at all of us and proclaims that we are nothing more than frightened children, HE is the one that is frightened by guns.

I don't fear crime any more than I do a fire. I know they happen. I know there are things I can do to prevent it to a certain degree, and I also know how to deal with it if it does happen. I am confident in my ability to handle a fire, and a firearm.

It's no coincidence that people who own guns do not have an irrational fear of them. People that don't own guns, generally do.

G

Moore seems to have a good heart in some respects, but...

he is terribly misguided about the Constitution and what our rights are and should be. He preaches that we should be out brother's keeper, but I'm afraid the man is too insulated from "real life" to have a clue.

If they could magically get all of the firearms off of the street - out of the hands of all criminals and out of the hands of all governments - then I would LOVE it! I wouldn't have any problem then with law abiding citizens not having guns. In fact, I'd prefer it! But, unfortunately, that's not possible. As long as violent criminals and corrupt governments have them, then law abiding citizens must have them per the 2nd Amendment. If it wasn't necessary, then our founders wouldn't have included it in the Constitution (and, Moore's disrespect for the Constitution is infuriating).

His comments about weapons grade plutonium being comparable to a gun is beyond absurd (around the 28:00 mark). Obviously, the average law-abiding American wanting to protect himself, his family and his property from violent criminals and government tyranny cannot use plutonium to do so.

Moore says (around the 30:00 mark), "there's nothing to stop the insane from arming themselves to the hilt." Exactly, Michael. Nothing will stop them, not any law, not any cop. So, what do you propose the rest of us do when the armed insane are hunting us down?

Around the 31:00 mark, Moore says that most of the handguns are in "white people's homes" in the "suburbs." First of all, I'd love to see where he gets these statistics from. Secondly, wtf is his point? What do white people and the suburbs have to do with a goddamned thing? Then he asks of those white suburbians, "Why do you have a gun in house..., because you're afraid little freckle-faced jimmy down the street is going to hurt you?" What a condescending ass. I mean, it's beyond words how warped his sense of reality is.

Then to top it all off (around 32:00), Moore loses his friggin' mind about the Trayvon Martin case saying, "Doesn't Trayvon Martin actually have the right to KILL George Zimmerman if George Zimmerman is stalking him...?" My mouth fell open when he said that. I can't believe how effed up this guy is. So much for sane non-violence. So much for the punishment fitting the "crime." The guy's a loon.

And, Morgan REALLY needs to go back across the pond.

Considerations for the 2012 U.S. Presidential Race from the Mind of a Political Independent-Use this tool to educate the unconverted and prove support for Dr. Paul among Independents.

Some fallacies of Mr. Moore

"At least 24 Americans every day (8-9,000 a year) are killed by people with guns "

What he doesn't include is WHO is being killed by guns!

It's difficult to find (surprise!) national statics on the number of people killed and shot by Cops, and here's why:

__________________________________________________

"That's not so easy to find.

The nation's leading law enforcement agency collects vast amounts of information on crime nationwide, but missing from this clearinghouse are statistics on where, how often, and under what circumstances police use deadly force. In fact, no one anywhere comprehensively tracks the most significant act police can do in the line of duty: take a life.

"We don't have a mandate to do that," said William Carr, an FBI spokesman in Washington, D.C. "It would take a request from Congress for us to collect that data."

http://www.lvrj.com/news/deadly-force/142-dead-and-rising/na...
__________________________________________________

One study gives a some numbers:

"According to a 2007 report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (which is part of the U.S. Department of Justice), from 2003 through 2005 at least 2,002 people died during their arrests by state and local law enforcement officers."

http://revcom.us/a/157/stolen_lives-en.html

__________________________________________________

Also, We do not have the info on how many of those deaths by gun were in self-defense by innocent citizens. Nor by suicide, of which guns account for over 50%, according to Wikipedia.

Mr. Moore goes on to state:

"They'll say it's the violent movies and video games that are responsible. Last time I checked, the movies and video games in Japan are more violent than ours – and yet usually fewer than 20 people a year are killed there with guns – and in 2006 the number was two! "

How about this fact, Mr. Moore?

"Nearly 100 Japanese killed themselves every day in 2007, that is over 33,000 people in the year, a rise of 3 per cent on the year before, and the tenth year in a row that the figure has exceeded 30,000 said Japan's national police agency."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/112244.php

Japan has some of the most strictest gun control laws on the planet, yet places seventh in the world for suicides, Mr. Moore. Why is that?

Conscience does not exist if not exercised

"No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up!
---Lily Tomlin

excellent post

thanks

reedr3v's picture

Both Moore and the pundit believe all

problems will be resolved by an authoritarian government. Most nations have that because the people accepted it; they chose dependency. These Liberals don't want to give up the Gun, they rely on it for all of their policies. They want impunity to use the Gun to force all non-Liberals into their coercive system.

But they are never required to admit that Guns are the source of all the power they want. What do Americans fear, ask Moore, disingenuously. What is it about Americans that we are so cruel to each other? The same thing that allows the U.S. Empire.

Only libertarians are honest in this debate. Until more people accept the Nonaggression Principle, wars and domestic violence will continue.

ORIGINAL POST ABOUT THE ARTICLE, NOT VIDEO

Just to clarify: when I originally posted this, it was just the link to Moore's article, not the video on CNN. I haven't seen that video.

so please

at least take out the word libertarian from the title. It is absolutely inappropriate when a real libertarian feels so much pain watching that interview.

Because

....the post had nothing whatsoever to do with the interview. The video was added by a mod.

even the original article

has nothing to do with libertarianism. It is a demagoguery, trying to somehow blame Americans for Aurora violence in and attempt to cryptically promote guncontrol. (proved by the video)
Even if the 25000 yearly die so what? That's the individual responsibility of the shooters not the Americans (300+ million) in general. That the government makes wars without even Congress declaring them? - that's then responsibility of the president and non-elected federal executives, not Americans in general.
That the Americans slaughtered indians, slaves and each other in scores - yeah in the distant past - it is no responsibility of anybody living now.
If the Americans as a nation would really be violent as Moore claims, then there would be a violent revolution to fulfill the patriotic duty to take down the despotic government already decades ago - a justified and legal one.

So, please remove "Libertarian", because ...

Moore expresses nothing but sorrow at the shortness of the penii of the gun owners of America, or his perception thereof. Just more claptrap from the clueless.

--Norm

As with a guy like Kucinich,

As with a guy like Kucinich, at least Moore is a liberal that you can agree with on some things some of the time.

as to his point on the constitution, I wish I could point it out to him that there was included a way to repeal amendments and add new ones. 3/4 of states...

personally, I would compromise with a guy like him in this way : repeal the 14th amendment and let the state constitution's bill of rights do the talking on this issue. Far as I know, the BoR was a check against the federal government, but then along came the 14th and the BoR applied everywhere. the only thing is is they'd have to do away with the power of the extortion of the purse that congress has taken. There oughtn't be a way for them to exact their will by witholding funds

23

According to Carroll Quigley,

"In a period of specialist weapons the minority who have such weapons can usually force the majority who lack them to obey; thus a period of specialist weapons tends to give rise to a period of minority rule and authoritarian government. But a period of amateur weapons is a period in which all men are roughly equal in military power, a majority can compel a minority to yield, and majority rule or even democratic government tends to rise."

He claims amateur weapons include mass armies of citizen soldiers when weapons are cheap and easy to use, including 19th century revolvers and muskets. Specialists weapons are those that require long training such as mounted knights on horseback.

He goes on to designate the 19th century and the Age of Pericles in Classical Greece as two periods of amateur weapons.

This is from Tragedy and Hope, page 34.

From this knowledge we can see that the weapons differential is far greater than ever before with drones, nukes, bombers, submarines, weather/space/mood control weapons, etc. More gun control will only makes problems worse for the majority.

Sufficient weapons are in the hands of the public.

The problem is not lack of weapons in the hands of the public. The problem is the lack of willingness to use them against tyrannical government.

This will change as the pain and suffering resulting from the current system of plunder and control increases to the point where it exceeds any possible pain and suffering from revolution. I think we are not that far away from this revolution point.

Economic contraction is just beginning. First there is the unconstitutional, predatory, unstable, unsustainable, debt based monetary system that extracts huge amounts of wealth from the majority and places it in the hands of bankers and government. Secondly, there is the drought cycle which is preventing the creation of agricultural wealth; these dry periods, being cyclical, tend to last for years. Thirdly, there is the lack of sufficient cheap energy to drive the industrial age, which means we are entering long term economic decline.

On the third point, here is an interesting article pointing to the correlation between declining rates of oil production and declining rates of economic growth (while correlation does not prove cause and effect, it does suggest it):

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2012-07-20/evidence-oi...

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

Quiggley's point was more

about the inequality of the weaponry. Shotguns are no match to the multi-trillion dollar specialist arsenal that can be operated from deep underground bunkers.

Agreed as far as your economic points. The seven billion people alive today is a direct result of cheap hydrocarbon energy. A die-off will be the result of less supply.

and the less supply

will be the result of creating artificial scarcity of energy, when we in fact have a sea of it - literally - to make profits and depopulate - perhaps because 7 billion and more is hard to keep in serfdom for good.

While it is true that the government has more complex

weapons, it is also true that these are more appropriate for armies against armies, not as readily used against citizens fighting with guerrilla tactics like assassinations, bombings, sabotage, and small raids.

I also point out that revolution or civil war is as much citizen against citizen as it is citizen against government troops. In conflict between different civilian groups, the weaponry would be equalized.

And another point is that government control depends today on energy, which is something that could easily disappear quickly from sabotage, if not simply from collapse of an electric grid that is at the end of its design life and short on fuel for production and maintenance.

I have not read Quiggley.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

B.S.

I don't like Moore, even he partially could have a point - he never dares to go impartially deep and always uses his argument to btw smear rightists -as in this case again - and it is not true that he doesn't make the gun-control argument - exactly that he does when one watches the interview with Morgan and I definitely wouldn't put the word libertarian in the title with Moore's name.

Obviously the problem is that Americans often read the 2nd Amendment as something giving them a right to keep and bear arms for whatever reason, but it is not written as such in the 2nd Amendment - there clearly is this for "security of free state" - which the Americans anyway apparently don't secure with their guns, otherwise - if the Americans really would be violent as the Moore claims - there would be a violent revolution decades ago when JFK was assasinated, instead of obeying to be drafted to kill and be killed in Vietnam - therefore all that argument about "violent Americans" looks to me as a pure strawman argument which apparently has not much base in reality.

Also the argument that some "authomatic" guns with "big magazines" etc. aren't what the founding fathers wanted the people to have and protect is a nonsense when one reads the 2nd Amendment - how you can defend free state against the feds which have the authomatic weapons with big magazines and much more - you would defend the free state against feds with all that modern equipment paid by the taxes with some musketes and blunderbusses? Obviously it wouldn't be succesfull. The 2nd Amendment is about equality of rights between government and people to be armed, because if the govt. is armed and people aren't armed it usually sooner or later ends with violent tyranny - that was the intention of the founding fathers - to secure free state against enemies - both foreign and domestic and this intention is quite very well documented.

It was just painful to

It was just painful to watch...

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

What an amazing dim wit

Why is it that every time a sentence begins with "[T]hey know they're being intellectually dishonest because...," what almost always follows is a dishonest highly-charged assessment that only a dimwit would decree as the unadulterated truth.

This would be akin to me saying "They know they're being intellectually dishonest, because everyone knows co2 causes global warming."
"They know they're being intellectually dishonest, beacuse everyone knows global warming is a hoax."
"They know they're being intellectually dishonest, because everyone knows gay marriage ruins the sanctity of marriage."
"They know they're being intellectually dishonest, because we know illegals immigrants need to follow the law like everyone else."
"They know they're being intellectually dishonest, because we know a woman has the right to choose late-term abortions."
"They know they're being intellectually dishonest, because everyone knows the troops need to stay in the middle east to preserve the security of the nation."

Don't agree?

Well, then. Clearly you are being intellectually dishonest with yourself.

to clarify

for those who actually read the article (and not the video) this is in response to Moore's statement that:

"Of course, [conservatives] know they're being intellectually dishonest ... because they know the men who wrote the constitution just wanted to make sure a militia could be quickly called up... "

Moore and Morgan should move to England

When I hear fools like Piers Morgan belittling our constitution it make me sick.

Go back to england A-Hole.

I heard just enough of this interview with Michael Moore (live) to realize the buffoons these two are.

I certainly did not hear any Libertarian views from Moore during the segment I heard.

And if Moore did start speaking sense it's only because he painted his own dumbass self into a corner just like liberals always do when they realize that FREEDOM is the only answer.

Then they end up eating their own tails as they contradict their earlier stupid words.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

He also said this:"I think,

He also said this:
"I think, first of all this must seem odd to people in other countries that we view our Constitution as if it was written by God himself. That it was somehow, through some sort of divine intervention or whatever, it was etched in stone like Moses and the tablets. And because what they thought was right in 1776 to 1789, that is the way we have to live today in the 21st century," Michael Moore said on the Tuesday night broadcast of CNN's "Pier Morgan Tonight."

So I think he is a douche

yeah a douche

I'm from Europe and I think the US Constitution is one of the best legislative texts ever written and enacted (not by Gods but by wise men) and many countries including my country inspired themselves by it (here 133 years after it was passed) although they never achieved the timeless beauty one who knows something about constitutional law sees in the US Constitution.
It doesn't seem to me odd at all that Americans (well not the commie traitor Moore) revere their constitution.

If you feel

that way (moore)....argue your opinion and if enough people are on board with what you're saying....the constitution can be amended. It's the law....and until it's changed it remains. Perhaps the problem with these types of people is that not enough people agree with their view on how the laws should be...so they resort to straw man arguments about people viewing the constitution as if it was written by a god.

Not defending Moore in general

Moore's attitude toward the Constitution is abysmal; don't get me wrong. But his reflections on America's propensity to use violence and unnecessary war are good.

I don't hink he is right

if the Americans really would be violent there would be a violent revolution against the establishment long ago. It is not ordinary Americans who have propensity to the violence, it is their tyrannical government in the first place.