<font color=deepskyblue>Absolutely!!! - as long as you're talking about <font color=red>Spiderman 2</font>. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] :D </font>

<font color=deepskyblue>To the best of my knowledge, <font color=yellow>Yorick</font> hasn't applied for citizenship in the U.S. - so he couldn't vote for Gun Control even if he wanted to. But even if he was a citizen and DID vote for Gun Control, that is his Constitutionally-granted right.

To single out one person and blame them for an entire issue as big as Gun Control is one of the most ridiculous comments I've read here in a while.

I realize the two of you have some personal issues between you, but you need to concentrate on the issue and not the person. And <font color=red>Lanesra</font> makes a very good point. If you are going to personally blame <font color=yellow>Yorick</font> for a personal injury because of his stance on Gun Control, then he certainly has every right to return the favor and personally blame you for his personal injury also.</font>

You are correct Cerek.

Well, he did once make a passing comment which made me infer that he was in some capacity a voting citizen, and I was just being a bastard about that, trying to sound like an anti-gun lobbyist I talked to once...

It may have been a publicity stunt, but more than likely it was just business as usual in the movie business.

If you'll watch the behind the scenes sections from the first LOTR DVD you'll find that the trilogy had to be shopped around after the original company decided they didn't want to finish the deal. They allowed it to be shopped around though, just as Disney has done here, and did not prevent the movie from going forward; they just weren't going to foot the bill.

Come to think of it, this was a publicity stunt, but only in the sense that such a huge deal was made about something so mundane, but I don't think MM planned it. My best guess is that he couldn't be happier about the controvesy though.

Everything isn't a conspiracy, and you can sign me up for a ticket. I can learn as much from Michael Moore as I can from Fox news. ;)

[ 06-12-2004, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

<font color=deepskyblue>Well, I have to disagree with you on a couple of points, <font color=dodgerblue>Ronn</font>. This wasn't the same as LOTR because Michael Moore knew Disney was NOT going to distribute the film BEFORE production even started on the film. Michael Eisner told Miramax and Michael Moore's agent LAST MAY that Disney would not distribute the film. So Moore knew this was going to happen from the very beginning.

And Michael Moore was the one who went out of his way to make such a big deal about something that really IS a mundane (and very common) part of the film-making business. As you said, he couldn't be happier about the controversy - that is why he took the measures necessery to ensure the controversy occurred.

Go back and read the opening post. Michael Moore is simply telling a bald-faced lie saying that Disney pulled this stunt at the last minute and without his knowledge. He has known from the moment he started shooting the first scene that Eisner would not allow Miramax to distribute the film.

And I emphasize again that - despite the title of this thread - Disney never forbade him to distribute his film at all. They just said that Disney wouldn't distribute. Moore knew since last May he would have to find another distributer and Disney never did anything to hinder that process, even though Michael Moore has done his best to make it appear otherwise.</font>

That's pure speculation... Never in United States history has there ever been proven a positive correlation between the proliferation of firearms and the number of gun deaths. Take Florida and Pennsylvania as absolute counter-examples to that point, where Right-To-Carry is seriously considered as the independant variable in their (much sharper than the national average) reduction in crime rates after adoption of those laws. What's more, NYC's bullshit handgun control laws (which, by the way, don't work, and have never actually worked) are making it hard for me in Upstate New York, a law-abiding, sane, well-behaved and orderly citizen of no criminal history whatsoever, to obtain a pistol, not necessarily for personal protection, but just obtaining a pistol in and of itself is hard up here, because of NYC's laws... Besides, if you think the big apple is bad now, you should have seen it before Rudy Guiliani came along, back in the days of LaGuardia, porno theatres and needle park...

But I do wonder... How could you get such a one-sided view of a nation like this one, with such diverse opinions and histories coming together, might it be that the people who voluntarily watched the film might already have had some idea of what it was about, and were merely wanting to hear what they already believed? Also, consider the factual inconsistency of the film itself when deciding how to conclude on the matter.

Yes, and you've gotten this one all wrong, so I'd say I'm free to speculate all I like about yours or anyone elses, as it's clear by your example that going places doesn't tell you that much about them, in all honesty...

If you pulled a gun, there was a 1 in 50 chance the thing would have even been fired, and even then, there's a roughly 90 percent chance it would have been a warning shot, and no one would have been hurt. If you attempt a violent response, if you resist, you stand a chance of 15-18%, depending on where you are, and the situation, of being killed. Compared to complicity, which merits 20-30% (averaging in at about 24%, but metropolitan numbers are lumped into rural numbers) death averages.

Violence is not a way of life, it is not the best way, usually, but sometimes, it is the only way. If you were standing in the street with your child, taking photographs of buildings (something I'll do when I get down to NYC) or just scoping out the scenery like ordinary fellows do, and someone grabs them, and demands that you turn over your wallet?

Okay, you give him your wallet, and he lets your kid go? What would you do then?

Or, you give him your wallet and he kills your kid and runs like the blazes? Consider all possible sub-scenarios in that situation, and understand

Sorry for going on topic again ( ;) ), but I'll just repeat an old post of mine from last week that no one seems to have noticed or acknowledged - not that I'm that desperate for attention (couldn't care less), but it *did* contain a trailer for the movie that inspired this entire debate in the first place. ;) It reveals a few of the other topics of the movie as well, like the Patriot Act.

I've seen the trailer, Grojlach, your post didn't go unnoticed. ;)

TL there were 7 reasons given NOT 1, yes the WoMD's was the first listed in a list that contained 7 items or reasons. Who or whom is rewriting History NOW? Check out President Bush's statment you know the one,"Sodamn Insane, you and your boys got 24 hrs to get out of Dodge" and Rummie's statement before going to war with Iraq. Both statements listed 7 reasons NOT 1 and only 1 that people want to argue over.
SOMEBODY PLEASE post the statments in context and in their intireity(sp?) and prove me wrong.
JDH in his best Dirty Harry impression "I know what you're thinking did he fire 5 shots or did he fire 6. Well to tell you the truth in all the excitment I lost count myself, but considering this is a .44 magnum the most powerful hand gun known to man and can blow you head clean off your shoulders. you have to ask yourself is you feel lucky, well do you?"
"Go ahead and Make MY Day" ;)