Michael Moore Faces Backlash for Tweet About Boulder Shooting Suspect Ahmad Alissa

I see nothing wrong with what Moore said. He is a rabble rouser and he is going to try and instigate a reaction. 

Michael Moore made a full length documentary about guns in America, Bowling For Columbine, so although one may disagree with his conclusions, you cant say he doesnt know the topic. 

In BFC there is a scene where he shows a little 6 or 7 year boy 'shooting' his toy six gun.  The history of America includes hundreds of millions of little boys  given toy guns to play with. 

I had a friend one time who bought a new shotgun. This was in Chicago mind you,  but he liked to occasionally go skeet shooting. He loved his shotgun so much he had to regularly fondle it. One night after being out drinking and getting coked up he came home and started cleaning the shotgun. Apparently it was loaded because he blew part of his hand off. His wife picked his finger up off the floor and they were able to reattach it at the hospital. 

There has always been an element of "gun love" in America that has little to do with self defense. That is why the macho men who like to walk around government buildings openly displaying their AR 15's look so proud of themselves. They are big shots when they are holding their gun in public. 

Michael Moore is not wrong, he's just saying something a lot of people don't like to hear. 

I think Moore is right in this case.  While many see it as a tool for hunting, sport, household protection, or even as a historical marker for antique collection,  I know of many that see their choice of firearm as being a status symbol much like car selection, Harley ownership, Etc.  It's kind of a "look at me, I'm important too!" void they get to fill with their piece selection.

Face it..... I'm sure all of us that have firearms, know someone you wouldn't trust to be around with if they were holding a piece.  As a bird hunter, I was very selective of who I would go out in the field with.  With someone I didn't know, I watched them on how they handled their shotgun from the time it came out of the case to the time it went back in.  Alcohol was a strict no-no for the entire party until the shotguns were back in their cases. 

First step and an easy one, is to limit magazine size.  Limit all magazines (rifle and otherwise) to the same number of rounds for say the Beretta 92F 9mm of 15 rounds, or the Colt 1911 45Cal of 9 rounds. 

only meant to kill fellow human beings.

Agree 100% 

Michael Moore made a full length documentary about guns in America, B

It's not a "documentary", it's just propaganda designed to manipulate viewers. It's amazing how people think slapping the word "documentary" on a film changes it from anything other than partisan punditry with pictures and a narrator. 

In 2012, D'Souza released the documentary film 2016: Obama's America , an anti-Obama polemic based on his 2010 book The Roots of Obama's Rage ; it earned $33 million, making it the highest-grossing conservative documentary of all time and one of the highest-grossing documentaries of any kind. ^{[17] [18]} He has since released four other documentary films: America: Imagine the World Without Her (2014), Hillary's America (2016), Death of a Nation (2018), and Trump Card (2020).

Dinesh D'Souza - Wikipedia

I assume then that you don't consider the delusiuonal D'nesh D'Souza to be making documentaries then. 

The fact is documentaries are non-fiction films.  They are not required to give footnotes and sources and "proof". . 

If they are non-fiction and providing "facts" I do think they are required to provide sources and proof. Not legally but certainly by journalistic standards and ethics

Bowling For Columbine won the 2002 Academy Award for Best Documentary feature. 

ACADEMY AWARDS

SPECIAL RULES FOR THE DOCUMENTARY AWARDS

I. DEFINITION

An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released nonfiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial reenactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.

Documentary Feature Rules.doc (oscars.org)

Bowling For Columbine is a documentary.  In the case of, for example the scene where Moore gets a rifle from the bank after making a deposit, the scene is an edited re-enactment.  Big deal.   Moore was making a point that the bank was providing guns to people who met deposit requirements, not a word for word depiction of what that would look like in real time. 

He got the Oscar because he made the movie both informative and entertaining. 

It's amazing how people think slapping the word "documentary" on a film changes it from anything other than partisan punditry with pictures and a narrator. 

Quite true Sean. When My pillow man came up with his documentary it was supposed to blow the top off of the election fraud and soon was seen as just Bull Shit.

Selling some thing as a documentary doesn't mean it is.  

"dealing creatively"

I get it now.

en that you don't consider the delusiuonal D'nesh D'Souza to be making documentaries then...

He's on the exact same page as Moore. 

The fact is documentaries are non-fiction films

They are the same as op-eds in your paper.  The filmmaker is trying to convince you of their point of view as surely as the op-ed columnist. It's just a different medium.  

Selling some thing as a documentary doesn't mean it is. .

I would argue that the term documentary itself  doesn't really mean much.  There are documentaries "proving" all sorts of fringe conspiracy theories on the Kennedy assassination , or various sensational murders. They leave out everything that contradicts the filmmaker's message or theory he's advocating and can create a seriously distorted view of reality. . 

When I hear someone cite a documentary as proof of an argument, I automatically discount it. 

I dunno. I am beginning to think Idiocracy is a self fulfilling documentary.

They leave out everything that contradicts the filmmaker's message or theory he's advocating and can create a seriously distorted view of reality. .

Sean, I dont know how many documentaries you watch but many of them advocate a point of view. It is not the slightest bit out of the ordinary. 

In Bowling For Columbine Moore interviews numerous people who have a pro gun rights viewpoint. He doesnt agree with them, in fact he skewers them, but they are in the movie. You do not have to treat both sides of an issue equally to have a good documentary. 

Michael Moore
@MMFlint
·
19h
I know. I feel bad for ppl who don’t understand irony. But I decided decades ago to never explain satire as if ppl are too stupid to get it. I’ve watched the dumbing down of America & the efforts by those in power 2 create an idiot nation. They need the public ignorant 2 succeed.

Imo, Michael Moore is a Canadian anti American hypocrite, but has zero problems making a fortune from the American public. I have never watched any of his films and never will.

Imo Moore is the Progressive version of Limbaugh. Neither are worth spending much time on.

has zero problems making a fortune from the American public

That seems to be quite acceptable these days...... Banksters, politicians, ex-presidents, Christian evangelists.....   The list is endless.

I don't follow Moore.  I've better things to do with my time.

On that we are in agreement.

Yep.

Michael Moore is not a Canadian.  He was born in Flint Michigan and is only a US citizen. 

I have seen some, but not all,  of Moore's films, and he is not anti-American.  He is a populist propagandist who is satirically critical of various aspects of conservative political beliefs. 

For the most part he is brilliant at what he does, although propagandists can be prone to excess at times. 

You have your opinion, I have mine.

Okay, I was wrong and made a mistake on Moore's place of birth. Confused him with someone else. That still does not change my opinion of him in any way.

You beat me to it.  He profited off the misery of those killed hiding behind an excuse that it was a documentary.  Did one penny go to the survivors or start programs?  I doubt it.  Now what I would pay to see with him would be him and Trump in a cage fighting over what they are told is the last Big Mac.

Michael Moore does not make movies in order to become rich. If you think that you must have never seen him interviewed. 

I can't stand the sight or sound of him.  His net worth is 30 million so imo he is rich, maybe not by Hollywood standards, but he is rich and that money came from box office receipts.

There's no way that "mass shootings" are a "beloved" aspect of American culture, but "guns" sure as hell are.  However, mass shootings have unfortunately become an "UNbeloved" aspect of American experience.

Moore didnt say mass shootings are "beloved" he said gun violence is.  He's right, although obviously there are various aspects and shadings involved. 

I don't know about Canada but anyone born here  after 1950 has been steadily indoctrinated into the "hand of the gun" culture

by the endless TV westerns, cop shows, WWII series which became more and more "realistic"

as the movie industry tried to outperform each other with  graphic gore, followed eventually by the TV shows.

We've devolved to where almost anything goes on TV except procreation.

digitalspy

Now with video games, on line co play, gun violence is just normalized.

Hard to put the genie back in the bottle with so many ARs already available.

One of my 70 yr old friends bought a Blackwater surplus AR 15 five years ago, because "Obama".

complete waste of $ IMHO

Michael Moore, like so many that ascribe to far left politics, is searching for simple solutions to complex problems.   Bless their hearts.

One commonality, shared by all humans, is violence.  Moore's advocacy for passive aggressive violence is, nonetheless, violence.  There isn't any human culture, throughout all of history, that has not engaged in violence.  Human civilization depends upon violence because the human animal instinct is as innately anti-social as it is social.  Humans are not herd animals; humans are pack animals.

The only way to overcome the animal nature of humans is for humans to become something more than an animal.  Attempting to force humans to become more than an animal would require violence which is a self defeating approach.  That is the violence that Michael Moore is advocating.  And Moore's simple solution of using force to reshape society will only call forth the innate animal instinct for violence.  The innate animal instinct of humans will be to form packs, or tribes, and fight.  That is the nature of the human animal.

Michael Moore attempts to present himself as an intellectual.  But Moore is using high-minded, idealistic moralizing as a weapon.  That may be passive aggressive violence but is, nonetheless, violence.  Michael Moore isn't that different than Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa.  Moore is only using a different weapon to engage in violence.

Interesting comment, although it is so full of undemonstrated speculation there is no point to trying to refute it. 

Interesting comment, although it is so full of undemonstrated speculation there is no point to trying to refute it. 

Do you have the courage to explore the issue objectively?  Simple logic provides the 'demonstration' you are questioning.

Is it possible to impose anything upon a group of people without a threat of violence?  Should someone choose not to comply then what has been imposed becomes meaningless.  The street parties in Miami Beach provide a simplistic example.  A curfew was imposed and people chose not to comply with the curfew.  If the curfew was not enforced then the curfew becomes meaningless.  And enforcing the curfew requires violence to force compliance.

Imposing a curfew on Miami Beach was justified by high-minded moralizing of those far removed from Florida.  The curfew had been imposed upon the police as well as the party goers.  If the police did not comply with the imposed curfew and enforce the curfew then the curfew becomes meaningless.  The police became the means for using violence, by those far removed from Florida, to force compliance.  Those who justified curfews with high-minded moralizing engaged in passive aggressive violence; they imposed a curfew on both the police and the party goers but weren't required to be the ones using violence to force compliance.  Those who called for imposing a curfew were actually responsible for the violence because they imposed the curfew on both the police and the party goers.

Imposing anything upon a group of people also requires imposing compliance on those responsible for enforcing what has been imposed.  Without enforcement, anything imposed upon a group of people becomes meaningless when some choose not to comply.  Those making the demand for imposing something on people are responsible for the violence required to enforce what has been imposed.

Other countries have applied simple solutions to the complex problem of gun violence.  We missed the boat on that one.  Now there are more guns than people here.

Other countries have applied simple solutions to the complex problem of gun violence.  We missed the boat on that one.  Now there are more guns than people here.

A demand for a ban on firearms is also a demand for enforcement.  Without enforcement, the ban on firearms becomes meaningless.  The success of a ban on firearms depends upon a threat of violence.  

Those responsible for enforcement are allowed to engage in violence.  Enforcement becomes acceptable violence in society.

Your comments on this topic seem like equal parts philosophy, nihilism, and contrarianism. It brings to mind one of my favorite lyrical quotes:

What good is a cynic with no better plan?

- Ben Harper

And what is the better way?  The idealistic emotionalism expresses belief in a better way but offers no path.

As I stated, what is required is for humans to become something more than animals.  That can't be accomplished by treating humans as animals.  For humans to become more than animals, each individual must choose to control their animal instincts.  That's not a social activity and can't be imposed upon individuals by society.

Well, if human beings were as good natured and trustful as dodo birds, we would have gone the way of the dodo bird long ago.  A better way is to trust but verify the subject is worthy of trust first.  Objecting to common sense gun legislation is like giving the mentally ill assault rifles as Christmas gifts.

Does his sign say....KEEP YOUR COWS?

Lol - COINS.

I’ve seen Ben Harper several times.  The last time was at an indoor/outdoor pavilion with around 7,000 people, and he turned off his mic to sing that song to the crowd.  Imagine having a scream so loud that 7,000 people can hear you without a mic.

Ohhh COINS. 

Michael Moore attempts to present himself as an intellectual.

Sounds more like you're trying to present yourself as an intellectual. Moore and those on the left advocating increased gun control aren't trying to force humans to overcome some innate violent tendencies. What they are advocating is for the "fangs" and "claws" humans use to commit mass murder closely regulated so we at least know who are buying such weapons and making sure they aren't mentally ill or likely criminals with a violent agenda. What rational Americans want is universal background checks, limits on high capacity magazines, bump stocks and some military style assault rifles that have a singular purpose, that of causing maximum human casualties. Only a very few on the left fringe are calling to ban all guns, and those folk aren't taken seriously by anyone so they should be dismissed out of hand.

The majority of Americans recognize the need for comprehensive gun safety laws to try our best at limiting the ability of crazy's like the most recent shooter from getting their hands on weapons designed to kill as many humans as possible. Those are weapons of war and should be kept in the hands of our active military so they can, with proper oversight, use them to defend us, not gun down innocent civilians in a grocery store or movie theatre.

Michael Moore isn't that different than Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa.

That's about the stupidest thing I've heard in weeks, and that's saying a lot considering how much horse shit some conservatives keep shoveling.

Moore is only using a different weapon to engage in violence.

Violence: noun - the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy

So Moore isn't using any weapon and isn't damaging or destroying anything, so again, your faux intellectual opinion falls flat on its face.

I'm not a huge fan of Michael Moore, he tends to be a little pretentious at times as if he knows everything while also being cynical about humans ever being able to fix the problems he highlights, but he often has valid points about the problems. And nothing about his message or proposed solutions would be considered "violent".

Moore and those on the left advocating increased gun control aren't trying to force humans to overcome some innate violent tendencies.

That is correct; advocating gun control doesn't address human nature.  What gun control advocates are calling for is acceptable violence to enforce what they advocate.  The advocates are just as violent as their opponents.  The advocates are only attempting shift responsibility for their violence onto enforcement.  It's a passive aggressive Pontius Pilate approach to violence.  

What they are advocating is for the "fangs" and "claws" humans use to commit mass murder closely regulated so we at least know who are buying such weapons and making sure they aren't mentally ill or likely criminals with a violent agenda.

Enforced by a threat of violence.  Without enforcement, gun control would be meaningless.  A ban on firearms won't eliminate firearms.  People choosing not to comply would make the ban meaningless.  It's necessary to enforce the ban with a threat of violence.

The majority of Americans recognize the need for comprehensive gun safety laws to try our best at limiting the ability of crazy's like the most recent shooter from getting their hands on weapons designed to kill as many humans as possible.

The majority of Americans don't use guns to kill as many humans as possible.  Creating laws requires enforcement.  And enforcement becomes acceptable violence in society.  The gun control laws must include safeguards so that the allowed, acceptable violence of enforcement cannot be used against the majority of Americans.

Giving the police permission to be violent only means the police will train themselves to use violence and the police will become violent.  Police violence will become acceptable because that is what enforcement requires.

Gun controls are imposed upon the police as well as gun owners because police are required to enforce the gun laws with threats of violence.  If the police are not allowed to enforce gun laws with violence then those who choose not to comply will make the gun laws meaningless.

You seem to be saying that we shouldnt have any gun ownership regulations because some Americans won't like it.  Is that actually your point ? 

You seem to be saying that we shouldnt have any gun ownership regulations because some Americans won't like it.  Is that actually your point ? 

I'm pointing out that Michael Moore is advocating passive aggressive violence.

As far as gun control goes, there needs to be as much attention paid to safeguards as to control.  Enforcing gun controls entails giving law enforcement permission to use violence to enforce the controls.  

Are there reasonable things that can be done to control firearms in society?  Yes.  But not including safeguards to prevent government abuse of enforcement isn't reasonable.

Hasn't anyone been paying attention to the BLM protests?  The police have been abusing society's permission to use violence.  The police have been training themselves to use violence and threats of violence.  And the police have become violent.

I'm sure your arguments have their own internal coherence, but I don't see much relevance to what is being discussed in this article. 

I have a very hard time caring about what this dweeb tweets or says.

Why does anyone give a shit about what he has to say anyways?

Later in the day, Moore shared a Tweet with a picture of the Statue of Liberty in New York alongside the caption: "The life of Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa shows that people can come from all over the world and truly assimilate into our beloved American culture."

Of course Syria is just a peaceful country that knows nothing of violence. Religious killings never occur anywhere in their history. They have not been embroiled in constant civil wars, conflict, killing, and gun violence is not worshiped there./S

Moore should take a trip to Syria to find out what he is talking about.  Study up on their history and very diverse culture. Meet all of the various factions that don't get along at the best of times. Unfortunately Moore isn't that stupid; he is just a politically divisive opportunist that wants some more of the lefts' money.

The life of Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa shows that people can come from all over the world and truly assimilate into our beloved American culture.

OK, so America does have a gun culture, but nothing about the shooting in Colorado reflects an aspect of it that people love. That’s like saying driving your car into a crowd of people is a part of beloved car culture. There is nothing about mass murder that qualifies as “assimilation” into any culture.

"Michael Moore is facing a backlash from right-wing commentators "

Oh no! Not backlash from right wing commentators! /s

The only things more useless than right wing commentators opinions are males nipples and used sanitary napkins.

The only things more useless than right wing commentators opinions are males nipples and used sanitary napkins.

And Michael Moore.