First, anti-gun Rosie is found to have a pistol-packing bodyguard, and now everyone’s favorite filmaker joins the ranks of the hypocritical: Michael Moore’s Bodyguard Arrested on Airport Gun Charge
Filmmaker Michael Moore’s bodyguard was arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon in New York’s JFK airport Wednesday night.Police took Patrick Burke, who says Moore employs him, into custody after he declared he was carrying a firearm at a ticket counter. Burke is licensed to carry a firearm in Florida and California, but not in New York.
I don’t blame the man for wanting a bodyguard. I don’t blame him for wanting an armed bodyguard.
However, since he runs around like he is the representative of The Common Man and since he made a great deal of money criticizing guns, this is pretty amusing (and telling).
So is this proof that Michael Moore somehow told this guy to carry the gun? That he knew he was carrying it? Oh. Whatever. Let’s kick Michael Moore in the face for making a movie about guns.
Comment by Stephen — Thursday, January 20, 2024 @ 11:08 am
Joe Gandleman has an opposing view, worth reading.
Comment by Harry — Thursday, January 20, 2024 @ 11:33 am
So Steven, if you were to hire a body guard you wouldn’t know - or want to know - if he was packing heat?
Riiiiiggght.
Comment by Director Mitch — Thursday, January 20, 2024 @ 12:44 pm
Mitch,
The point is: I am not a well known anti-gun advocate.
Surely it is patenly obvious that if one is anti-gun that one is being hypocritical for having a hired gun protect you.
Go watch Bowling for Columbine and then tell me he isn’t a hypocrite for having an armed body guard.
This is the point.
I actually have no problem with him having the body guard, as I noted in the post.
Comment by Steven Taylor — Thursday, January 20, 2024 @ 12:49 pm
Steven, I am not a big Michael Moore fan , but I always found it curious that he was consistently labeled as being “anti-gun.”
I am not sure how you can come to that conclusion based on ‘Bowling for Columbine.’ It seems pretty clear that he is not saying that guns, per se, are problems–this is evidenced by his trip to the bank, comparison with Canada.
The main point of the film is that problems of violence are complex and involve economic conditions, familial relations, and other social structures.
In some respects, he is close to conservative critics like Sam Brownback and Rick Santorum who are always harping about Hollywood culture and violence.
The difference between Moore and the conservative critics is that he highlights the commodified nature of culture and relates it to larger trends in economic relations in the US.
He is critical of the NRA and suggests that regulation of firearms is probably a necessity–to be sure. But to be in favor of regulation doesn’t mean he is “anti-gun.” Labels such as that serve to simplify what is a complex problem.
Bush signed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the wake of Enron, does that mean he is anti-corporation?
Comment by kappiy — Friday, January 21, 2024 @ 11:43 am