Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: lazs2 on May 02, 2003, 11:06:40 AM
-
"Columbia's Board of Trustees Votes to Rescind the 2001 Bancroft Prize
Columbia University's Trustees have voted to rescind the Bancroft Prize awarded last year to Michael Bellesiles for his book "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture." The Trustees made the decision based on a review of an investigation of charges of scholarly misconduct against Professor Bellesiles by Emory University and other assessments by professional historians. They concluded that he had violated basic norms of scholarship and the high standards expected of Bancroft Prize winners. The Trustees voted to rescind the Prize during their regularly scheduled meeting on December 7, 2002 and have notified Professor Bellesiles of their decision.
The Bancroft Prize, which was first offered in 1948, is to be awarded for works in American history of "distinguished merit and distinction." The selection criteria for the Prize specify that it "should honor only books of enduring worth and impeccable scholarship that make a major contribution to our understanding of the American past." Professor Bellesiles' book seemed to fulfill these criteria at the time of selection. However, it has since been the subject of substantial debate within the community of American historians that included charges that Professor Bellesiles had committed scholarly misconduct in the use of some of his primary source materials.
In response to these charges, Emory University, where Professor Bellesiles holds an appointment, established a panel of three distinguished scholars from other universities to conduct a review. On October 25, 2002, following this review, the panel issued a report. In it, the panel members found "evidence of falsification" with respect to one of the questions they were asked to consider; spoke of "serious failures of and carelessness in the gathering and presentation of archival records and the use of quantitative analysis" on two others; and questioned "his veracity" with respect to a fourth. They also concluded that he had "contravened" the norms of historical scholarship both "as expressed in the Committee charge and in the American Historical Association's definition of scholarly 'integrity.'"
Columbia's Trustees considered the report of the Emory investigating committee and Professor Bellesiles' response to it. They also considered assessments by professional historians of the subject matter of that report.
After considering all of these materials, the Trustees concurred with the three distinguished scholars who reviewed the case for Emory University that Professor Bellesiles had violated basic norms of acceptable scholarly conduct. They consequently concluded that his book had not and does not meet the standards they had established for the Bancroft Prize.
In making their decision, the Trustees emphasized that the judgment to rescind the Bancroft Prize was based solely on the evaluation of the questionable scholarship of the work and had nothing to do with the book's content or the author's point of view.
Published: Dec 16, 2002
Last modified: Dec 16, 2002"
this so called work of history was recieved by the academic and critical crowd with gushy wet spots in their panties... most reviewed the work before it was even published... the book was chosen because it had the "right agenda" that is to say... the left wing, anti gun agenda...
When will the lefties learn? I mean... they know that they themselves are capable of bald faced lies to make their point but they fail to make the connection that everyone who feels as they do will also.... bald faced lie to make their point.
the award has been given out since 1948 it is somewhat prestigious... sorta like an oscar only among the thick glasses and bow tie, thin hair, big forehead crowd.
Like the oscar for moores 'documentary" it was given for all the wrong reasons.... the biggest reason was that it had the PC agenda... It "felt" good. To their credit.... when faced with the massive evidence of fraud in the book... the group did the right thing and took away the award...
bellisiles has since resigned from his professorship because he can't work in such a "hostile" environment... (read, he has been expossed as the charlatan that he is and is too cowardly to face the music).
lazs
-
Like the oscar for moores 'documentary" it was given for all the wrong reasons....
Do you really think the Oscar for best Documentary is given for the best journalism? Or even for the most accurate?
Sorry to burst your idealistic bubble Lazs, but it about creating an entertaining movie from actual footage (as opposed to acted).
-
MT don't you believe that documentaries should be factual?
Hooligan
-
If you can point out an Oscar winning Documentary that had NO SCENES that were either out of sequence or staged or mislabeled, I will agree with you.
There's factual, and then there's factual. Documentaries are a depiction of the facts as he filmaker sees them... no Moore, no less. (pun intended)
-
yeah... I'm missing the point too hooli... what exactly do you mean MT?
Perhaps we could have your definition of "documentary" and you could explain how flat out lying in one is acceptable within that defenition?
My point was that "arming" was given an award for being an "historical" work... when it was found that it was more lie than history the award was recinded.
moores work is billed as a documentary and has been found to be anything but... it is moore lie than documentary.
perhaps the solution is to not recind his oscar but to simply change the category from "best documetary" to "best agenda in a documentary style format"?
I realize that the oscars can't slip much in "presige" beyond what they are now but...
lazs
-
From Here (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~MA01/Huffman/Frontier/define.html)
"Documentary defines not subject or style, but approach. It denies neither trained actors nor the advantages of staging. It justifies the use of every known technical artifice to gain its effect on the spectator....To the documentary director the appearance of things and people is only superficial. It is the meaning behind the thing and the significance underlying the person that occupy his attention....Documentary approach to cinema differs from that of story-film not in its disregard for craftsmanship, but in the purpose to which that craftsmanship is put. Documentary is a trade just as carpentry or pot-making. The pot-maker makes pots, and the documentarian documentaries."
-
By that definition even Triumph of the Will is a documentary... :rolleyes:
-
The book in question was a falcified study.
The Oscars are just the matter of opinion.
When the trustees were awarding their prize, they were deceived about the validity of Bellesiles' research.
When the Oscar judjes voted for Moore, they knew exactly what they vere voting for.
You, Lasz, would be more consistent urging people to ignore the "Oscar" institution rather than support it by fixing it's defects. Those are not superficial defects but the nature of the institution and the people it represents.
miko
-
very good MT... now show me how that has anything to do with flat out lieing (the plaque at the B52) or shooting scenes that are out of sequence in order to make them appear to say something they are not (as in Hestons case)... moores work is every bit as agendized as "triumph of the will" and not nearly as well done.
My pont is... what will people growing up think when they find out how far from reality a "documentary" can be and still get attention and accolades? what example does moores work set? Why is it wrong to ask for the truth and at what point do you say "ok, that's enough of this crap"?
Could a film be a "documentary" if you simply dubbed words into the characters of said "documentary" so that they said whatever you wanted them to? Would that be any different from filming them talking about one thiong but claiming they were talking about something entirely different?
MT... I believe that you tolerance for left wing liars far exceeds your tolerance for anything ever said by a right winger regardless of truth. That is the downfall of the left. That is why they are constantly hoisted on their own petard. You're smart enough but you just can't help yourself..
lazs
-
no miko... I believe that I am entirely "consitent" I have correctly identified the forces at work behind the awarding of accolades in both cases...
What we are talking about here is standards... In both awards, standards are involved... In both awards.... "opinion" is involved. The bancroft prize is awarded according to standards and... it is a matter of opinion... the opinion of the committee.
And... while I hold no high (or any other kind) of regard for hollywood or it's oscars....They must live by the same defenitions as the rest of us. "special effects" must mean special effects... best actor must mean at the very least, an actor.... best documentary must at the very least be a documentary.
I don't really care if the recind it or not... I will not have any moore respect for them.... at least not at this early stage. I simply want them expossed.
lazs
-
I find it humerous that Lazs and Hooligan are giving such importance to an Academy Award. Hell, I'm a huge film nut(and a liberal too!), and I consider the Academy Awards to be frivilous and trivial for the most part. The Academy Awards are not about the quality of the films, it's all about the insider political BS that determines which film wins as best picture, etc.
Why you guys even waste your breath on this subject is beyond me.
-
the guy is a major threat to their political agenda.
and its very very popular movie that promises to be seen by almost all the populace :)
they are left out in the cold as uncareing or worse. destroy the infidel!!
honestly its how these guys think, read a few threads character assasination of michael moore instead of who ever else threatens their reactionary view of the world.
they will go after me again for writing this. they cant help it.
-
MT... I believe that you tolerance for left wing liars far exceeds your tolerance for anything ever said by a right winger regardless of truth. That is the downfall of the left. That is why they are constantly hoisted on their own petard. You're smart enough but you just can't help yourself..
I think you misunderstand me Lazs. I have no great love for Moore or his politics. I really think this Revoke the Oscar movement is much ado about nothing, and wouldn't exist without the NRA Lobby.
1. BFC is a good film. It is the highest grossing Documentary in history. And eventually it concludes that GUNS are not the problem.
2. All Documentaries are the vision of the film maker. Go watch some of those "Victory at Sea" films. Most of us here can spot inaccuracies and twists in the facts in all those films. Never saw a "Revoke the Oscar" movement though.
3. For a hardened-right-wing-toughguy group, the NRA sure has a thin skin.
-
Lasz, logic of your reasoning is consistent - they behaved in violation of their own guideliness, which is still their right.
It's your motivation that lacks consistence.
If you hold no regard for Oscars, as I've correctly presumed, why the heck would you be interested in correcting its defects - especially if those defects are symptoms of fundamental systematic rot - or enlightenment, depending on view?
Unless you hope to transform the Oscars into a balanced and objective organisation reflecting your values or at least representing the cultural values of the country, not just liberal left, why would you want to prop it up rather than let it totally discredit itself?
Let them hand themselves.
miko
-
I agree with you on this one, the academy awards are a farse!
Let me also be the first to "go after" LDV
He is like Weasel, but with fewer and les valid points, lol, who could have believed it? :D
-
I have no problem with the movie being seen or even being popular. Several of the old anti drug films are "cult favorites" and seen by millions.
I simply want the fact that the film is a blatant lie to be out there. Nothing wrong with that is there? I think that is useful if anyone who would see the movie knew that moore was a blatant liar beforehand so that they could watch the film in the proper spirit.
I believe moores works should be viewed for what they are, much like the old anti drug films of the 40's fifties and sixties..
lazs
-
miko... my motivation is the same in both cases.
I would of course be happier if all awards were based on truth and merit. I believe that allmost all "art" awards are agendized.
my "motivation" is simply to expose. If the academy award is not revolked then at least let us use the opportunity to defraud the movie while it is in the limelight. The same was with "arming"... the fact that the board caved in and as much as admitted their agenda was simply iceing... the fact that so much attention was given the book and it's debunking was the real prize.
moores work is getting attention... the left is hoisting itself on it's own petard regardless of how they react... if the academy would have left the film alone it would not have recieved the attention it has and it's agenda and blatant lieing nature would not be expossed. both cases are the same.... with perhaps the bancroft people haveing perhaps a little more percieved prestige than the accademy awards... still... the forces behind both are the same... the opportunity to embarass and expose is the same.
MT... I read NRA publications... I have seen no NRA effort to do anything to moore. Mostly they think he is laughable... all in all, a sensible attitude and one I would like to help promote. Do you know of some NRA backed against moore?
lazs
-
the paid hecklers at the award show?
-
uh.... are you saying that the NRA paid hecklers at the awards show to boo moore?
lazs
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
By that definition even Triumph of the Will is a documentary... :rolleyes:
Why isn't it?
-
Lazs what you and others who attack Moore and his film fail to understand is that all films need publicity. The moore (sorry) you give it by attacking it the moore (sorry) widely it is seen and the m..... it makes lots of money.
When any film is attacked by special interests, be it one legged bisexual lesbian whales or the NRA, it increases interest in the film. Believe it or not, not everyone shares the NRA's touching belief in the primacy of guns in society and their 'beneficial' effects, and I speak as someone who shoots and has an interest in guns.
Moore's film, I'm sure, makes some excellent points in a not neccessarily accurately rendered way. That is why the genre is considered an art form not a science. The NRA and the gun lobby itself has made some laughable claims in their time.
The comparsion with the Bancroft book is invalid anyway. The book was judges to have fallen below the standards of scholarship required by the prize committee. The Oscars suffer from no such profundity.
What I'm saying lazs is, let it go. This won't do your cause any good.
-
im sayin he said so. and without any evidence of the man being a liar ( you boys trying to lynch him for party reasons pretty much cuts out the idea that he must be lying since his lips are moving )
read up on the guy, he is not what you are painting him to be. here is one link. there are many.
self promoter yea but his points are correct and i have no fear of him, and im a gun lover go figgure.
http://www.newsreview.com/issues/chico/2002-03-28/cover.asp
-
Originally posted by Montezuma
Why isn't it?
Because it is a lie and the whole thing was staged and everything was scripted and orchestrated with only one point of view and one idea.
For example it would be like making a "documentary" about black men where all of them were scripted as criminals and stupid and drug dealers and abandoned heir illegitimate children and then trying to pass it off as a reflection on all black men.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Because it is a lie and the whole thing was staged and everything was scripted and orchestrated with only one point of view and one idea.
Interesting topic... a quick search turned up this:
Leni Riefenstahl: Documentary Film-Maker Or Propagandist?
by Ellen Cheshire
Leni Riefenstahl was considered to be Adolf Hitler's favourite film director. Her directorial début, Blue Light (1932), caught Hitler's attention and he requested that she make a short film of the Nazi party's 1933 Nuremberg rally, Victory Of Faith (1934). A year later, he commissioned her to make a feature-length film of the 1934 rally - this film became Triumph Of The Will (1935). It has been described as 'an impressive spectacle of Germany's adherence to Hitler', a 'Nazi masterpiece' and 'a masterpiece of romanticised propaganda', but nevertheless has been hailed as a great work despite its glorification of the 1934 Nuremberg Party Rally and the political message of the Nazis. Equally famous, and considered far less political, was her coverage of the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin - the four-hour epic Olympia (1938) offered a 'glorious view of Olympic athletes that remains powerful and popular.'
The issue of whether Triumph Of The Will and Olympia should be classified as 'documentaries' or as 'propaganda films' has been in constant dispute since they were made. They are very different films concerned with completely different subject matters, so I have approached the two films separately.
In an interview in 1964, reprinted in A Biographical Dictionary Of The Cinema by David Thomson, Riefenstahl makes clear that she felt Triumph Of The Will was a recording of an event, not a propaganda film:
"If you see this film again today you ascertain that it doesn't contain a single reconstructed scene. Everything in it is true. And it contains no tendentious commentary at all. It is history. A pure historical film... it is film-vérité. It reflects the truth that was then in 1934, history. It is therefore a documentary. Not a propaganda film. Oh! I know very well what propaganda is. That consists of recreating events in order to illustrate a thesis, or, in the face of certain events, to let one thing go in order to accentuate another. I found myself, me, at the heart of an event which was the reality of a certain time and a certain place. My film is composed of what stemmed from that."
However, propaganda can take various forms, ranging from overt attempts to influence the public to covert means of persuasion linked with brainwashing - the subjecting of individuals to intensive political indoctrination and the breaking down of a subject's resistance. It is frequently thought of negatively and has become associated with ideas, facts, or allegations deliberately spread to further a cause or to damage an opposing cause. Joseph Goebbels, Minister for Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda in Hitler's cabinet, and his work within the Nazi regime is especially infamous. He felt that entertainment was the best propaganda and, as a consequence, 90% of the films produced by Germany had no overt propaganda messages - his aim was to entertain and get people off the streets and away from their homes. He wanted films not to focus on information and facts but on emotion and entertainment. Therefore he was at odds with Hitler's aim regarding Triumph Of The Will.
It cannot be denied that Triumph Of The Will is a record of an event. It is a film of an actuality and happened where and when and in the order that the film says it did. In an account of the making of the film, Riefenstahl writes that she was involved in the Rally's planning - and conceived the event with filming in mind. As Susan Sontag reiterates in her article entitled 'Fascinating Fascism': 'The Rally was planned not only as a spectacular mass meeting, but as a spectacular propaganda film.' However, by 1993 in The Wonderful, Horrible Life Of Leni Riefenstahl, Riefenstahl claimed that she was not involved in the design of the Rally - "I just observed and tried to film it well. The idea that I helped to plan it is downright absurd."
It has generally been accepted that the Nuremberg Rally was staged for the cameras, rather than the cameras having to accommodate the action. The film was cut to rhythm in time to anthems and Wagnerian music creating choreographed images of endless numbers of men in uniform, marching in to and out of abstract shapes and patterns filmed from a variety of angles, reducing the men to geometrical designs. The passionate music, feeling and emotion builds up to a climatic frenzied finale when Hitler takes the stand. The dramatic intensity of the event was accentuated by the composition and editing. It is this deliberate manipulation of emotion that makes this 'documentary' cross the boundary into 'propaganda film.' This links directly with the perceived notion of propaganda as the systematic attempt to manipulate the attitudes, beliefs and actions of people through the use of symbols such as words, gestures, slogans, flags and uniforms.
The film was financed by the Nazi Government, commissioned by Hitler himself, completed with the full co-operation of all involved, with huge resources at her disposal - an unlimited budget, crew of 120 and between 30 and 40 cameras. It stands as a powerful artistic representation of the ideas in Hitler's book Mein Kampf - work, extreme nationalism, belief in corporative state socialism, a private army, a youth cult, the use of propaganda and the submission of all decisions to the supreme leader, i.e. himself. The film, however, reached and influenced far more people than the book ever could. Riefenstahl claimed in The Wonderful, Horrible Life Of Leni Riefenstahl that it was "Not a documentary but a work of art, [there was] no commentary in the normal sense of the word. There's no commentator to explain everything. That's the way it differs from a documentary or a propaganda film. If it were propaganda, as many say, they'd be a commentator to explain the significance and value of the occasion. This wasn't the case."
In contrast, Susan Sontag in her essay entitled 'Fascinating Fascism' re-printed in Movies And Methods Vol 1, claims that it is the 'most successful, most purely propagandistic film ever made, whose very conception negates the possibility of the film-makers having an aesthetic or visual concept independent of propaganda.'
It is not only the messages in the film that were slanted towards Nazi beliefs and ideals, but the mise-en-scene, editing and music all combine to create a hypnotic and visually rich emotional experience, which would have undoubtedly influenced more people than, say, the crude propaganda films of Dr Fritz Hippler (Jud Suss and Der Ewige Jude).
-
Part II.
The film commences with Hitler's arrival in Nuremberg by plane. Parallels can be made between Hitler's arrival through the skies, and the descent of a God, coming to meet his people - this is heightened by the endless views of clouds, the plane's shadow moving relentlessly over the sunlit streets of Nuremberg. Shots of the town's people in the streets staring up with a look of awed expectation on their faces. Our sense of perspective and reality is lost in the views, the music and the steady regal pace of the moving plane - one is not looking at a man but a mythical God descending to Earth. The Wagnerian music played as Hitler's plane lands, the bands and singing, the beauty of Nuremberg, the hysteria of the crowds with their arms outstretched to greet him, combine to make up a display of Nazi passion and obsession. It is this emotional response of the people in the film and the emotional response the audience gains from these majestic shots that are at once inspirational, seductive and horrifying.
Throughout the remainder of the film one is stirred by the film's mix of power and certainty. The endless swastikas marching towards you, rows upon rows of Nazis in half profile staring mesmerically towards the 'great' leader, close-ups of Hitler, the constant movement of the camera, views from many angles, the resonance of banners, trumpets and torchlight processions seen through the waves of the giant flags, and the inter-cutting of shots of the isolated heroic father figure of Hitler, watching over his men, create the perfect 'propaganda film.'
At the time Triumph Of The Will was considered a good documentary, and received many international awards including the Gold Medal in Paris and at the Biennale, and the National Film Prize of Germany. Since the end of the war, it has been slated as propaganda, causing Riefenstahl to be blacklisted and ending her career as a film-maker. However, even documentary films cannot document reality, or depict a true account of events - a better term would be a non-fiction film. The majority of fact-related films are not unbiased recordings, and Triumph Of The Will and Olympia are no exceptions. The mere fact that a certain subject has been chosen involves an interpretation of what should be shot and the manipulation of time and space in the interest of tension and story-telling. In addition, they are usually carefully scripted, structured, cast and located to express a distinct message and point of view.
Olympia, considered to be one of the best documentaries ever made, is a record of the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin. There are conflicting stories on how the commission for filming was given. Riefenstahl claimed that she was approached by an International Committee co-ordinating the Games. However, Taylor Downing in his BFI Film Classic book on Olympia has apparently unearthed material leading to his discovery that it was Hitler, yet again, who made the suggestion for her to film the games and provided the funding.
Her coverage of the Games was extensive and editing took over a year. In A Biographical Dictionary Of The Cinema, David Thomson says that, 'the emphasis on shape at the expense of competition, the slightly prurient relish of glistening muscle, and editing of delirium over high diving' - it is this criticism, that the film focuses more on the glorification of the human form rather that the sporting events, that has been levelled at the film over the years by various film theorists and historians. The athletes are kept at a distance, with the focus kept on their physiques and rippling glistening muscles rather than their athletic achievements - for example, you see in great detail, an athlete preparing to put the shot, but not the shot in action. Although, the film documents an event, as Triumph Of The Will does, the messages in Olympia are not political, consequently the label 'propaganda' cannot be so easily attached to it. However, in Hitler's book Mein Kampf he lists seven main elements of Nazi Ideology, two of which are exemplified in Olympia. 1) His belief in the perfect Aryan-German race of athletic beautiful people, which are epitomised by top athletes competing with each other for ultimate supremacy. 2) Hitler's ideology of a Youth Cult which emphasises sports and paramilitary outdoor activities - again this film aimed at the young, with the ethos of 'this is what you could be with hard work and exercise.' These, linked with shots of Nazi insignia on flags, bells, and the athletes' shirts, the emphasis on the German activities and victories, the lingering shots of the triumphs of German sportsmen/women (lasting longer than those of other countries) combine to create an emotional patriotic film which tips Olympia into the category of 'propaganda' rather than a straight 'documentary.'
Riefenstahl's conception when filming these films could well have been to create an artistic emotional view of two events in German history through the genre of 'documentary.' However, given the political views at that time and throughout the following years, Triumph Of The Will and Olympia can be seen to symbolise the Nazi ethos of the time, which reflects Susan Sontag's view that Riefenstahl was an artist whose personal preoccupations were primarily artistic and technical, not political, but that her films were used by Hitler and the Nazi party for their own political games.
Further Reading
Books
Lutz Becker, 'Celluloid Lies' in Art And Power: Europe Under The Dictators 1930 - 1945, Hayward Gallery, 1995
Taylor Downing, Olympia, BFI Film Classics, 1992
Susan Sontag, 'Fascinating Fascism' in Movies And Methods Vol 1, edited Bill Nichols, University of California Press, 1976
Documentaries
We Have Ways of Making You Think: Goebbels - Master of Propaganda, BBC TV, 1992, written and produced by Laurence Rees
The Wonderful, Horrible Life Of Leni Riefenstahl, Channel 4 Without Walls, 1993
Out Of The Shadows, BBC Radio 3, 1993, presented by Ian Christie, produced by Simon Elmes
-
He can keep it for all I care. Just proves how worthless an Oscar truly is. Maybe they should rename it the Lennin (not Lennon)
-
They gave one to a child rapist as well.
-
Moore publicity for the movie!
Anyone who wants it - I will send it airmail on a CD, just email me at orangebeet1e@yahoo.co.uk - confidentiality assured.
-
wow.
this has acctually gotten interesting.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I think you misunderstand me Lazs. I have no great love for Moore or his politics. I really think this Revoke the Oscar movement is much ado about nothing, and wouldn't exist without the NRA Lobby.
This might be an accurate statement, but when saying it, you forget one minor thing. The film also attempts to undermine the NRA effort. How can they not respond? How can those that support the NRA not respond.
I mean.. you do agree that the movie does attempt to undermind the NRA... right? And when doing so, introduces some less than factual arguments / information... right?
You only disagree on the response.
A movie received the highest award possible for its genre (a genre that by its very name implies factual), and attempted to undermind someone in the process. To deny that the award gives the movie legitamacy is silly. To deny that the movie does not outright fabricate information in order to make the NRA look bad is silly.
MiniD
-
OK I'll bite. What exactly did Moore lie about in this "documentary" that's got everybody so worked up?
I've heard a lot of critiscisms of his opinions and methods but I've never heard somebody accuse him of lying yet.
bowser
-
Go to that thread you posted in 3 times bowser and actually read the first post.
-
You mean that thread you posted in 47 times? Wait....that could be just about any thread. Never mind.
bowser
-
At least I knew what the thread was about bowser. You just posted.. to... well... you get the point.
MiniD
-
Bowser wrote:
OK. Did Moore lie?
I accuse him of lying.
Any further questions?
Hooligan
-
Originally posted by bowser
You mean that thread you posted in 47 times? Wait....that could be just about any thread. Never mind.
bowser
ROFL!
Hooligan - welcome back.
-
First of all, these award shows are not even worth mentioning. I don't spend my time watching snobs loath themselves, it's pathetic.
Second, I see this thread now for what it is about......guns. I'm a Dem and I support keeping our guns. I do not support anyone owning "X" amount of guns, i.e., someone owning a huge cache of assault rifles. If you own a pistol, a shotgun, and a rifle(or a couple of the forementioned), that should be enough, IMO. I know gun collector's find that unfair, but you can't have everyone sitting on huge caches of weapons and saying"I'm just collecting them"
What scares me more than guns is the government taking them away from the honest citizens and leaving them to the criminals.
-
ah... but.... I hope his movie get's lot's of publicity from this.... much like "arming of America" got lot's of publicity. Much like all the 'demon weed' drug films of the 40's fifties and sixties did. They are all the same...
I want people to think "Oh... that lieing blowhard" whenever they see a moore film is coming out.
lazs