M. Moore's armed bodyguard arrested on gun charge!

RACastanet · Post by **RACastanet** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:02 pm

Well, well. Mr. anti gun has armed bodyguards. And, at least one who either does not know the rules or believes he can disobey them. In any event, he is under arrest. The elite left should at least have sense to hire protection that is lawfull!

Hypocrisy at its best!

Here is the article:

Michael Moore's Bodyguard Arrested on Airport Gun Charge
Thursday, January 20, 2005

NEW YORK — Filmmaker Michael Moore's (search) 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. Burke was taken to Queens central booking and could potentially be charged with a felony for the incident.

Moore's 2003 Oscar-winning film "Bowling for Columbine" criticizes what Moore calls America's "culture of fear" and its obsession with guns.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Thu Jan 20, 2005 10:00 pm

Tch, tch, tch...

You know Rich... I think this is one of those situations where gun = bad, bad except of course for the beautiful people who need all that protection because they are special.

Yea, that's the ticket.

Too bad MM didn't think to hire you to educate his bodyguard so they could know what the hell they were doing. But of course that would be bad you know. We can't be getting information from all those bad gun people...

- Bill

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 12:39 am

The anti-gun hypocrites are all the same.

Rosie O'Donnell, who's bodyguards were caught with guns on school grounds and who later got upset because HER bodyguards weren't carrying guns to the school to drop off and pick up her kids.

Diane Feinstein, who while pushing for anti-gun legislation in the U.S. Senate had been known to carry a gun in Washington DC on her San Francisco issued concealed carry permit.

(BTW, only military, LEOs and government agents can carry in Washington DC... except of course during "National Police week", when the street crime rate in DC drops to ZERO because all those officers from all over the country are legally carrying because of the fact that they are there on "official police business" and all of a sudden the criminals don't know who's disarmed!

)

Teddy Kennedy, who's private bodyguards were caught in the CAPITAL BUILDING with full-auto sub-machineguns (MP5s) that he'd gotten for them... all of them were illegally being carried. Initially, his bodyguards were all placed under arrest, charged and the machineguns were confiscated. Teddy pulled some strings (what else would you expect) and the charges were dropped. Teddy got upset when all that money that was spent to get illegal machineguns went poof because the weapons were NOT returned.

And the list goes on...

It just seems like the hypocracy of some folks knows no bounds...

Gene DeMambro · Post by **Gene DeMambro** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 1:47 am

Where can we read more about Sen. Kennedy's bopdyguards being arrested? That would make news here. Interesting read if you could direct us to some copy on the subject.

Police took Patrick Burke, who says Moore employs him, into custody

Any corroboration he works for Moore?

Gene

IJ · Post by IJ » Fri Jan 21, 2005 3:23 am

You know, I saw Columbine, and there ARE distortions in there that I think pissed a lot of people off and caused them to miss a larger picture. Moore doesn't come out against guns. It's kind of right there in the movie. Moore comes out against our gun culture. One of his central points is that the Canadians just to our north have a much less violent culture, are less fearful of home invasions, don't have particular groups demonized on TV (he cites cops). He never says people ought not to have guns in canada. What he says is that our obsession with guns and violence is bad for us. That's the big picture. *I* feel that way and yet wouldn't have a problem owning a gun provided I could give the proper attention to the responsibility. What he did was hire someone who didn't know or chose to follow relevant gun laws... that shows perhaps another error in judgement but not a conflict with his movie.

ljr · Post by **ljr** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 3:30 am

Sen. Kennidy's bodyguard's arrest happened several years ago... don't think it was that big of a story...mostly found on "pro-gun" websites
http://www.ryanmcbain.com/forums/showpo ... ostcount=1
http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/leaf ... nnedy.html
http://www.ccrkba.org/pub/rkba/press-re ... opdogg.htm

every news story say's "Michael Moore's bodyguard", what corroboration do you want? Search on http://news.google.com for "Michael Moore bodyguard" you will find about 100 references.

cheers,
ljr

RACastanet · Post by **RACastanet** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:37 am

Ian said: "One of his central points is that the Canadians just to our north have a much less violent culture, are less fearful of home invasions,"

I do not believe that is correct Ian. Just a few days ago I found some recent stats on violent crime that included England, Australia and Canada. All of them have a higher rate of violent crime and a higher rate of home invasions. I will need to find those stats again.

I'll follow the Moore story to see if he really employed the fellow arrested in NY.

Rich

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 5:14 pm

Thanks for posting some references ljr...

There you go Gene... and the truth is, it wasn't news here. Not when it happened, not now.

And it wasn't widely reported about Rose O'Donnell's problems in CT either... of Diane Feinstein's... or the fact that while voting for banning us peasants from having semi-automatic rifles that look like military rifles, Chuck Schumer (unknowingly) had a picture snapped as he was firing a full-auto machinegun with a $hit-eating grin the whole time. While we're on the subject, Madonna bought a huge estate in England, has been openly anti-gun in this country, supports England's gun bans, and yet... when the crime rate soared in England, SHE got special dispensation, took lessons and (contrary to 99.9% of the English population) is allowed to have shotguns in her castle there! Hmmmm... That wasn't widely reported either. And to come closer to home, former Senator Cheryl Jacques and Senator Diane Wilkerson in Massachusetts, both pushed the strict Massachusetts gun laws... and both of them used the State Police as private bodyguards... Not something the citizens have access to.

It's a pattern that permeates the anti-gun forces... Ban guns for everyone but us elite. And just so you don't think I'm picking on folks based on the leaning fo their politics, Ahnold has a similar attitude in Cali-phone-ia. And that elitist attitude goes across many subjects. For example (besides being a hypocrite on guns), the Governator signed the very strict CA emissions laws that included SUVs, but the custom Hummer that he wanted wouldn't pass those restrictions. Did the Governator forgo getting HIS Hummer? Nay, Nay! He has that Hummer in his garage and drives it often... BUT, it carries Michigan plates! You see, it is still "owned" by the factory where it was built... plated and registered by them, but on "permanent loan" to Ahnold, which means... it doesn't have to pass CA emissions since it's a Michigan vehicle! Ta-Da! (BTW, there were only two Hummers built in that custom "tricked-out" configuration, and when Ahnold was touring the factory to "pick out" his new Hummer, they decided to show them to him. He immediately said, "I want dis one" and they agreed. But when it came time to send the vehicle to CA, the emissions problem reared it's ugly head. Rather than have them make the horsepower robbing changes needed to meet the emissions and mileage requirements in CA, the deal was struck.)

You can find most of these things online with a little searching.

RACastanet · Post by **RACastanet** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 6:19 pm

I only vaguely remember Kennedy's bodyguard situation, but I do recall that Kofi Annan had a similar encounter in NYC when his full auto gun toting bodyguards escorted him to/from the UN.

Rich

Gene DeMambro · Post by **Gene DeMambro** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 10:38 pm

Sen. Kennedy? Kofi Anon? You just named two men in politics and government (or whatever the UN is) who face death threats from the unstable and the deranged. They shouldn't have bodyguards. And yes, it is disingenuous to ban guns from the common folk while keeping them for themselves. But I'm pro gun anyhow....

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Fri Jan 21, 2005 11:00 pm

Gene DeMambro wrote:...it is disingenuous to ban guns from the common folk while keeping them for themselves. But I'm pro gun anyhow....

Aaaahhhhh! Common ground that just makes us love you all the more... and willing to pay for the first round when we all get together to celebrate our "like-mindedness" along with being able to have different viewpoints!

RACastanet · Post by **RACastanet** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 12:07 am

Gene: No issue with them having body guards. The issue is they ignore the rules the rest of us must play by. Annen's guards had unregistered, unlicensed fully automatic weapons that are illegal as such everywhere in the US, not just NYC where even plain vanilla handgns are a nono.

When are you going to visit Richmond for a day at the range? Great fun.

Rich

IJ · Post by IJ » Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:47 am

Rich, Moore's point wasn't about the rate of home invasions per se. It was about attitudes. His specifics were that their news was about speedbumps being installed, ours is always "if it bleeds it leads," and the rest of our TV is that psycho who narrates "world's wildest poilice chases" and all of our crime shows. He also pointed out that many there felt it was cool to leave their doors unlocked. He posits this culture that is less about fear and guns and crime and death results in a lower tension and gun violence level. You aren't saying they have more gun deaths do you?

RACastanet · Post by **RACastanet** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:33 pm

"You aren't saying they have more gun deaths do you?"

No, they do not. Their murder rate is lower than the US, but the violent crime rate is not.

Also, keep in mind that Canada has about one tenth the population of the US - 30 million or so (Canadians feel free to correct that if it is wrong) - spread out over about as large an area as that of the US. Canada has some city areas to avoid, but they lack large and unpleasant areas such as South LA that account for so many gang banger type murders.

Rich

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 9:06 pm

Rich I don't know where your getting your data from. But I did a search and got different numbers. My data indicates that Canada is less violent than America..

Could have something to do with population density. 8.7 people per square mile as opposed to 76 per square mile. Violent criminals in Canada have to hunt a little harder to find a vicitim

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_ass_cap

Just about even, but yall edged us out. Another generation of nintento and TV and we just might nose you out.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri ... cap&int=-1

Of course you got most of the bad folk already locked up so the data on the commision of crimes isn't come from a level playing field, we still got about .6% more of the pop. running around free. A wonder how much lower our stats would be if locked people away at the same rate?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap

With such a high rate of incarceration I don't understand why the murder rates are 4 times as high, why is this?

Laird