categories

archives

meta


"walls of the city" logo conceptualized by Oleg Volk and executed by Linoge. Logo is © "walls of the city".

michael moore is a certifiable moron

But you knew that already.

Apparently Mr. Fat-Ass Lard-Ball himself had a "conversation"* with Piers Morgan over the non-existent merits of "gun control" here in the United States, and while I am going to try very, very hard to ignore the rest of his idiocy, this particular comment stood out in stark relief from the rest of his bigoted screed:

And I wish that we would just live in this century.

We do, jackass; that is why we use semi-automatic firearms instead of muskets. (Those muskets, by the by, could fire up to four rounds a minute in the hands of a skilled marksman, not the one round every fifteen minutes you ignorantly claim. Idiot.)

Granted, semi-automatic firearms were first developed in 1885 by a certain Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher; however, it would not be inaccurate to say that the mechanics and concepts of semi-automatic firearms have been polished and smoothed into relative perfection within the past century or so.

I wonder what the next major breakthrough will be? I was kind of hoping it would be Metal Storm’s superposed loading, but that does not seem to be going anywhere quickly…

Furthermore, given that the very intention of the Second Amendment was to allow the American people to stand toe-to-toe with contemporary, organized armed forces and authoritatively say, "NO!" I dare say the Founding Fathers would be all over the concept of semi-automatic firearms, and they would probably be marching in the streets demanding the repeal of the National Firearms Act and the legalization of ownership of new-production fully-automatic firearms for the people. But, hey, that whole "history" thing was never really your strong suit, was it, Mike?

Go back to stuffing your face; that seems to be the only thing you do well.

(… And, damnit, I just cannot let this painfully stupid quote go:

"I mean, we wouldn’t go to a doctor and have him put leeches on us to suck the blood out of us because that would cure us, that’s what they did, you know, a 150 years ago," Moore also said.

ORLY? You should tell that to the folks at the Yale Journal of Medicine & Law, and, in fact, the FDA to boot:

The use of medical leeching in modern microvascular surgery and tissue transfer began when two Slovenian surgeons used the parasites to assist with circulation after a tissue-flap transplantation. Then, in 1985, Harvard physician Joseph Upton used medicinal leeches to successfully reattach the ear of a five-year-old boy. Since then, leeches have been widely used to reduce venous congestion in fingers, toes, ears, and scalp reattachments, as well as to salvage vascularly compromised flaps, or muscle, skin, and fat tissue surgically removed from one part of body to another, and replants, limbs or other body parts reattached after traumatic amputation. Without leeching, blood clots often kill the repaired or transplanted tissue.

The only thing worse than a moron is an ignorant moron, and you are exactly that, Michael.)

(* – I use that term very loosely, and with the understanding that "circle-jerk" should be read in its place.)

21 comments to michael moore is a certifiable moron

  • And let’s not forget that 60 years before we declared Independence there was in existing rapidly firing arms:

    The Puckle gun (also known as the Defence gun) was invented in 1718 by James Puckle (1667–1724) a British inventor, lawyer and writer.
    Contents

    Design and patent

    It is a tripod-mounted, single-barreled flintlock weapon fitted with a multishot revolving cylinder. It was intended for shipboard use to prevent boarding. The barrel was 3 feet (0.91 m) long with a bore of 1.25 inches (32 mm). It had a pre-loaded cylinder which held 11 charges and could fire 63 shots in seven minutes—this at a time when the standard soldier’s musket could at best be loaded and fired three times per minute.[1]

    So to say that the Founding Fathers could not envision the advances in modern armament is a lie.

  • What he really wants is to go back to living in caves…

  • My Cousin is an RN on her way to becoming a Nurse Practitioner. She did most of her RN work at Mass General Hospital (voted consistently one of the best hospitals in the country) and she applied leeches to patients for treatment.

    Also let’s not forget the Lewis and Clark Air Rifle in the late 1700s that was a multi-shot repeater that was designed for hunting and defense.
    http://youtu.be/-pqFyKh-rUI

    So yeah, the founding fathers knew very well of the capability of firearms.

    Of course Mike talks about “living in this century” but really he’s stuck in the dark ages.

  • […] Linoge has a great post on Michael Moore doing what he does best, passing bullshit as fact. […]

  • How come the 2nd is the only amendment that this amber-like quality counts?

    Right to free speech is just an archaic idea that only applies to printing presses and word of mouth. Let’s get with the 21st century already!

    Yeah, Mike’s biggest complaint seems to be that those damn proles don’t seem to know their place. Having all those guns gives them funny ideas. Ideas that rights don’t change simply because its a new year.

    And 15 minutes? That no one challenged him speaks volume to their ignorance and/or their integrity.

    This is why we don’t compromise with the antis. They’re ignoramuses that have the arrogance to try to take our rights away all while telling laughably transparent lies.

    You might as well compromise with someone that wants to ban E-publishing because you can read E-books again and again while paper books disintegrate after the first reading, which isn’t fair because re-readers cheat publishers out of money. Add besides the First Amendment was written before then so they don’t count anyway.

  • The Jack wrote:

    You might as well compromise with someone that wants to ban E-publishing because you can read E-books again and again while paper books disintegrate after the first reading, which isn’t fair because re-readers cheat publishers out of money. Add besides the First Amendment was written before then so they don’t count anyway.

    There are very, VERY similar arguments to this being made regarding the way videogames, once played, can be traded in for store credit. The store gets multiple sales this way, but the manufacturer of the game only gets paid once.

    I don’t have a solution to this. I’m just saying, it’s been thought of…

  • A’yup.

    But the paper books don’t disintegrate. ;p

  • chiefjaybob

    Hey you a$$hole!!!!!! Michael Moore is TEH SMARTER(c) than you!!1!! Don’t you question him!!!1!! He doesn’t need to cite sources!! He *IS* the source!!!!!!1!!!!

  • Heartless Libertarian

    I want to live in the twenty-first century…I want my phased plasma laser in the 40-watt range, dammit! We’re supposed to have hand held plasma lasers by now!

  • I’m rereading the Deathstalker series (cause Simon R. Green is awesome, and so is pulpy space opera), and for most of the first book, everyone is using disrupters (disruptors? whatever.). They’re basically laser pistols, and they can fire once before recharging (which takes 2 minutes). If you want more than one shot, you need a NY reload; otherwise, it’s all swords and hand-to-hand combat.

    Late in the first book, they get a huge cache of ancient projectile weapons, and one guy points out that the reason they were banned was to keep the lower classes in their place.

    And this is by an English author!

  • Pyrotek85

    Bob S. wrote:

    And let’s not forget that 60 years before we declared Independence there was in existing rapidly firing arms:

    The Puckle gun (also known as the Defence gun) was invented in 1718 by James Puckle (1667–1724) a British inventor, lawyer and writer.
    Contents

    Design and patent

    It is a tripod-mounted, single-barreled flintlock weapon fitted with a multishot revolving cylinder. It was intended for shipboard use to prevent boarding. The barrel was 3 feet (0.91 m) long with a bore of 1.25 inches (32 mm). It had a pre-loaded cylinder which held 11 charges and could fire 63 shots in seven minutes—this at a time when the standard soldier’s musket could at best be loaded and fired three times per minute.[1]

    So to say that the Founding Fathers could not envision the advances in modern armament is a lie.

    They studied history in general quite a bit as well. They knew what advances we made over the centuries and knew we wouldn’t just stop all of a sudden. It’s crazy to think they couldn’t envision guns that fired faster. If anything, it would have been hard to imagine something like computers and the Internet, which is different from anything we’ve ever had before.

  • Tom

    Last month my wife and I watched the 2005 BBC series “The Virgin Queen” about the life of Queen Elizabeth in the 16th century. We picked it on Netflix just because it looked interesting. It was a good movie, but what struck me was how easy and acceptable it was to jail and execute political opponents. Elizabeth’s sister was a Catholic that had her tried for treason. When the sister died, Elizabeth became queen, the Catholics fell out of favor and the Protestants (?) became powerful. Court life was “icky” in the sense that favorites came and went depending on the value of the gifts they could give the queen. And the queen could call on her army to take care of her favorites against their enemies. If you didn’t have money to buy the power, you had to suffer through whatever the royal court decided. Of course, you wouldn’t have had a sword or pike or spear or whatever to fight back with. Our Founding Fathers knew what that world was like. English politics in the 18th century wasn’t that different than the 16th century. They knew how easy it was for power to change hands, and that the power of arms followed the power of politics. That’s why the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to protect Americans from that. I’m not saying the polarization we see in our current politics is the same as Queen Elizabeth’s court, but it’s not implausible to envision a day in 25, 50 or however many years when our democracy has devolved into laws being written and enforced by force of arms for the benefit of the wealthy few. And THAT’S something that would have our Founding Fathers asking “Why? We gave you the tools to prevent this!”.

  • Live in this Century?? F*ing jackass – where’s my Spacely-Sprockets™ Flying Car? Where’s my Mk VII 400Kw Blaster? Where’s my genetically modified talking dog?

    And where’s his goddam Slim-Fast and Jemmy Craig? It’s there why doesn’t he USE it?

  • Indeed. They’ve seen actions evolve and knew all about rifling versus smoothbore and the improvements therein. So it’s very arrogant to think they would be unable to envision improvements in arms technology.

    For example. Forsyth’s patent was in 1807. Only 15 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified. Most of the Founders were around at that time.

    Note that there was no “Oh no the 2nd Amendment doesn’t cover caplocks. It’s just for flintlocks.” You’d think if the Founders intended the 2nd to just apply to the guns they used, they’d have tried to halt this new action

    With the percussion cap all sorts of new things open up. You get revolvers for repeated fire and you start down the road to enclosed cartridges and from there you get everything else.

  • @ Bob S.: Of course, in fairness, the Puckle Gun was a nightmarish monstrosity that stood just about as much chance of taking out the operating crew as it did anyone on the other side of the barrel. But, yeah, repeating arms or arms that could take out multiple targets at once were not exactly unusual… Grape shot had been around for damned near forever, and “buck and ball” loadings predate even the Revolutionary war.

    @ bluesun: Oh, he thinks he does, but there is absolutely now way he would be able to support his corpulence in a pre-agrarian society. Be funny to see him try, though.

    @ Weer’d Beard: The dude is just plain ignorant, but he is able to present his ignorance in such a compelling, convincing fashion that people buy into whatever he says no matter what he says. He is a master manipulator and propagandist, but that is about it.

    @ The Jack: Did you honestly expect Piers Morgan, of all people, to have the foggiest of clues how quickly a blackpowder rifle could be fired? If that idiot redcoat has ever actually been in the same room with a live firearm and he knew it, I would pretty much fall out of my chair.

    And, yeah, the Founding Fathers were pretty explicit writers – if they wanted a specific thing to be protected by the Second Amendment, they would have said that. And, in fact, they did – they wanted the entire concept of “self-defense” protected, not just by means of a narrow set of tools.

    @ Erin Palette: The same argument rears its ugly head about hardcopy books from time to time… hell, the old Friends of the Library branch I worked at periodically somehow managed to “get in trouble” over such things. Damned if I can understand why, even today.

    @ chiefjaybob: The source… of an impressively non-zero amount of stupidity in modern society, that is for damned sure ;).

    @ Heartless Libertarian: Directed energy is definitely the wave of the future, and we would probably already be there if it were not for that damned “energy storage” problem. Sarium Krellide, baby!

    @ wfgodbold: Well, the question in that case is which side of that moral fence he came down on – I mean, hell, Mao knew that power comes from the barrel of a gun… which is why he disarmed everyone he wanted to subjugate.

    @ Pyrotek85: Yeha, given the advances that happened during their own lifetimes in general, assuming they could not see a few centuries ahead and imagine what could come down the pike is pretty insulting indeed.

    @ Tom: Ayup. The Second Amendment protects the individual right to self-defense. That defense could be against a mugger, a murderer, a home-invader, or against a government that has stepped outside of its bounds and needs to be so corrected. I mean, hell, these folks just did exactly that because they were armed, and the entire incident sparked over the Brits attempting to disarm the Bostoners; this is not a hard concept to grasp.

    @ NotClauswitz: Hell, if Moore’s comments indicated he wanted further advancement in pure-energy weapons, I would be all for it.

    But I doubt it ;).

  • Oh lord no, they wear their ignorance as a badge of pride.

    Hell we can go with blackpowder revolvers. Those buggers came into being within living memory of the ratification of the 2nd.

    Talk about a quantum leap in arms technology. And one that spread out to military and civilian use at a fair speed. Until cartridges got on their feet.

  • TS

    In that interview Michael Moore said he “refuses to live in a country like this”, but added that he is “not leaving”. So is he threatening suicide if we don’t ban “assault weapons”? Or is he just blowing a bunch of smoke, because we all know very well he will continue to live in a country like this?

    “You better pass gun control, or I’ll do nothing.” How very committed of him.

  • @ Linoge:

    Well, it’s a very Star Wars esque series, with bands of rebels fighting against the Evil Empire™ (and it’s the Empire that has a vested interest in keeping the lower classes disarmed and placated).

    I don’t know if Simon R. Green has any views on firearms one way or another (he may have just been making a reference to the crossbow ban the Pope handed down lo those many years ago), but the rebels and their primitive projectile weapons are on the side of good.

    Even if he were anti-gun (and he might be, what with being English), I don’t think it would bother me that much. He’s just got such a way with the language (in a different series, he introduces a character as “Suzie Shooter, also known as Shotgun Suzie, also known as Oh Christ It’s Her Run”).

  • @ The Jack: And ignorance I can kind of tolerate, though given the infinite amount of information available to us literally at our fingertips, I am increasingly less and less amused by it. However, when you take the time to actually point people to the information that should educate them and show them the errors of their ways, and when they shove their fingers in their ears, scrunch their eyes closed, and start screaming… well, I stop being amused entirely.

    @ TS: I guess in that respect he is pretty much like all of those other spineless idiots who swore they were going to emigrate to Canada if Bush won the election… and then did not.

    ‘Course, I stopped reading someone because he refused to “celebrate” the Fourth of July and went to Mexico in protest during Bush’s administration, so at least some people have the nerve to follow through.

    @ wfgodbold: Huh, might have to look into it once I am done with all of the stuff I need to read already ;).

  • Granted, semi-automatic firearms were first developed in 1885 by a certain Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher

    ~snark~

    I can’t help but wonder: would the Malodorous Michigan Manatee of Mendacity think more favorably of the concept of semi-automatic firearms, if he knew that the designer of the first practical semi-automatic firearms had a last name that could reasonably be pronounced by English speakers as “Man-Licker”?

    ~/snark~

  • Oh dear and fluffy Lord… the Markley’s Law violation possibilities just went through the roof!