i've got a freeper on my back! looking for some info...

the freepers are EVERYWHERE these days. i got this gem over at another (non-political) board i'm at.

<i>Miscellaneous. Even the Canadian government is jumping in. Bowling shows Moore casually buying ammunition at an Ontario Walmart. He asks us to "look at what I, a foreign citizen, was able to do at a local Canadian Wal-Mart." He buys several boxes of ammunition without a question being raised. "That's right. I could buy as much ammunition as I wanted, in Canada."

Canadian officials have pointed out that the buy is faked or illegal: Canadian law has since, 1998, required ammunition buyers to present proper identification. Since Jan. 1, 2001, (sorry--link broke--it was a Canadian government info site) it has required non-Canadians to present a firearms borrowing or importation license, too. (Bowling appears to have been filmed in mid and late 2001).</i>

i can't find anything on this anywhere, and of course, conveniently, said freeper can provide no links to anything on it, or even to this website it was supposedly found on. if this is a fact, point me. if this is not fact, point me.

He has a section dedicated to debunking RW talking points aimed at the movie.

they are delusional

So much BS is out there that it starts to seep into the mainstream. A lot of people still believe the Sudan offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter to Clinton despite the fact that it has been debunked countless times.

freepers don't listen to facts or logic; they are a lost cause.

What I care about is the middle of the road types that may not like Bush, but are afraid of another Clinton because they heard that he was offered Osama on a silver platter and refused and also let Mohammed Atta get away...

When you start hearing normally open-minded folks repeating RW talking points, I get worried. I even have a friend who rarely watches TV & never listens to the radio spouting some of them off on occasion.

I have received some of those ridiculous emails from people I consider highly intelligent. :o

if he can't prove them you can dismiss his claims out of hand
or even accuse him of making stuff up

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/front/RTGAM/20021113/wgun1113/Front/homeBN/breakingnews

But his sister Anne Moore said the Canadian segments of the movie were filmed in 1999 and 2000, well before the new firearms law required buyers to have a licence.

"He was not asked for any licence," she said in a telephone interview from California.

She said Mr. Moore did show his driver's licence to the Wal-Mart clerk, not because he was asked for it but because he was offering it as identification to accompany the credit card he was using for the purchase.

and then render a response. You are under no obligation to prove or disprove his assertion. He made the claim, he must back it up. Laugh in his face, and tell him to put up or shut up. Or simply STFU.

Whenever you debate a Freeper, amke him/her prove EVERYTHING they say. You'd be a fool not to.

:)

tell them to prove their claim, and/or to fuck off. To hell with this being-on-the-defensive bullshit, I'm sick of the left constantly playing goalie for every claim the right throws at us.

Put up or shut up, that's what they need to hear

I can guarantee to you, without equivocation, that every fact in my movie is true. Three teams of fact-checkers and two groups of lawyers went through it with a fine tooth comb to make sure that every statement of fact is indeed an indisputable fact. Trust me, no film company would ever release a film like this without putting it through the most vigorous vetting process possible. The sheer power and threat of the NRA is reason enough to strike fear in any movie studio or theater chain. The NRA will go after you without mercy if they think there's half a chance of destroying you. That's why we don't have better gun laws in this country – every member of Congress is scared to death of them.




Well, guess what. Total number of lawsuits to date against me or my film by the NRA? NONE. That's right, zero. And don't forget for a second that if they could have shut this film down on a technicality they would have. But they didn't and they can't – because the film is factually solid and above reproach. In fact, we have not been sued by any individual or group over the statements made in "Bowling for Columbine?" Why is that? Because everything we say is true – and the things that are our opinion, we say so and leave it up to the viewer to decide if our point of view is correct or not for each of them.

sufficiently well-trained to ask for proper ID. Any surprises there?

Furthermore, Moore is making a point that low gun homicide rates in Canada don't have to do with limited access to weapons and amunitition. His argument is that they have to do with politics and culture -- ie, they don't have a culture of fear driven by RW politicians looking to drive a wedge into a segment of the population which should be voting for Democrats in their own economic best interests.

It's not clear to me that asking for ID at Canadian WalMarts (when the WalMart employee is sufficiently well-trained and experienced to remember to ask for it) undermines Moore's point. Are Canadians (more) limited in their ability to buy amunition and weapons (than Americans) because of this law or any other Canadian law? I don't think so.

Currently, you have to have a valid Firearms Acquisition Certificate and photo ID to buy ammunition. You have to get a special certificate every time you move a restricted firearm (eg. concealable pistol).

Nevertheless, it isn't all THAT difficult to get one. I did, and I'm crazy.

assuming there are any, never have any impact on the point of the film. Is the freeper arguing that Canada has fewer murders because of better gun control? What is his point?

thanks guys