'Michael & Me'
Posted: October 7, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Joseph Farah
I have just seen the finest documentary ever made about the right to self-defense with firearms.
It was produced by my friend and colleague Larry Elder, a WorldNetDaily columnist and an outstanding Los Angeles radio talk-show host.
It's called "Michael & Me," and, as you might imagine, it emulates the style of Michael Moore's documentaries and turns the tables on the filmmaker responsible for "Bowling for Columbine."
This time it's Moore who is hunted down for an ambush interview the way he famously stalked Roger Smith, the chief executive officer of General Motors, in "Roger & Me," and an ailing Charlton Heston in "Columbine."
This time it's Elder scoring all the propaganda points – with the truth and facts, rather than distortions and cinematic gimmicks.
Heretofore, I have known Elder as an author, a columnist and a radio talker. I was simply not aware of his considerable skills as a documentary filmmaker. This DVD has it all – entertainment value, vital information, a distinctly American point of view.
I simply cannot recommend it highly enough.
This is a documentary that needs a wide audience. I implore you to buy it and share it with your friends and family members. I urge you to spread the word about this magical movie. It is one of those works or art that can change the culture on the gun issue.
Elder makes the compelling case that guns save lives. He doesn't just do it with statistics that no one can deny. He does it with real stories of survivors. He does it with interviews from experts. He does it with the confused thinking of people like Moore, who is, ultimately, ambushed for an interview by Elder.
This documentary leaves no stone unturned in exploring the issue of firearms and self-defense. It covers all the bases. If this is your issue, you will love this movie. If it's not, you will still love this movie and it will become your issue.
The gun-control crowd argues that the Second Amendment either doesn't mean what it says or that it has become an anachronism in the modern age because we have the government to protect us from enemies and the police force to protect us from criminals.
As someone who trusts government about as much as I trust criminals, I never had much use for that argument. And while I generally think most local policemen are good people, the truth is, they just can't be relied upon to protect you.
If you doubt what I'm saying, check out the case law in our nation's capital.
In 1981, the court there held in Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Dec. 21, 1981) that neither the city nor police officials could be held liable for failure of police to respond properly to a request from victims for protection from attackers.
Listen to the facts of this incredible case: A call came in to the police on the 911 emergency hotline reporting a burglary in progress. The police department employee who received the call assured the caller that assistance would be dispatched promptly. However, the dispatcher delayed assigning the call and gave it a lower priority than "crime in progress" calls were supposed to receive.
That was bad enough. But it gets worse. When police officers finally arrived at the scene of the burglary, they failed to make a thorough check of the building and left without discovering the two burglars, who by this time had raped a 4-year-old girl and forced her mother to commit sodomy.
The victims' neighbors, two women who lived upstairs, made a second 911 call, again receiving assurance that help was on the way. No help ever arrived. For the next 14 hours, the intruders held all the occupants of the building captive, including the two women who lived upstairs – they were all raped, robbed, beaten and subjected to numerous sexual indignities.
Despite all this abuse and ineptitude, the court held that neither the assurance of assistance nor the fact that the police had begun to act gave rise to a special relationship between the police and the victims. "[T]he desire for condemnation cannot satisfy the need for a special relationship out of which a duty to specific persons arises." Because the complaint did not allege a relationship "beyond that found in general police responses to crimes," this court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim.
In other words, the police aren't there to protect average citizens. It happens sometimes. There are brave police officers who put their lives on the line for strangers. They are to be applauded. But that is not the everyday occurrence you might imagine. Most police work occurs after the fact. Most responses are post-victimization. And, frankly, most of my contact with police these days occurs after I see red lights flashing in my rearview mirror.
I suspect that's true for most people.
None of that matters to the gun-control crowd.
In their view, only important people like politicians, celebrities and the rich deserve armed protection. But as Robert Heinlein put it, "When only cops have guns, it's called a 'police state.'"
Do we really believe we are wiser than the great men who founded this country? Do we really believe they enshrined in the Second Amendment the right to bear arms because they wanted to protect the rights of hunters? Are we ready, in spite of all we know about the basic nature and character of government, to entrust our basic freedoms to the state and its armed agents?
For those who are, let me make a suggestion. Why don't you set an example for the rest of us and print up signs for your homes that say: "This is a firearm-free zone." This would represent a real service to the country. We can experiment to see if their thesis is correct. Does a reduction in firearms translate to a reduction in violence? This will be the test case.
I say, go for it. After all, what do you have to worry about? You've got the police and the government to protect you.
But, before you take my advice, see Larry Elder's "Michael & Me."