Riiiiiggght.

The point is: I am not a well known anti-gun advocate.

Surely it is patenly obvious that if one is anti-gun that one is being hypocritical for having a hired gun protect you.

Go watch Bowling for Columbine and then tell me he isn’t a hypocrite for having an armed body guard.

This is the point.

I actually have no problem with him having the body guard, as I noted in the post.

I am not sure how you can come to that conclusion based on ‘Bowling for Columbine.’ It seems pretty clear that he is not saying that guns, per se, are problems–this is evidenced by his trip to the bank, comparison with Canada.

The main point of the film is that problems of violence are complex and involve economic conditions, familial relations, and other social structures.

In some respects, he is close to conservative critics like Sam Brownback and Rick Santorum who are always harping about Hollywood culture and violence.

The difference between Moore and the conservative critics is that he highlights the commodified nature of culture and relates it to larger trends in economic relations in the US.

He is critical of the NRA and suggests that regulation of firearms is probably a necessity–to be sure. But to be in favor of regulation doesn’t mean he is “anti-gun.” Labels such as that serve to simplify what is a complex problem.

Bush signed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the wake of Enron, does that mean he is anti-corporation?