I don't really see why anybody should care what Michael Moore thinks, or get all bent out of shape about it. He's not that important. Moore is just one side of a coin that has Limbaugh on the other.

Just Fred wrote:

According to the article it seems he believes several police forces have, in effect, become an arm of the military with similar weapons, gear, vehicles, and machinery at their disposal.  He might have a point.

Fred, he wasn't just talking about the military style weapons.  He said disarm them and let people protect themselves.

I think that is dangerous and irresponsible.  What do you think?
 

“Why do cops have tanks?” he asked.

That was the quote from the article that caught my eye.  I don't think he is the only one that has observed the militarization of the domestic police force.  I believe I have read articles about our Department of Defense selling or giving away equipment like this to local police units.  I guess I remember watching a news program a year or two ago where a SWAT team was running around the streets of NYC wearing camo like the kind that is worn by soldiers fighting in the field while armored military vehicles were buzzing around in an urban environment.  Seemed weird to me at the time.

I honestly don't know much about Mike Moore other than some movie he made about Columbine.  Anyway, maybe an over-reaction on my part.  Your points are well taken.

I think it is legitimate to have a debate over whether police should have access to military style weapons. However, he loses me when he says to disarm them and he caller means to take away all weapons.

Goose wrote:

Sure. I agree. But, I expect such hyperbole from Moore, and really don't take him seriously.
I think that Moore has learned that saying something outrageous is a sure fire way to get his name in print.

And I agree with everything you said as well.  The "bomb throwers" on each side are just trying to stay relevant.