By way of general background, since many Moore supporters send me email asserting that anyone who disagrees with their patron saint just has to be a young, drooling, right-winger:
I'm 53, hold a Juris Doctorate, have four books and twelve articles in law reviews (one of them cited as authority by the U.S. Supreme Court and eleven of the thirteen U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals). I've won cases up to the U.S. Supreme Court and the Arizona Supreme Court (both of those on hard cases -- the first was a win on the 10th Amendment, the second a reversal of a death penalty case).
Unlike Moore, who did one day on an assembly line and promptly quit, I've really been working class. I'm a tilesetter's son, grew up on construction sites, worked a summer as a laborer in Pima Mines, and worked some law school summers in my father's tile shop. Useful skills, by the way: I've re-tiled a bathroom and built an addition to the house. (I'm a little rusty with the framing hammer, and plastered my left thumb a few times while putting in the joists and roof.).
I'm not registered Republican, although I suspect I'll re-register that way when I get time. Someday they'll wake up and run Colin Powell, or my old boss Gale Norton.
I'm a member of the NRA, and of the ACLU. President of Tucson Rod and Gun Club, holder of a provisional patent on bullet design (you can't break the laws of physics, but if you really know them, you can bend them pretty far. In the supersonic regime, some realities are counter-intuitive.)
And by the way, the one area where I quite agree with Moore (and find him an embarassment rather than an aid) is the contention that the war on terror is being used to expand arbitrary government power and to infringe civil liberties. Damn right. But this is not a new phenomenon -- Moore seems to think it was invented under the current administration, but actually it began under Clinton, when the governmentally-promoted scare was domestic terrorism. Take a look at my online writing regarding this, or a look at my 2000 book. [I don't want to date myself, but the approach really was invented by one R. Milhouse Nixon, who used arguing for an expasion of federal law enforcement power as a way to counter Hubert Humphrey's candidacy, by claiming that LBJ and his Attorney General Ramsey Clark were soft on crime, being as they hadn't sought to expand federal control over the matter. At that point in the late 1960s most federal criminal cases actually involved tax evasion -- everything else, from drug possession to gun matters to porno, was left to the states. Then Tricky Dick saw it as a campaign issue, and from then on, anyone who didn't advocate pouring federal billions in was soft on crime. Of course this had the result of radically expanding funding for crimes that don't harm most of us, while ignoring crimes that do (someone selling marihuana or porno is a federal affair, someone burglarizing your house and raping and murdering you is not.).