michaeledward
Grandmaster
Wow ... He is a Lifetime Member of that National Rifle Association. He showed this in his movie to the President of the NRA. He opened a bank account, and by doing so, received a weapon and he documented the transaction on film. He received an Academy Award (considered the highest honor awarded to film makers) for the film that shows these facts.
And people are surprised that he owns guns !
I am drowning in incredulity.
good grief!
And people are surprised that he owns guns !
I am drowning in incredulity.
good grief!
AC_Pilot
Blue Belt
two points: 1) The second amendment is there to protect our right to own military weapons. If ya don't like it, don't own weapons. It's OK with me. And if you think no one else should have a militia-self defense right, do try to amend the constitution. Don't try to re-interpret it the way you prefer.. this is a slippery slope that is destroying the entire Bill of Rights.. it's called judicial activism. If Supreme court judges did their job we would not even be having a gun control discussion cause there would not be any prohibitions relating to peaceable weapons owners. The pro gun groups and our votes are our only avenue to restore our rights and we are going to do so, eventually. We don't want crazies to have access to weapons any more than you do.. but they will get them in a free society. Our only hope is personal self defense and swift punishment.Feisty Mouse said:
2) The reason there are continued school shootings is that it's a posted and known Criminal Free Zone. What do I mean by this? well, not even teachers and parents of schoolchildren can be legally armed in schools,( including Columbine) and the crazies out there know this. This is why you don't see police stations, shooting ranges, and gun shows being shot up by said crazies. Basic common sense. the few school shootings that have been stopped were, you guessed , by someone with a gun! Read this, please:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16382
Oh, and one more thing: it was illegal for the Columbine kids to buy ammo.. so they were breaking the law, and the clerk who sold them said ammo was, also. There was a law and they broke it. They were willing to, and did commit murder. If they were willing to commit murder and suicide, what do you think would have kept them from obtaining ammo? What purpose will further laws serve?
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
At the risk of mentioning reality, the Constitution says nothing about the right to have military weapons. However, if you do choose to interpret the, "right to bear arms," that way, you're pretty much stuck with the full context--which says that we have the right to bear arms as part of an organized militia.
It's common to claim judicial activism. You might try to keep it in mind that many of the Supreme Court's decisions about guns (and abortion, for that matter) have been written by very conservative judges--Earl Warren among them. Republican, in point of fact.
As a lifelong teacher, one is deeply disgusted by the notion that the way to handle the Columbines is for teachers to show up with guns. It's a grotesque violation of EVERYTHING that education is about, tempting as it is to show up for, say, Freshman Comp totin' a shootin' iron.
It's common to claim judicial activism. You might try to keep it in mind that many of the Supreme Court's decisions about guns (and abortion, for that matter) have been written by very conservative judges--Earl Warren among them. Republican, in point of fact.
As a lifelong teacher, one is deeply disgusted by the notion that the way to handle the Columbines is for teachers to show up with guns. It's a grotesque violation of EVERYTHING that education is about, tempting as it is to show up for, say, Freshman Comp totin' a shootin' iron.
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Related to this topic, I started a discussion on the second amendment here, so we can discuss what it REALLY means...
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21071
Paul
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21071
Paul
AC_Pilot
Blue Belt
It's sad to see a teacher of our future generations so poorly informed.. I don't mean this as an insult but you do not understand the Colonial era, English common law concerning private weapons, or Olde English which was inherent in the 2nd Amendment.. please take the time to read this:
http://www.gunowners.org/fs9402.htm
http://www.gunowners.org/fs9402.htm
Really, thats what it says huh? Probably in the Same wording that makes this say "Separation of church an state" even tho it doesnt SAY that:rmcrobertson said:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
So, in essence when they pass laws saying that you cannot pray in school, or have religious symbols in courthouses, etc... they are effectivly violating the consitution by passing a law "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Yeah, hey, lets Interpret that as "Separation of Church and State" instead of what it actually says... same as we will do with the second amendment when we say its "Only for the Militia".
While We are at it, lets take away that pesky freedom of speech, after all, its in the same line of the Constitution... we need Separation of "Speech and State"... No free speaking in public schools, government buildings, or on the subject thereof, etc.
But hey, dont listen to me, Im only reading it as its written, not how I want to see it because of my own bias and fears.
Another hypocrite: Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. He surrounds himself with armed bodyguards in even the safest of neigborhoods. He has, however, brought forth some of the most restrictive gun laws in Chicago about. (Chicago also has one of the highest homicide rates in the country.)
As for Moore being a hypocrite, wow, that's SO UNEXPECTED!
Honestly, his documentaries are anything but. If you go by how he portrays things in Bowling for Columbine, you see that the NRA is a callous organization that holds rallies in response to kids getting shot. What he didn't tell you, those rallies where scheduled waaaay before the kids being shot, and they were ANNUAL meetings! So here you have Michael Moore berating Charleton Heston, demanding he apologize for the NRA holding rallies that they hold every year.
Not to mention that you'd have to be a drooling idiot to think that a guy could walk into a bank, and get a gun for opening an account in the same building! Yeah, some people probably think that was a real scene, which is pretty sad. He asks the bank manager "Don't you think it's kind of dangerous to keep a gun in a bank?", and then cuts away to a montage. What he didn't tell you is that there are no working guns kept in the bank, all the guns they give away are kept in a vault 4 hours away, and noone ever gets the gun the same day.
As for Moore being a hypocrite, wow, that's SO UNEXPECTED!
Honestly, his documentaries are anything but. If you go by how he portrays things in Bowling for Columbine, you see that the NRA is a callous organization that holds rallies in response to kids getting shot. What he didn't tell you, those rallies where scheduled waaaay before the kids being shot, and they were ANNUAL meetings! So here you have Michael Moore berating Charleton Heston, demanding he apologize for the NRA holding rallies that they hold every year.
Not to mention that you'd have to be a drooling idiot to think that a guy could walk into a bank, and get a gun for opening an account in the same building! Yeah, some people probably think that was a real scene, which is pretty sad. He asks the bank manager "Don't you think it's kind of dangerous to keep a gun in a bank?", and then cuts away to a montage. What he didn't tell you is that there are no working guns kept in the bank, all the guns they give away are kept in a vault 4 hours away, and noone ever gets the gun the same day.
digitalronin
Green Belt
deadhand31 said:
Moores NRA membership was nothing more than a cover to get up close to heston.
LOL - he was an NRA member since he was a kid.digitalronin said:
P
PeachMonkey
Guest
There's also an exclusion for slide, pump, and lever-action shotguns in that bill; did the weapon he held use any of those mechanisms?modarnis said:
I don't know what he was using, but as a side note,PeachMonkey said:
A semi-auto wouldnt have a Slide/pump/or lever.
It would then be a Slide/Pump/or Lever action Shotgun.
Feisty Mouse said:
You might want to hear why he purchased a lifetime membership. Quoting Mikey here:
"After Columbine, I decided that I would run against Charlton Heston for the presidency of the NRA. If elected, my plan was to try to return the NRA to a gun safety organization, instead of its current agenda of gun fanaticism. The rules said that to run for president, you had to be a member for the past five years or buy a lifetime membership for $750. And that's what I did. But after a while I realized this endeavor was going to take too much time, so I decided to focus all my attention on the movie I was making."
He said it would take too much time to become NRA Prez. Umm, yeah, noone in their right mind would elect a bloated fact-bending anti-gun moron like Moore to president of the NRA. Especially since he lacks anything beyond a high school diploma!
AC_Pilot
Blue Belt
BTW, legally armed citizens are a big deterrent to crime.. in this case a serious violent crazy was stopped by an armed citizen who shot him..see this thread on a breaking story:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21084
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21084
modarnis
Purple Belt
>>BTW, legally armed citizens are a big deterrent to crime.. in this case a serious violent crazy was stopped by an armed citizen who shot him..see this thread on a breaking story:>>
And for a great analysis of this, try More Guns Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong, by John Lott, a Yale economist
And for a great analysis of this, try More Guns Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong, by John Lott, a Yale economist
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Dr. Lott did his bachelor's master's and PhD at UCLA; subsequently, he has been financed almost exclusively by right-wing think-tanks, most prominently the American Enterprise Institute and the John M. Olin Foundation. There is no sign on his website that he has EVER supported ANY gun-control legislation.
"Tell me where a man gets his corn-pone, and I'll tell you where he gets his 'pinions.'"
--Mark Twain, "Puddin'head Wilson"
"Tell me where a man gets his corn-pone, and I'll tell you where he gets his 'pinions.'"
--Mark Twain, "Puddin'head Wilson"
rmcrobertson said:
Right here is a good example of how some people argue against things that they can't provide evidence against. Attack the source to invalidate the data. Notice Robertson has not provided any evidence to the contradict Lott, nor has he pointed out any flaws in Lott's data.
I remember Gunfree.org at one point tried to pick his book, "More Guns, Less Crime" apart. Their arguments were rather juvenile at best. They argued that his studies were wrong, because the number of guns owned didn't increase, so the title was wrong. That was the best they could do, folks.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
One was responding to a claim that Dr. Lott had been more or less an anti-gun liberal, and had changed to the side of the good and the true.
What one actually finds appears to be that he has been a life-long conservative, and that virtually his entire career has been supported by one conservative and/or right-wing group.
This certainly does not invalidate his research or his ideas. It is, however, suggestive of the way that his ideas and his research need to be a little more carefully scrutinized than the posts would suggest.
Similarly, many of the NRA's studies and much of their, "data," appears to be fairly warped by their corporate sponsors and their ideology. Again, this does not necessarily mean that they're wrong--just that reasonable scrutiny of their claims is in order. Particularly dubious are their reiterated claims of the number of attacks and murders, etc., stopped by guns every year.
What one actually finds appears to be that he has been a life-long conservative, and that virtually his entire career has been supported by one conservative and/or right-wing group.
This certainly does not invalidate his research or his ideas. It is, however, suggestive of the way that his ideas and his research need to be a little more carefully scrutinized than the posts would suggest.
Similarly, many of the NRA's studies and much of their, "data," appears to be fairly warped by their corporate sponsors and their ideology. Again, this does not necessarily mean that they're wrong--just that reasonable scrutiny of their claims is in order. Particularly dubious are their reiterated claims of the number of attacks and murders, etc., stopped by guns every year.
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
-
-
重心 Zhòngxīn center of gravity
- Latest: Wing Woo Gar
-