Anti-NRA movie

Status
Not open for further replies.
Weinstein has had a change of heart...NOW THAT HE HAS HIS MILLIONS MADE.

And last I checked support for more gun control is actually on the downswing, so I would not say that the majority want more gun control. The majority will says, and rightfully so, that we want less gun violence. Which in my opinion, is a symptom of deeper issues in society rather than a problem that can be fixed by banning items (same goes for the War on Drugs). No one wants gun violence with innocents hurt, we just all dont see eye to eye on how to get there, especially when it comes to watering down a constitutional right given to us in the Bill of Rights.
 
Last edited:
I have heard his estimated net worth is something like $150,000,000.00 and a lot of his movies featured gun violence. If he was so against guns and violence why were his movies so filled with violence and guns?

Now that he is very wealthy let us see how much money he can make with his anti-gun movies. I bet his anti-gun movie flops.
 
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
He was open to looking at the role of movies in all of this.

Can any of you name someone prominent who is for gun control who has also called for banning guns altogether?

I haven't heard anyone talking about banning guns. People can be pro gun and pro gun control at the same time.


http://gunssavelives.net/blog/gun-laws/n...say-otherwise/#
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama
"I don't believe that people should be able to own guns."

Barak Obama, as quoted to John R. Lott, Jr., PhD, while both were working at the University of Chicago Law School in 1996. From the book "Debacle", by Grover G. Norquist and John R Lott, Jr., John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Publisher
----------------------------------------------------------
Q. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Source: FactCheck.org analysis of 2008 Philadelphia primary debate , Apr 16, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Do a simple web search. There's much more out there.
 
Originally Posted By: TrevorS


People can be pro gun and pro gun control at the same time.


No they can't. If you're told this you're being lied to.
 
Originally Posted By: 05ChevyI5
Originally Posted By: TrevorS


People can be pro gun and pro gun control at the same time.


No they can't. If you're told this you're being lied to.


http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Florida

* On October 1, 1987, Florida's right-to-carry law became effective.[103]

* This law requires that concealed carry licensees be 21 years of age or older, have clean criminal/mental health records, and complete a firearms safety/training course.[104]

* As of July 31, 2010, Florida has issued 1,825,143 permits and has 746,430 active licensees,[105] constituting roughly 5.4% of the state's population that is 21 years of age or older.[106]

* Since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 15% lower.[108]

* From the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law through July 31, 2010, Florida has revoked 5,674 or 0.3% of all issued permits. Of these:

• 522 permits were revoked for crimes committed prior to licensure
• 4,955 permits were revoked for crimes committed after licensure, of which 168 involved the usage of a firearm.[109]
 
The simple facts are if many criminals knew they would get perforated when they confront the average citizen for carjacking, robberies, etc., the crime rate would drop even further...
 
One problem with the gun violence numbers we often see posted is that they often include self violence (suicide) since its a gun related death and technically a crime. It tends to skew the numbers a bit.

I will say I never really got the importance of firearms as tools for self defense in my youth until I was mugged and beaten severely by four assailants when I was a teenager. Before that I just used guns for clay busting and pheasant hunting. But after that, I made sure I could carry from the moment I turned 21.
 
Originally Posted By: 05ChevyI5
Originally Posted By: TrevorS


People can be pro gun and pro gun control at the same time.


No they can't. If you're told this you're being lied to.


I think they can, only because "gun control" can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. It depends on what "gun control" means to you.

If "gun control" means a complete ban on firearms, then I agree with you. Someone who enjoys firearms would never embrace "gun control" defined like that. To someone else, however, "gun control" might mean laws keeping them out of the hands of the mentally ill. In that case, then I think your if-one-then-not-the-other viewpoint may not have enough latitude.
 
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: 05ChevyI5
Originally Posted By: TrevorS


People can be pro gun and pro gun control at the same time.


No they can't. If you're told this you're being lied to.


I think they can, only because "gun control" can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. It depends on what "gun control" means to you.

If "gun control" means a complete ban on firearms, then I agree with you. Someone who enjoys firearms would never embrace "gun control" defined like that. To someone else, however, "gun control" might mean laws keeping them out of the hands of the mentally ill. In that case, then I think your if-one-then-not-the-other viewpoint may not have enough latitude.


Agreed. And this is what my view aligns with. I don't want the mentally deranged nor those who have not passed a gun safety test to possess firearms. They are a danger to themselves and everyone around them. But I think the ability to own guns should be available to every American and Canadian to take advantage of if they choose as long as they are mentally fit to do so and are able to demonstrate the ability to properly handle them.
 
My only worry is what a generally anti 2nd amendment administration will consider as "mentally unfit". I can get people with a track record of homicidal tendencies or ones committed for being a danger to themselves, although I believe a determined person will resort to other tools. But just because you have seasonal affective disorder should not bar you from owning a gun.
 
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
My only worry is what a generally anti 2nd amendment administration will consider as "mentally unfit". I can get people with a track record of homicidal tendencies or ones committed for being a danger to themselves, although I believe a determined person will resort to other tools. But just because you have seasonal affective disorder should not bar you from owning a gun.


Well if it is any indication, we had this absolutely moronic long-gun registry up here for a while that was implemented by the government. Having those that legally own long guns registering them in a big government run database. And then scare tactics wielded on the old folks about their WWII .303's that they use for Coyote's.... Or that 50 year old 12 gauge they use for the same thing.

This was foisted on the public under the guise of "gun safety" as it was supposed to get unregistered guns off the street or some such nonsense. The glaring hole in that argument was of course that criminals weren't going to be registering their guns and often used hand guns.

Ultimately the registry worked to simply anger a section of the population, cost the taxpayer a ton of money and accomplish absolutely nothing except gross inconvenience. It was eventually scrapped.

There's a decent WIKI on it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry

Quote:
"We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered, although we believe that more than half of them were smuggled into Canada from the United States. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives."


Quote:
The Conservatives won a majority in the 2011 election; during the campaign, party leader Stephen Harper reiterated his party's support for eliminating registration of non-restricted long guns.[36]
On October 25, 2011, the government introduced Bill C-19, legislation to scrap the Canadian Firearms Registry.[3] The bill would repeal the requirement to register non-restricted firearms (long-guns) and mandate the destruction of all records pertaining to the registration of long-guns currently contained in the Canadian Firearms Registry and under the control of the chief firearms officers.[3] The bill passed second reading in the House of Commons (156 to 123).[37] On February 15, 2012, Bill C-19 was passed in the House of Commons (159 to 130) with support from the Conservatives and two NDP MPs. On April 4, 2012, Bill C-19 passed third reading in the Senate by a vote of 50-27 and received royal assent from the Governor General on April 5.[38]
Upon passage of Bill C-19, the Province of Quebec moved for a motion to prevent the destruction of the records. A temporary injunction was granted on April 5, 2012 which will leave enough time for proper legal arguments to be heard.
 
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
My only worry is what a generally anti 2nd amendment administration will consider as "mentally unfit". I can get people with a track record of homicidal tendencies or ones committed for being a danger to themselves, although I believe a determined person will resort to other tools. But just because you have seasonal affective disorder should not bar you from owning a gun.


Don't get me wrong. I get what you're saying. And this may be where 05chevyI5 was going as well. The more opportunities "they" have to control access, the more power "they" eventually get to increase those controls and ban an increasing number of people from owning guns. Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile. I get that, I really do.

I was posting more from a philosophical standpoint. "Gun control" defined broadly can mean different things to different groups, and I personly advocate ownership of guns to "sane" people and I advocate revocation of ownership of guns to "mentally ill" people. The debate can (and should) continue regarding who fits those categories and how those lines are drawn, but speaking in general terms to 05chevyI5's post that you can't have one and the other at the same time, I am an advocate of gun ownership and I also advocate certain measures of gun control.

"Certain measures" are obviously key words.

It's no different, really, from vehicle ownership and/or driver's licenses. I certainly advocate the ownership of vehicles. But drunk drivers and the very old or mentally unfit are not good candidates for driver's licenses. So I advocate car ownership, and also advocate car [ownership] control.
 
There is however, not one single right in the bill of rights regarding ownership of tools of transportation. There is however one for firearms, and one that has been upheld by the courts as individual right.

Drivers licenses are privileges under the law, so that comparison always seems like an apples to oranges argument. Not to mention that when you start chipping away at one of those ten amendments, especially one that says "shall not be infringed" in its language, then it really can get scary fast with the others. Looks what has happened to our first and fourth amendments in recent times as well.

I guess since my family fled from a very oppressive place to come to America, I am more prone to preach the importance of a well educated and vigilant public to keep anyone from turning that inch into a mile. I would rather live in a free but less safe society than under a safe society that is essentially some sort of Orwellian dystopia.
 
That is totally correct. You cannot rely on government to defend you. People have to be able to rely on themselves for protection in their own homes. Sure, the military is there when there are wars. But when it comes to self defense in your own home it pays to have a weapon. It can take thirty minutes for the sheriff's patrol officers to arrive where I live.

This wealthy movie producer does not have to worry about stuff like that. He probably lives in a wealthy gated community with armed security. People who live in wealthy gated communities with armed security should not be allowed to dictate to me about how I defend myself.

I do however totally agree that weapons should not get into the hands of people who should not be allowed to have them, such as mentally ill people, etc. But I also would think twice about allowing the current administration to determine who should be allowed guns and who should not be allowed.
 
Noted this movie - on my list to watch when it starts screening.
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
Noted this movie - on my list to watch when it starts screening.
smile.gif



I will try to get a pirated copy just to stick a symbolic thumb in Weinsteins eye.
 
Originally Posted By: Mystic
I do however totally agree that weapons should not get into the hands of people who should not be allowed to have them, such as mentally ill people, etc. But I also would think twice about allowing the current administration to determine who should be allowed guns and who should not be allowed.


Would you exclude ex cons from owing guns?

I don't understand your comment re the current administration. Once laws are passed through a democratic process, a body will have the responsibility to administer those laws. Lawmakers don't both write laws and administer them. Reagan didn't go out confiscating machine guns after he signed the bill that banned them.

And then you have a judicial system that is recourse when citizens feel there is an issue with the law or how it is being administered.
 
What's truly disconcerting, at leas to me, is that of the 35 or so "mass incidents" of gun violence in the US since 1975 (DOJ categorized nyo by me!) all but 1 (IIRC Dylan Klebold - med info not releases) were prescribed one of a very select few mind altering drugs. I do not know how the work in the pharmacological sense so I'm using the term mind altering. These are the ones we hear of all the time, Zoloft, Ritalin, etc...

Why is it we don't discuss this incredibly poignant issue? Why are we focusing on magazine capacity?? Ridiculous nonsense. Time saved from loading a 10 round to another 10 round instead of a 12 round is minuscule. Can theorize that one all day. All the anti-military weapon talk, yet IIRC 30+ stated allow the possession and use of silencers and full auto weapons and most allow the bayonet lug. Can anyone find A SINGLE HOMICIDE in the entire country via the use of a legally owned (NFA Tax stamp owned through the ATF) with a suppressor? a fully automatic?? lets not forget the all evil bayonet! Surely someone must have fallen to the bayonet!

I don't mean to mock but it's insanity how both sides have pitted individuals with different ideals into these ideological traps. There is plenty of rational middle ground to be had yet the issues have become so polarized middle ground is akin to defeat.
 
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Originally Posted By: Mystic
I do however totally agree that weapons should not get into the hands of people who should not be allowed to have them, such as mentally ill people, etc. But I also would think twice about allowing the current administration to determine who should be allowed guns and who should not be allowed.


Would you exclude ex cons from owing guns?

I don't understand your comment re the current administration. Once laws are passed through a democratic process, a body will have the responsibility to administer those laws. Lawmakers don't both write laws and administer them. Reagan didn't go out confiscating machine guns after he signed the bill that banned them.

And then you have a judicial system that is recourse when citizens feel there is an issue with the law or how it is being administered.


Judicial system did not fix slavery or later Jim Crow laws, which were laws passed in a "democratic" way by the legislatures and administered by the executive. Just because a law is passed, administered, and not struck down by a court does not make the law just or right. The system is not infallible.
 
The system is not infallible but it should be possible to pass explicit requirements and use the courts if the interpretation of them is confused. And this ability is nothing to do with the current administration. Indeed, it is up to the two houses to write the particulars of the law. And I still cannot see that the administration / executive then administers it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top