You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
"Bowling for Columbine"
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
Have you ever met someone you knew to be very dangerous?
I don't mean armed, just dangerous. This individual possessed persuasive and corrosive ideas capable of harming more of us than any jack-off with an uzi ever could; harmful by infesting the minds of weak and convincible individuals, who after reaching critical mass can begin a social movement devastating to our current way of life. Maybe this was a man or a women, an author or a journalist, painter or director. Whatever they may be they began convincing others that the status quo was not in their best interest... and worth dieing to change.
I don't mean armed, just dangerous. This individual possessed persuasive and corrosive ideas capable of harming more of us than any jack-off with an uzi ever could; harmful by infesting the minds of weak and convincible individuals, who after reaching critical mass can begin a social movement devastating to our current way of life. Maybe this was a man or a women, an author or a journalist, painter or director. Whatever they may be they began convincing others that the status quo was not in their best interest... and worth dieing to change.
Quote from rlb21079:
Have you ever met someone you knew to be very dangerous?
I don't mean armed, just dangerous. This individual possessed persuasive and corrosive ideas capable of harming more of us than any jack-off with an uzi ever could; harmful by infesting the minds of weak and convincible individuals, who after reaching critical mass can begin a social movement devastating to our current way of life. Maybe this was a man or a women, an author or a journalist, painter or director. Whatever they may be they began convincing others that the status quo was not in their best interest... and worth dieing to change.
You flatter me...
But what would you have done with me? Perhaps shot?
Quote from axeman:
I've heard this counter argument as well, and it is flawed.
Yes, guns are designed to kill.
But to kill who?
Your implication is that guns are designed to kill innocent people.
The fact is, guns are produced with the intent of things like:
1) Protecting society ( Police,etc )
2) National defense
3) Self defense
4) Sport shooting, hunting, etc
Should I also mention this country was FORMED via revolt
with firearms?
Cars are not meant to kill innocent lives, yet they do.
Drunk drivers anyone?
Guns are not meant to kill innocent lives either, yet they do.
The fact is, guns save far more innocent lives than they take.
It would seem that you are in favor of causing the deaths
of far more innocent lives, than we currently lose.
If you wish to vote for the death of the innocent, be
my guest. I shall vote for allowing the innocent to be able
to protect themselves, and save their own lives,
against the armed outlaws.
peace
axeman
To answer your question : I am stating emphatically (not implying) that guns are designed to kill people, innocent or otherwise. Killing is the intention, the goal. Yes, cars take innocent lives, but so do balconies, jet airplanes and small pox vacinations, but that is an unfortunate but necessary risk to assume in today's society. Guns have no such redeeming quality. Guns are manufactured BECAUSE guns kill and kill efficiently.
Now you may argue we need guns to protect ourselves, the personal self-defense argument. Protect ourselves from what? The irresponsible proliferation and dissemination of Other guns, that's what! It seems the toothpaste is now out of the tube, and it is damned hard to get it back in. But arming everyone to the teeth is not the way to do it. That makes for a very dangerous situation as is evident on the streets today. To "protect" the World would you arm each and every country to the teeth with nukes?
REVOLT? I highly doubt the next revolution is going to turn on a 38 revolver (in the hands of a civilian). "The times they are a changing..."
I think it quite obvious I am not in favor of taking more innocent lives but in saving more of the same. I am in favor of making transportation safer; I am in favor of improving medical care; I am in favor of disarming the World of nukes and weapons of mass destruction. AND I am also in favor of ridding society of dangerous devices, devices that are designed and manufactured solely because they are dangerous to people.
We need tighter controls over dangerous weapons of all kinds, not a bazooka in every living room.
Quote from rlb21079:
Have you ever met someone you knew to be very dangerous?
I don't mean armed, just dangerous. This individual possessed persuasive and corrosive ideas capable of harming more of us than any jack-off with an uzi ever could; harmful by infesting the minds of weak and convincible individuals, who after reaching critical mass can begin a social movement devastating to our current way of life. Maybe this was a man or a women, an author or a journalist, painter or director. Whatever they may be they began convincing others that the status quo was not in their best interest... and worth dieing to change.
What's your point?
Quote from GeeTO69:
What's your point?
That this person, or these people - are dangerous. That, in this country certain rights are granted its citizens. That although we create laws to restrict behaviour and limit these rights without wholly removing them - see: gun permits, see: federal communications commission - certain individuals still pose a threat to the lives and liberty of other citizens. Every time a society increases freedom it increases risk, and every time it increases security it limits freedom.
The trend in this country is towards increased security and further limited freedom. The U.S. goverment will continue on this path until its citizens demand otherwise. At what point is this?
And, at what rate do we analyze what rights have already been stripped but possibly should be re-instated? Discussion in this nation is dominated by a select few issues which are brought to the forefront by politicians and news and entertainment medias. These issues are, by in large, issues and questions concerning whether something should be made illegal or kept legal. Where is the debate concerning what is already illegal? Where is the debate over rights already forfeit?
The only major issue which comes to mind is the war on drugs. Discussion is sparse from mass medias and for the most part politicians stay well clear of the issue. Voices from the far left and right both denounce the purported 'war,' and there is general support for the lifting of certain restrictions. There is little question though that not much will change in the near future. Except maybe further restriction.
An intelligent discourse on the legality of guns is commendable... just remember what it is you argue.
Quote from nitro:
Last nigth, I rented this documentary called
"Bowling for Columbine"
I really enjoyed it and highly recommend it. I would enjoy any comments good or bad that anyone may have on it.
nitro
I just watched it too. It was a powerful movie I thought. Most here apparently did not see the movie or watch it closely.
I thought his cartoon sequence of the white Americans with their chattering teeth was genius and dead on accurate and the core of the movie. Look at how the esteemed axeman here rationally argues we need to protect ourselves. From who? We are the most armed to the teeth nation in the history of the world and he is still afraid of "them".
Obviously this is self-perpetuating as Moore points out the trail of dead bodies stretching from SE Asia to Latin America to Afghanistan and how some of this eventually manifests in anti-US hate by the US trained and funded bin Laden.
Moore is right; we are scared to death and eating ourselves alive. Remember, Canada has plenty of guns, just less history fear based aggression and hate.
LOS ANGELES (AP) - A Los Angeles Dodgers fan was shot and killed by a San Francisco Giants fan following a dispute in the parking lot after a game, police said.
Mark Antenorcruz, 25, of Covina, was shot once in the upper body about 10 p.m. Friday as he headed for his car, police and county coroner's Lt. Gary Kellerman said. He was taken to a hospital where he was pronounced dead.
The National League West champion Giants had just won 6-4 Friday night and people were leaving Dodger Stadium when a group of San Francisco fans jeered Antenorcruz, who may have given a reply, police said.
Mark Antenorcruz, 25, of Covina, was shot once in the upper body about 10 p.m. Friday as he headed for his car, police and county coroner's Lt. Gary Kellerman said. He was taken to a hospital where he was pronounced dead.
The National League West champion Giants had just won 6-4 Friday night and people were leaving Dodger Stadium when a group of San Francisco fans jeered Antenorcruz, who may have given a reply, police said.