| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Anti Gun Adds, are they fair?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Anti Gun Adds, are they fair?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Anti Gun Adds, are they fair?
    Posted: 17 Apr 2011 at 03:40
In the following You-tube site, you will see one of the latest anti-gun adds, made in the name of the brain damaged person named Brady.


Are the targets so presented in a fair, and balanced manner?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62Va-Ll2vKw

Are not children and students, etc., over represented in it?

What if targets were designed to look like Muslims?, or Jews?, or Quakers?, etc.?

Edited by opuslola - 17 Apr 2011 at 03:42
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Apr 2011 at 03:55
The point is to make the targets relatable to mainstream society. So children, teachers, the elderly, the postman etc are all very everyday people who we know and are related to. Therefore we are meant to feel conscious of how uncontrolled distribution of firearms makes it easier to kill those people.

Why would anyone specifically make the target look like a Quaker? It defeats the purpose of making the advertising persuasive.


Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Apr 2011 at 04:07
No they are not fair. Telling people they can't own an AK 47 is unfair. Yeah maybe its not "necessary to hunt" none the less however I could easy kill you with my bow and that'd be a million times quieter than a gun. I am however against Silencers being legal cause it is possible to alter 9mm and 22 rounds down to almost completely silent. The only noise is the click and the casing hitting the dirt. It is fair however to note silencers ARE LEGAL in certain areas as are Fully automatic weapons. It is possible to own an MG 42 from WW2 fully auto believe it or not you just gotta live in the right state, the 30 grand to buy it and the license apparently its like getting a pistol license.

It is dumb to say only people kill people and it makes harder for people to get fully autos so they can't "quote unquote" harder to shot it out with the police or shoot up a school or even kill another person but just consider a bow I could still kill you in your home or in the woods or even walking to your car and nobody would hear it except moaning but you'll die within 20 seconds.


Edited by Joe - 17 Apr 2011 at 04:10
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Apr 2011 at 12:52
Let's ban anti-gun ads.

Edited by Zagros - 17 Apr 2011 at 12:52
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Apr 2011 at 14:01
Let's ban gun manufacturers.
If Americans want guns, fight with knives.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Apr 2011 at 14:56
What's fairness got to do with it?
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Apr 2011 at 15:39
Second Amendment defendants must be the most touchy and easily offensible people in the world. It doesn't help that they are more armed than the Gestapo. Seriously weird to sane outside observers.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Apr 2011 at 17:34
Ridiculous amendment. If a gorilla General from the U.S. Army wish to take control of the country, and actually dominates the army, there is no way a bunch of amateurs could stop him.


Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Apr 2011 at 17:48
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Ridiculous amendment. If a gorilla General from the U.S. Army wish to take control of the country, and actually dominates the army, there is no way a bunch of amateurs could stop him.


 
Obviously you have zero idea about how the US armed forces are organised.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Apr 2011 at 18:23
Obviously, you have never had a coup... so far.
Wait for the first time that happens, and you'll see.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Apr 2011 at 18:38
The US army in the way it is formed, trained and organised is completely different than that of the South American armies. To put it bluntly, no matter how high the rank of the officer is his power extremely limited except in pure military affairs and he always has a civilian boss above him who has the final say.
 
 
In South America and to a large extent the rest of the world the top brass of the army are a class of their own both socially and politically. The army has a much higher degree of autonomy to run its own affairs than the US army has and civilian control is extremely limited. If I am not mistaken the only civilians in the Chilean MoD are probably the defense minister and his own secretary.
 
Al-Jassas


Edited by Al Jassas - 17 Apr 2011 at 18:41
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 3526
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 01:18
I never could get too excited about this issue one way or the other. I will note that both anti-gun activists and pro-gun activists tend to engage in some of the most ridiculously alarmist rhetoric in politics today. It would be funny if there weren't so much real contempt and hatred coming out of the debate.
 
-Akolouthos
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 01:40
Pinguin, possibly you do not really understand it, but here in the USA, a large percentage of the personel who now fight for the USA in Irag, Afganistan, etc., are not members of the "Regular Army, or Air Force, etc.", they are members of seperate states "militias" or as they are now called "The National Guard." These units are mostly well equiped and well trained, and they are composed of men and women who actually reside within one of the 50 States of the USA.

What you do not realize is the fact that if your coup took place then these same men and women would have to be prepared to fire upon their fellow statesmen/women for the coup to suceed.

I rather doubt that would happen.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 02:12
What you guys don't understand is that during a coup no rule survive.

If the U.S. really enters a crisis, and a tyran takes the controls, there no way civilians could stop it.
The U.S. has been lucky so far, because it has never had a real social revolution that can be compared with the struggles in Latin America or Europe. Yes, you had a Civil War, but even in that event civilians were in control.
So, you have no idea what happens when the military use the force to imposse theirs will.

It will never happen in the U.S.A.? While the country is stable and prosperous, it won't happens. But it could happens if that country get poorer and enters in a large social crisis. No doubt about it. It has happened everywhere and there is nothing special about the U.S.A.





Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7842
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 02:43
I don't understand why this would be a problem.
What's wrong with advertisements aimed at changing the gun culture? How is this different to anti-smoking ads?
Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 03:14
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

I don't understand why this would be a problem.
What's wrong with advertisements aimed at changing the gun culture? How is this different to anti-smoking ads?

Cause all it does is promote propaganda. I've met a lot of people who "hate" guns but have never been around one, fired one, killed an animal with one. So its like your opinion doesn't even matter. Like a person who says marijuana is bad for you but never smoked it before. I could easily kill you with a bow or a knife or a poison or my bare hands.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 03:26
Given that the thematic is agiprop directed at certain types of weaponry and not the fancies of a Seven Days in May scenario, one can laddle from this cauldron and bottle any potion one might desire and stick a pleasant label on the contents. There is no question that government can legislate against the personal possession of certain types of weaponry and the fact that possessing a weapon in the commission of a felony becomes an aggravated offense certainly underscores that a criminal can not invoke the 2nd Amendment with respect to "added penalty". I for one would certainly love to hear some handgun nuts decry the prohibition of armaments to convicted felons premised upon the 2nd. Certainly, open debate upon the subject does provide a greater understanding as well as social awareness with respect to those moments when the people feel their government has failed them with regards to the police powers at the local level. I mention this last because it is this setting, and not the suppositions of a rampant military "gone wild", that determines the fate of hand-guns in legislation.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 03:55
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

The US army in the way it is formed, trained and organised is completely different than that of the South American armies. To put it bluntly, no matter how high the rank of the officer is his power extremely limited except in pure military affairs and he always has a civilian boss above him who has the final say.
 
 
In South America and to a large extent the rest of the world the top brass of the army are a class of their own both socially and politically. The army has a much higher degree of autonomy to run its own affairs than the US army has and civilian control is extremely limited. If I am not mistaken the only civilians in the Chilean MoD are probably the defense minister and his own secretary.
 
Al-Jassas
 
You may enjoy this account of the Cuban missile crisis, one segment of which described the tense standoff between President Kennedy and some of his generals, notably Curtis LeMay, who saw him as a naive and weak leader who could be brushed aside without too much trouble, allowing more "pragmatic" elements to get their way (in this case by bombing the hell out of Cuba, and possibly the Soviet Union as well).
 
 
Could these things happen in the US? You bet they could. How, for example, would the military react if a more radical member of the tea party was elected- Sarah Palin, or similar- and then started giving orders that would soon lead to disaster, due to either philosophical hubris, inexperience of the world, or a combination of both?
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 04:00
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

Pinguin, possibly you do not really understand it, but here in the USA, a large percentage of the personel who now fight for the USA in Irag, Afganistan, etc., are not members of the "Regular Army, or Air Force, etc.", they are members of seperate states "militias" or as they are now called "The National Guard." These units are mostly well equiped and well trained, and they are composed of men and women who actually reside within one of the 50 States of the USA.

What you do not realize is the fact that if your coup took place then these same men and women would have to be prepared to fire upon their fellow statesmen/women for the coup to suceed.

I rather doubt that would happen.
 
 
Fire on their fellow "statesmen" huh? What happened at Kent State University in 1970?
 
The human mind can be manipulated to a surprising degree, given the right conditions. This is even more the case when individuals subscribe to a tightly controlled and obedient organization, such as the military.
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 04:42
Captain Vee, while your point is well made on one level, Ohio National Guardsmen did fire on and kill their fellow Americans, it fails as analogy. They had not been called out to overthrow the government, nor even to keep the government from being overthrown, but rather to maintain order. This was a mission which they had not been properly trained, and in the face of a hostile crowd and on the receiving end of some stones, some junior leaders lost their nerve. Part of the reason they were on campus lies in the fact that the State governor must show that the unrest or crisis had exceeded the State's capacity for response before federal troops can be called in.

Now, had they been called out by some unilateral military chain of command to put down civilian political demonstrations with the utmost violence, or to overthrow a widely despised but legally elected government, you would have a situation analogous to Chile in 1971.

For all: I agree with those who see the anti-Gun adverts as the necessary counter-propaganda to that put out by the pro-Gun adverts. Were it up to me, military firearms would be in the hands of the military only, all civilian firearms would require a federal license, and every firearm registration would require turning the firearm and two rounds of ammunition over to the police so they could obtain a forensic 'fingerprint' of that weapon. We register our cars, so there is reason not to register all firearms. (OK, the reasons for registration are perhaps more complex, but that suffices for the moment.)


Edited by lirelou - 18 Apr 2011 at 04:45
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7842
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 05:38
Originally posted by Joe Joe wrote:

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

I don't understand why this would be a problem.
What's wrong with advertisements aimed at changing the gun culture? How is this different to anti-smoking ads?

Cause all it does is promote propaganda. I've met a lot of people who "hate" guns but have never been around one, fired one, killed an animal with one. So its like your opinion doesn't even matter. Like a person who says marijuana is bad for you but never smoked it before. I could easily kill you with a bow or a knife or a poison or my bare hands.
All ads are propaganda. That's the point of ads. I don't see any reason why the anti-gun lobby isn't allowed to spread it's propaganda.
 
And I think you'l find it exceedingly more difficult to kill me with a bow, knife, poision or your bare hands. If this wasn't true, then why would you want guns? You can also kill a rabbit with a bow, knife, poision or your bare hands.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 08:47
Originally posted by Captain Vancouver Captain Vancouver wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

The US army in the way it is formed, trained and organised is completely different than that of the South American armies. To put it bluntly, no matter how high the rank of the officer is his power extremely limited except in pure military affairs and he always has a civilian boss above him who has the final say.
 
 
In South America and to a large extent the rest of the world the top brass of the army are a class of their own both socially and politically. The army has a much higher degree of autonomy to run its own affairs than the US army has and civilian control is extremely limited. If I am not mistaken the only civilians in the Chilean MoD are probably the defense minister and his own secretary.
 
Al-Jassas
 
You may enjoy this account of the Cuban missile crisis, one segment of which described the tense standoff between President Kennedy and some of his generals, notably Curtis LeMay, who saw him as a naive and weak leader who could be brushed aside without too much trouble, allowing more "pragmatic" elements to get their way (in this case by bombing the hell out of Cuba, and possibly the Soviet Union as well).
 
 
Could these things happen in the US? You bet they could. How, for example, would the military react if a more radical member of the tea party was elected- Sarah Palin, or similar- and then started giving orders that would soon lead to disaster, due to either philosophical hubris, inexperience of the world, or a combination of both?
 
Here is the thing. What was LeMay's rank, how many people he commanded, how far was his authority and how many other generals were willing to follow him. And what about the 1000 plus living generals of WWII, how many of those supported him?
 
Le May was just a clogg in a giant machine that was much bigger than him while Pinoches and his Latin American buddies were members of an exclusive gentlemans club that had no civilian membership or oversight.
 
 
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 11:11
On the issue of a coup, Sinclair Lewis' It Can't Happen Here is required reading.
 
On the gun issue, I agree with lirelou.


Edited by gcle2003 - 18 Apr 2011 at 11:14
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 15:57
Originally posted by lirelou lirelou wrote:

Captain Vee, while your point is well made on one level, Ohio National Guardsmen did fire on and kill their fellow Americans, it fails as analogy. They had not been called out to overthrow the government, nor even to keep the government from being overthrown, but rather to maintain order. This was a mission which they had not been properly trained, and in the face of a hostile crowd and on the receiving end of some stones, some junior leaders lost their nerve. Part of the reason they were on campus lies in the fact that the State governor must show that the unrest or crisis had exceeded the State's capacity for response before federal troops can be called in.

Now, had they been called out by some unilateral military chain of command to put down civilian political demonstrations with the utmost violence, or to overthrow a widely despised but legally elected government, you would have a situation analogous to Chile in 1971.

For all: I agree with those who see the anti-Gun adverts as the necessary counter-propaganda to that put out by the pro-Gun adverts. Were it up to me, military firearms would be in the hands of the military only, all civilian firearms would require a federal license, and every firearm registration would require turning the firearm and two rounds of ammunition over to the police so they could obtain a forensic 'fingerprint' of that weapon. We register our cars, so there is reason not to register all firearms. (OK, the reasons for registration are perhaps more complex, but that suffices for the moment.)
 
I am willing to bet that those guardsmen in Ohio believed they were doing their duty, and, at the time anyway, did not believe they were doing anything illegal, and certainly nothing malicious. But there is precisely the point.
 
There have been many instances of the military attacking civilians in history- the great railway strike in 1877 in the US, or the Winnipeg general strike in 1919 in Canada for example. And at the time, I'm sure that those involved saw themselves as acting legally, and restoring order and public safety. Order, safety, public good- these are terms that can cast a wide net, and be malleable to those with their own motives. Richard Nixon, for example, ran on a campaign of law and order in 1968, when in reality the "disorder" that was then afoot stemmed, in large measure, from protests against the ongong killing in a rather abstract (to be subtle) conflict in Indochina.
 
Times change, and public sentiment changes with it. If those historical examples happened today, criminal investigations would no doubt be launched. In the future, sentiment could change again, particularly if a crisis is percieved to be underway. Indeed, we have seen a shift to the right in recent years. Those living a few decades ago would likely be shocked by phenomenen such as the "Tea Party", or the massive incarceration rate in the US. Here in Canada, we have a PM who has shown extreme contempt for parliamentary tradition on at least two occasions, yet these are barely a ripple in the current federal election campaign.
 
It is only human nature to go along with the group. The stronger the identification with, and investment in the group, the more motivation there tends to be. If one believes the actions required are just and necessary, one can be compelled to do some extreme things. Ordinary shopkeepers and bank clerks were drafted in WW1, and took on the task of killing with bullet and bayonet. Quite a transformation, but far from unique.
 
As groups go, the military is surely one with the strongest bonds- functional, legal, spiritual, traditional- and for good reason. Given the nature of the job, there has to be a structure that makes refusal exceedingly difficult. So the structure is there; all that is necessary is the event that will be sufficient to convince those down the chain of command that something out of the ordinary has happened, and their group is justified in also behaving in a way that is out of the ordinary. And even for those that have some doubts, refusal could be very difficult. Extraordinary measures have been taken, as we have seen, for what today seems a little thin: for king and country, for law and order, to stop the spread of communism. Tomorrow it could be........to protect the constitution....to save the economy....to stop a socialist conspiracy.....
 
Who among those guardsmen in Ohio would have thought, a few years previously, they would be shooting other American kids their own age, and in their own community?
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 16:37
Captain, the firing at Kent State was neither organized nor disciplined. It was haphazard. Had it been otherwise, there would have been far more than four dead. Yes, those who fired felt that they were in the right, but their justification had more to do with self-defense and the belief that shots had been fired and they were under attack. Troops who are acting under orders don't need to justify their acts.

All U.S. military take an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies, "foreign and domestic". Kent State is an example where there were no 'enemies' except in the minds of some untrained and poorly disciplined National Guardsmen.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
Parnell View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Location: Barcelona
Status: Offline
Points: 3227
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Parnell Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 17:35
Originally posted by Joe Joe wrote:

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

I don't understand why this would be a problem.
What's wrong with advertisements aimed at changing the gun culture? How is this different to anti-smoking ads?

Cause all it does is promote propaganda. I've met a lot of people who "hate" guns but have never been around one, fired one, killed an animal with one. So its like your opinion doesn't even matter. Like a person who says marijuana is bad for you but never smoked it before. I could easily kill you with a bow or a knife or a poison or my bare hands.



I have no interest in killing defenceless animals for sport. I am a member of the human race, not a neanderthal.
http://xkcd.com/15/



Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it. ~George Bernard Shaw
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 19:18
That the military might follow the commander-in-chief is not really the issue. As Lewis points out, the most likely person to lead a coup in the US is a really popular President.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 19:39
Omar wrote above;

"And I think you'l find it exceedingly more difficult to kill me with a bow, knife, poision or your bare hands. If this wasn't true, then why would you want guns? You can also kill a rabbit with a bow, knife, poision or your bare hands."

But perhaps you do not remember the incident where President Jimmy Carter was attacked by a rabbit? He did not merely use his bare hands.

Scared by a wet rabbit.

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

Regards,

Ronald
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 20:03
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

On the issue of a coup, Sinclair Lewis' It Can't Happen Here is required reading.
 
On the gun issue, I agree with lirelou.
 
Good lord, Gcle dusting off Sinclair Lewis' satire from 1935 as a reflection of the possible rather than a product of the well-oiled New Deal media blitz [and a Huey Long character being the evil in the works] as propaganda against its opponents. That the book was itself dramatized as a Federal Theater project is interesting all on its own. One thing though, you seem to be aware that this little memory from the politics of the 1930s U.S. is now enjoying a new vogue among those "running scared" with respect to the Tea Partiers and "grass roots" politics.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Apr 2011 at 20:17
If I may interject, "I feel strongly both ways!"

Regards,
Ronald

BTW, I have always felt strongly against most of the works of Lewis. But taste is in the taste buds, and nowhere else. Ok, the nose is also important. Thus if something stinks, then it most probably will also taste bad.

Babbit, may well describe the bad smell?

Edited by opuslola - 18 Apr 2011 at 20:22
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.