MovieChat Forums > Lord of War (2005) Discussion > People Have a Right to Defense, Liberty ...

People Have a Right to Defense, Liberty + the Means To Secure Them(GUNS)


Guns and arms of any kind are the only way to secure liberty. Where would our very own nation be without gun runners? Our own freedom fighters would not have been able to defeat the British without arms.

Why are so many who bemoan the oppression of the poor always seek to disarm them? Yuri was a man without a moral compass, I myself would not have armed some of the people he was arming, I would have picked sides and would have armed those who I deemed to be on the side of good using my best judgement. Trying to choose those who needed to defeat brutal oppression. That being said, that was not the intent of this movie. The movie's message is that ALL guns are evil, and selling them is evil. No! Guns are tools and in the hands of the good they are good tools, in the hands of the evil they are evil tools.

Let's not forget that the Liberian president in the movie never existed and the brutal son who ate people and shot at innocents from a jeep as they ran also never existed.

That scene where the mother and child are hacked to death was meant to make you take pause, but they were hacked away at with machete's NOT guns and that was a perfect scene because it inadvertently sends a message. These people would commit atrocities with or without guns, with or without bombs. If the average man is armed there are no tyrants, that's what the right tried to make the left understand when the left has one hand on my gun and the other on a bullhorn screaming that it's for the children.

This chart from the jpfo is interesting. It shows that every nation with genocides in the 20th century had strict gun control laws.

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart

Jefferson said;

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

He also said;

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it always to be kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the Atmosphere. "

and;

"& what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

I know, I know, I'm a TERRIBLE Christian because I'm talking about guns and the right to self defense, and you people are going to sit there and tell me what it really means to be a Christian and how I'm doing a bad job at living up to your standards.

Luckily, I don't live by YOUR standards. What does the BIBLE have to say about it?

Psalm 82:4 Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.

Ezekiel 33 "... 6 'But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and a sword comes and takes a person from them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require from the watchman's hand.'

"He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."

Luke 22:36




If you love Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, copy this and make it your signature!

reply

>>Tries to be serious
Quotes the best selling Fiction Novel of All time

reply


[skipping your political and biblical quotes, because the private opinion of certain individuals of past time (some of which might not even have existed) does not make anything more "right" or "wrong"]


I myself would not have armed some of the people he was arming, I would have picked sides and would have armed those who I deemed to be on the side of good using my best judgement.

Who are you to judge?
God?

There is no one-man-justice.
What you deem good, your neighbor may deem evil.
And you definitely don't have any more legitimacy than your neighbor.

Justice is in the hand of states and the United Nations.
And lacking a better solution, this is as good as it gets.



The movie's message is that ALL guns are evil, and selling them is evil. No! Guns are tools and in the hands of the good they are good tools, in the hands of the evil they are evil tools.

No. Guns are ALWAYS evil. They may be a necessary evil in some situations, but they always remain what they are. Evil. Because all they can do is kill. And killing is always evil.


If the average man is armed there are no tyrants
No, then there is civil war.


This chart from the jpfo is interesting. It shows that every nation with genocides in the 20th century had strict gun control laws.
That's because most countries luckily do have gun control laws. It's like saying "every nation with genocides in the 20th century does import apples; hence apples are evil".

reply

"Guns are ALWAYS evil. They may be a necessary evil in some situations, but they always remain what they are. Evil. Because all they can do is kill. And killing is always evil."

Really?
That is a very narrow minded view of something that is not black and white like you profess it to be.

What is evil about a piece of wood and metal?
It is an inanimate object that has no will of good or evil.
What then about dynamite, or gunpowder, they must be evil as well?
What about the bow and arrow? Or the spear? Or the knife? They were all invented for hunting and killing as well.
I guess a stick with a pointy end on it is evil according to your standards.

What about people who use firearms for required hunting.
Or sport/target shooting. Killing all those poor paper targets.
By your standards every athlete in the olympic biathlon games must be a murderer.

Firearms have been with us for centuries.
You can't put the genie back in the bottle.
Get over it.

reply

This sidesteps the issue the movie was making, which is that as a gun runner Cage would NOT take sides. He didn't sell to the weak who needed to defend themselves, he mocked the very idea of doing that repeatedly. He sold to anybody, anybody who could pay the bills. Remember he even said that his only reason for not selling to Bin Laden was that "his cheques bounced back then".

So do people have a right to "Defense, Liberty + the Means To Secure Them", sure. But the question is, do people have a right to "People Have a Right to Attack, Murder + the Means To Secure Them"? Yuri took the view that so long as he didn't squeeze the trigger himself, it wasn't his moral responsibility. You may argue that he's right or wrong, but to talk about the weak defending themselves is to misunderstand what the movie is saying.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Let's not forget that the Liberian president in the movie never existed and the brutal son who ate people and shot at innocents from a jeep as they ran also never existed.


Are you serious? This paragraph here destroyed your good arguments in the preceding paragraphs and the one right after it.

Do you realize that Andre was based on a real person? He was based on a REAL President of Liberia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Taylor_(Liberia)

reply

I would have picked sides and would have armed those who I deemed to be on the side of good using my best judgement. Trying to choose those who needed to defeat brutal oppression.


Then you would find your end like Simeon Weisz, brains splattered all over a dirty window in a 2 star hotel.

That is what makes Yuri so good at what he does, "it isnt our fight, not our bussiness", and i totally agree with him.
Like you see in the movie, before the "freedom fighters" get there guns they kill a young woman and a kid with machettes. Even if there werent gunrunners to suply them with guns, they would still kill each other. And i think the ones that got shot died in a "better" way then being chopped to pieces, that is one gruesome way to die. And they would die, guns or no guns.
In a morbid way, very morbid way, Yuri did those refugees a favor.

_____________________
Any last words ?
Shut the *beep* up
-Mutant Chronicles-

reply

Yuri didn't do those villagers any favor. They can outrun machete wielding people. They can't outrun bullets. AK-47 can kill more people faster than a machete.

Many of these villagers have machetes of their own to defend themselves from the rebels and militias. They don't have AK-47s, rpgs, or grenades.

Villagers can't afford them. But warlords can.

Me fail English? But, that's unpossible.
http://www.store.fredjung.com



reply


Imho getting shot is a better way to die then gettng chopped to pieces. Unlike what movies show everysingle time, your not gonna die from one knifestab instantly. Unless they chop of yur head of course. The way that woman protecting her kid showed that there was alot more stabbing and hacking then just one shot from an AK, now tell me that is a worse way to die.
If i had to choose, heck give me the Ak any time, dont wanna get chopped up slowly untill death.
Wich was my point, in a morbid way it is a favor.

So im not english, shoot me ... or carve me up, but i prefer it my way.
_____________________
Any last words ?
Shut the *beep* up
-Mutant Chronicles-

reply

Another thing, when civilization goes to *beep* because of something apocalyptic, meaning the fabric of society breaks and every man is on its own, one of the things needed for SURVIVAL are guns and specially ammo. I myself in that situation will own ak-47s because always work and a couple of small firearms like revolvers, glocks, berettas, etc. I will also need lots of bullets!





"Imagination is more important than knowledge" ALBERT EINSTEIN

reply

"The fabric of society breaks and every man is on his own, one of the things needed for survival are guns".

Yeah, and that`s what all others also need and have and you`ll all end up killing each other off in a huge massacre. Whatta bizarre argument.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

You argue about the killing effectiveness of the weapon, you are completely missing the point. Idiots like you are the reason people want a new assault weapons ban. You can change the tools that are used to commit murder, but you will never change the will of man to murder others. Psychotics will always find ways to commit mass murders, and "attempting" to ban guns (albeit extremely poorly, by banning something that is already dispursed among the public in hundreds of millions) will make no difference in changing that.

reply

"... are the reason people want a new assault weapons ban."

People are uninformed sheep.

An "assault weapon" is a selective-fire rifle, one that can switch from semi to full auto or burst fire.
They are already banned, prohibited, or restricted in most countries in the world. Including the USA, Canada, UK, Australia, etc. etc.

So a "ban" is nothing but meaningless political smoke to try to calm the uneducated masses.

And there is no such thing as an "assault like weapon" so don't bother to try to play that word game.
It either is, or is not, a selective fire firearm.


Please note, I agree with the prohibited or restricted status of assault firearms.
I also agree with mandatory education/schooling to receive your firearm possession and acquisition licensing.
I'm just saying that people need to get their facts straight on what constitutes an assault weapon, they are only those rifles that have selective fire semi,burst,auto.

reply

You really should take your medication before posting here...

reply

This chart from the jpfo is interesting. It shows that every nation with genocides in the 20th century had strict gun control laws.

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart


Information for you, if you are capable of absorbing information that counters what you already have: This chart does NOT show every genocide in the 20th century. It only shows those genocides that the makers of the chart wanted to show.

@lorddeseiz: I agree that getting shot is probably a better way to die than getting chopped up. But if 10 men with automatic rifles attacks 100 unarmed people, it is quite possible that all those 100 people will die. But if 10 men with machetes attacks 100 people, then thse 100 people might be able to overpower those 10 men, and kill them instead. Or at least some of those 100 people will be able to run away.

So a more accurate question might be:
Do you want to be attacked with a gun, and have a 100% certainty of dying, or do you want to be attacked with machetes, and have a decent chance of escaping or even killing your attacker?

reply

I think to sum it up, you're basically saying that the "universal disarmament" types end up taking away the ability of oppressed people to effectively fight back
. I fully agree - UN "small arms control" will only take guns away from compliant people, leaving plenty of weapons for gangsters and tyrannical and corrupt governments.

"...and Mrs. Taylor sure seems to use a lotta ice, whenever he's away."

reply