Movie about revenge and guns starring an ardent gun control advocate
And she probably has armed bodyguards....
Another hypocrite.
I've seen actors play murderers, does that mean they have to be in favor of legalizing murder to play those characters?
Have you though about this at all? DO you think, or do you just react with meaningless blather?
As for Garner...
What exactly is she in favor of in terms of gun control?
Better background checks? Bans on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, perhaps?
Are you another who conflates rational restrictions with "ban all guns" because you have no actual argument and must warp other people's views in order to attack a strawman?
Typical B.S.
While there are exceptions, generally speaking murderers are not glorified in films. They are the bad guys.
This film clearly glorifies vigilantism and firearms.
I don't personally have an issue with that, since I'm a strong 2nd Amendment supporter, but the hypocrisy is grating nonetheless.
BTW, re: your example of "bans on assault weapons." Only a minuscule amount of crimes are actually committed by so-called assault weapons, so the targeting of those rifles doesn't actually make much sense. The vast majority of gun crimes are committed with hand guns. But I guess an AR-15 looks big and scary so we need to ban it!
"This film clearly glorifies vigilantism and firearms."
Maybe Garner is fine with vigilantism. The OP's entire topic concept is based upon an unspoken, vague assertion about Garner's gun control advocacy, with the implication that he believes she wants to ban all guns.
Although it's beside the point, Batman glorifies vigilantism as well, but I don't think all the actors in Batman movies, and fans of the franchise, need to be vigilante advocates.
"Only a minuscule amount of crimes are actually committed by so-called assault weapons"
There's really no reason for military hardware to be available to the average consumer, though. Thanks to the Pharmaceutical industry's long push for everyone to be medicated, mentally unstable people are truly on the rise, and access to all forms of mass destruction needs to be controlled.
"Maybe Garner is fine with vigilantism. The OP's entire topic concept is based upon an unspoken, vague assertion about Garner's gun control advocacy, with the implication that he believes she wants to ban all guns."
I'm not sure what statements Garner has made specifically, but I do know it's true that she's been identified as a vocal gun control advocate. I would like to hear exactly what her position is on the topic.
"There's really no reason for military hardware to be available to the average consumer, though. Thanks to the Pharmaceutical industry's long push for everyone to be medicated, mentally unstable people are truly on the rise, and access to all forms of mass destruction needs to be controlled."
Well one thing that a lot of people don't understand is that for the majority of gun rights people, the paramount reason for having guns is fighting against a potentially tyrannical turn of the American government.
Yes, things like hunting, sport and interpersonal self-defense are all important, but ultimately it is about this passage in the Declaration of Independence:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them [the citizenry] under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
If we are to take this charge to "throw off such government" seriously, then it's important that we maintain the right to have sufficient weaponry to actually be a threat.
With that said, what I will agree with you on is that people who are severely mentally ill do not need access to guns. I say "severely" to differentiate such people from those of us who deal with garden variety depression, which is like half the country.
It's interesting to note that we didn't have the issue with these sorts of frequent mass shootings until the last 30 years. Something changed with us, the people. share
Yes yes, I know -- A new Revolutionary War, if needed.
But in our modern world, that would be more of an argument for citizens to be able to match the military, in case the military is turned against them. This is more than handguns and it's more than assault rifles.
It's an argument for everyday people to have a right to own missiles, if they wish. Would you argue against that, and why?
The government has nukes. Should we be allowed to own nukes in case we need to fend off that government some day? If not... Why not?
If you think it should be illegal for a U.S. citizen to own missiles and nukes, then you are in favor of a level of arms control. For the most part, everyone is in favor of that, just at different levels.
"It's interesting to note that we didn't have the issue with these sorts of frequent mass shootings until the last 30 years."
That's the time frame for the rise of over-prescribed pharmaceuticals, particularly psychoactive ones.
Fact: At least 35 school shootings and/or school-related acts of violence have been committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs resulting in 169 wounded and 79 killed.
Fact: Between 2004 and 2012, there have been 14,773 reports to the U.S. FDA’s MedWatch system on psychiatric drugs causing violent side effects including: 1,531 cases of homicidal ideation/homicide, 3,287 cases of mania & 8,219 cases of aggression. Note: The FDA estimates that less than 1% of all serious events are ever reported to it, so the actual number of side effects occurring are most certainly higher.
https://www.cchrint.org/psychiatric-drugs/drug_warnings_on_violence/ share
Well I would stop at nukes, then again, even the President can't just go and launch a nuclear strike on his own without any oversight. It's too much power for one man to have, regardless of if they're a government official or a civilian.
Regarding missiles or hand grenades or whatever, I dunno, I guess I'd have to think about it, but as someone who leans toward freedom I tend to think people should be able to have things until they've demonstrated that they can't responsibly have them.
I think common firearms and sheer numbers are enough to make us a citizenry capable of defense against government though, especially when you consider that if the government did turn tyrannical many inside the government and military would defect. Though ultimately, as a friend of mine says, having an armed citizenry is also about providing a kind of check-and-balance so that those within government don't even contemplate taking things too far.
Regarding your stat on psychiatric drugs, that's pretty interesting. Maybe you're onto something there. Correlation doesn't prove causation, but it sounds like a reasonable argument.
I'm not particularly religious, but it seems like the modern world has something of a spiritual crisis. We've become disconnected from the values of the past, which helped to mold people into more responsible citizens.
"Well one thing that a lot of people don't understand is that for the majority of gun rights people, the paramount reason for having guns is fighting against a potentially tyrannical turn of the American government."
Hahaha, good one. Got any other hilarious misstatements for us?
Seriously, do you believe you are the spokesperson for the majority of gun owners? I don't believe turning back a tyrannical government is the rationale for most gun owners, not at all. It's about possessing something that is lethal and believing having access to it will save them from some paranoid and unlikely scenario. They wish they can be seen as a hero if something bad comes down. Ooh, a man with a gun, how exciting. (Sarcasm alert)
This is ultimately a constitutional argument, and the Constitution doesn't say people have the right to bear arms to hunt or for target shooting or even to defend yourself against a home invader, it says the right to bear arms is to "ensure the security of a free State."
I've never known anyone who was really into guns who didn't understand this.
Let Ice-T break it down for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9vSXxAzK_4
This doesn't mean that personal self-defense is not also a practical reason to own and carry a firearm. It certainly is! But that is not the underpinning of the right.
You should also check out the documentary Assaulted: Civil Rights Under Fire. If you have Amazon Prime, you can stream it for free.
The right to own a gun is not in any danger nor is it being threatened... Not even from mainstream Democrats or Jennifer Garner.
The Constitution, though, speaks of well regulated militias. That today translates to gun regulations, licensing, and training requirements, basically.
The whole point of the 2nd Amendment isn't to insure citizen have the ability to hunt deer or ducks. The whole point of it was to serve as the ultimate check against a government to insure that if the government went to far that the people could rise up and revolt. Given that as the reason for the 2nd Amendment the reality is people should have access to the same weapons that the military has access to... And yes I mean fully automatic firearms... though realistically in actual combat people are more likely to hit their target with semi-automatic guns than with fully automatic firearms as the accuracy tends to go out the window when you start shooting a machine gun.
If anything needs to be done to combat the mental illness it is simply to lock up the nut jobs permanently and keep them off the streets. Once upon a time we used to do that, then after Hollywood churned out that stupid movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest there was a big push to close down mental institutions because those poor crazy people must all be suffering at the hands of a demented nurse... well now we hardly any mental institutions and lots of bat shit crazy people walking around just waiting to explode in a violent outburst that will end up killing god knows how many innocent people.
FACT: The AR-15 is not military hardware. Prove me wrong.
share