Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Movies and TV => Topic started by: Archon on March 19, 2006, 11:04:22 PM
-
To continue the conversation about V being a terrorist or not, I would say definitely not, if it weren't for one thing. The fact that he tortured Evie was very repellent to me. I think that, all in all, it made for a good story, but it definitely showed me that he wasn't a clear cut freedom fighter.
As for the conservative deal, I personally would have preferred if the movie had used liberals, but I still like the overall message that the film conveyed. Too many people fail to realize that the same kind of threat could come from the conservatives or the liberals, but it didn't stop me from enjoying the film by any means. I realize that the fact that they did use the conservatives does mean that there is room for misinterpretation, but I think that the people who really understand the movie will look past that and realize that the movie wasn't really about conservatives versus liberals, it was about freedom.
-
...I think that the people who really understand the movie will look past that and realize that the movie wasn't really about conservatives versus liberals, it was about freedom.
I can buy that. I'm, personally, just too sick of hearing the same lopsided take on such matters to really enjoy the thing.
Thats what the IRA think. Try to use those roleplaying muscles of yours and work out just what the guys in Al Queda think they are doing.
No matter how deeply you put yourselves into AlQaeda's shoes, or the IRA's, they're still deliberately murdering innocents as a matter of policy. It doesn't matter how just there cause is, (I, from far away and with only an acadmic knowledge of the facts and situation, think the IRA has a legitimate beef with England but their methods cannot be allowed to be effective) they immediately remove any possibility of being negotiated with once they start murdering civilians. Society/humanity cannot allow the murder of innocents to become a viable political tool. Once your agents have deliberately blown themselves up in a crowd of school children negotiation must be over.
I've heard lots of people talk about how "the terrorists think they're right and who are we to say any different" or "one man's terrorist is another's revolutionary" Once they've begun to behave like the IRA or AlQaeda have good people have a duty to see that they fail no matter what.
V, of course, was not portrayed as a snuff terrorist and so fails totally as a stand-in for AlQaeda.
-
Your gradations of terrorism amuse me. V was a terrorist--that he was attacking people you were supposed to hate doesn't change that.
Distinctly terrorist actions:
1. He blew up two buildings, with no regard for the people who might have been in or around them--admittedly he did it at night, when they were more likely to be empty, but consider also that he specifically brought people out into the open where they could be harmed by falling debris.
2. He infiltrated a news station in the middle of the day, with the sole escape plan of tricking the cops into shooting the wrong people. Before he left he set an enormous bomb; that they defused it before it went off does not excuse him for planting it in the first place.
3. He specifically and deliberately incites riots and chaos, directly resulting in the death of at least one child. True, he didn't shoot her nor did her place her in the situation where she would be shot, but his plan wholly relied on the fact that innocents would die--it was the catalyst he needed to foment his revulotion, and he went to great lengths to make sure that it happened. The final uprising would never have taken place otherwise.
Peripherally evil actions:
1. He murders a long string of people who, despite being guilty of some past crimes, deserved a fair trial and due process. Just because they demonized the priest by making him a pedophile does not make it okay to murder him. He even kills the one who has turned her life around and tried to do better and help people. Perhaps this doesn't make V a terrorist, but it certainly makes him a serial killer.
2. He kidnaps and tortures an innocent person, for the debatable excuse that it was good for her in the long run.
Caveat:
Now, to be fair, I must admit that I have some previous bias from the comic version. In those he actually succeeds at blowing up the TV station and one other major building; he also brainwashes at least one person and sends several little helpers on suicide missions. I suspect that most of this was cut for time, as well as to soften the blow of "hooray for the terrorist hero," which is risky enough for American audiences even in the watered-down version that made it to film. However, despite the changes, I still believe that the V shown in the movie is adequately portrayed as a terrorist.
-
yeah in the comic v is a borderline psycho, or perhaps over the border line.
-
Your arguments for V being a terrorist are very fast and loose. If blowing up a building is an act of terrorism, then why not civilian demolition crews who knock down a run-down building to put up an new orphanage. A girl tries to stand up for her basic human rights and gets shot by a nazi cop, so now V is a terrorist. Maybe I should be blamed for the Columbine massacre because I own a trenchcoat, or all Americans are terrorists because of the Revolutionary War? Most of your reasons have way too much grey area to be useful IMO.
Okay, was there any point to America having been at cival war in the movie? The way they showed it seemed like it was supposed to mean something, but I didn't get it if so.
Something else I thought of I wanted to mention. Sorry I forget her name, but the doctor who was running the bio-weapon tests. She did seem to regret what she did, but even still we put to death people for past crimes... all crimes are past crimes, that is not too important other than maybe something like statute of limitations and what-not. Yes there is lots of talk about the death penalty, which shows there is a grey area and so I think not too good of an argument. As far as giving them a fair trial, that is obviously impossible as there is no way to do that, these are the terrorist goverment founders and need to be taken down before you could start a new goverment where such is possible. Plus there was already enough proof around that they were guilty, even after their attempts at coverup and many admitted to guilt out of their own lips.
-
Your arguments for V being a terrorist are very fast and loose. If blowing up a building is an act of terrorism, then why not civilian demolition crews who knock down a run-down building to put up an new orphanage.
Part of it is intent -- the crew isn't doing it to cause damage and hurt people, and it will in fact HELP the economy. But they also have permission and follow safety regulations and are only doing it because the owner of the property needs it taken down to do something else.
Whereas V is.... trying to hurt people. I don't think you take this conclusion seriously, though.
I"m not sure how you can *not* call someone a terrorist who is working on his own and is causing damage and hurting civilians without an actual approach that will effectively take down a government with minimal damage.
Let's dissect the American Revolutionaries were terrorists argument, shall we?
They had formed a separate government, organized an army, and announced formal intentions, signing their names to it. It was even known where most of these men were. I suppose you could argue the Boston Tea Party was terrorism, and I wouldn't disagree with you too much. It was a protest intended to cause damage to property using a non-military, non-governmental target (though non-governmental is arguable, given the nature of the East Indian Tea Company). They were attacking private citizens. Whereas when the war started, there was a Continental Army, that fought to hold territory and remove a hostile army. Now, war is never clean, so there was a lot of abusing private citizens too. But these days we call those war crimes, and I'm not familiar with documentation saying that the leaders (Washington, et al) ordered these tactics. I'm quite willing to call those encouraging the rape of an innocent by a soldier a terrorist. But the methodology endorsed by the leadership was certainly not terrorism.
V, by selecting his targets has made himself a terrorist. He is not trying to make it militarily unfit to control, he's scaring people and causing property damage. Innocent people. His intention is to hurt civilians in non-leadership capacities.
Now, you can argue whether that's called for in desperate situations, but I have great difficulty accepting that someone who does those sorts of things is not a terrorist
-
Whatever, I am not defending him. I don't really care about a fictional character and I didn't think the show was that good anyway. But you are also ignoring stuff too. The building at the end is hardly to blow up people, it is advertised on every tv station and then talked about for the next year /and/ you have armed soldiers who are supposed to keep people away from the building... that is a hell of a lot more to make sure nobody is in the building then a demolitions crew does. If you are in that building when it blows up, you wanted to die.
The tv station he had a bomb in supposedly, you can't say for sure that it would have blow up the whole building or even if it was real at all. Plus there is the point that there was time to evacuate the building, but that guy just jumps in, not even a police or with any kind of authority and does he even have any experience I wonder? And he doesn't even wait until the building is evacuated before trying, like should be done. And he cleary says why he does this is because of the money, that is all he cared about and knew all of his news was crap the goverment was making up, they all did, but they didn't care cause of money and/or fear.
The first building he blew up if anything you assume he knows nobody is in the building. It never says anyone dies in it, if he spent time rigging up all those explosives ans fireworks he clearly would have had time to check it for people. So whatever.
Maybe we should watch it again and see how many civilians he kills. He even doesn't kill the Fingers at the first who were trying to rape someone. Even that "Voice of London" tv dude was not a civilian, he was a goverment soldier. So a soldier guilty of numerous crimes, that is hardly killing 'civilians'.
Now to the actual movie side of this. Not even to focus on the liberal vs conservative, but there was actually just too many political/social stabs in the movie period. Now you could probably have a lot of the ones in it, had then been quick small little details that you don't end up noticing until you've saw it a few times, then maybe okay. But there are just so many that are in your face that it completely derails the movie.
Also, the fights were okay, but these are the same boys who did the Matrix? That almost makes them a bit disappointing. It really needed one or two more fight scenes and something a bit better/longer for the end fight. It was pretty good but... the bullet-proof vest reminded me of Clint Eastwood/Fist Full of Dollars, however it didn't even work. I mean why put it in at all if he just dies anyway.
Then the whole deal with the letter, way way too long and just a poor excuse to throw in more gay rights stuff. You could have done that who dragged out scene in 30 seconds and have the note written by her mom or dad. And the like 5-minute monolog 'for a minute everything was connected and I saw the past and future' blah blah blah... that is really lame w/o some kind of twist or shocking revelation at the end like you are expecting to get after a scene like that. So it makes the ending a bit of a letdown. The show started off a lot stronger than it ended.
All of this hurts it too much as a movie, so I would only rate it probably 2 1/2 stars out of four, or 4 of 6 clocks.
-
Eagle Prince, V was destroying buildings he didn't own and had no permission to destroy, for the distinct purpose of causing terror and chaos and inciting political change. Then he released a video in which he took credit for the act, explained why he did it, and threatened to do it again. Comparing that to a sanctioned demolition crew really just shows me that you're not taking this discussion seriously.
As for your thing about Columbine, I honestly don't know what you're talking about.
You make a good point that V's murder victims were all obviously guilty and would never get a fair trial, but once again, you say that because we happen to agree with his morals--from our point of view they need to be punished, and the government is evil and will never do it by themselves, so he is justified in taking the law into his own hands. That doesn't change the fact that V broke the law on a dozen or so occassions and murdered several people in cold blood. If he committed the exact same act against targets you sympathized with, I can't imagine you'd be so quick to excuse him.
-
No I don't care too much above V, I mostly care how good of a movie it was, which I'd say is only above average at best. I just find your arguments for him being a terrorist are based on loose rules and involve too many grey areas.
"he didn't own and had no permission to destroy" well I don't think a goverment building is private property, and over 200 thousand people marching down in masks at risk of their own life, I find that hard to swallow. The people wanted that building to blow up.
-
I was actually really pleased with the lack of fight scenes in the movie. I liked that it was trying to be about something, rather than just falling back on special effects and guns. You obviously didn't like what it was trying to be about, or the method in which it carried it off, and that's fine. Let's just say that I loved it--and I love you.
(Also--the letter from Valerie was taken virtually word for word from the comic. It was originally written by the person in the cell next to V, as he said, and was a major turning point for him in deciding to fight back against the government, so having it written by Evey's parents wouldn't make any sense. I also find it to be a fine piece of writing, so chalk it up to bias if you like.)
-
Your gradations of terrorism amuse me. V was a terrorist--that he was attacking people you were supposed to hate doesn't change that.
My point had nothing to do with his attacking people "you were supposed to hate" This sounds like you are deliberately misstating my position in order to refute it. Surely not.
1: Your first sentence is self-contradictory. "He made no attempt to safeguard innocent bystanders...except that he did make the attempt." Did you mistype? As for drawing people out to be hurt by falling debris, you're referring to the music right? The 30 seconds of music? That was just long enough to get people to look out the window but nowhere near long enough to let them walk out of their homes and over to a government building, nor, had they desired to do so, gave any indication where they should walk to in order to be hurt by the falling debris? This doesn't hold up.
2: Number one, that the cop shot a man stumbling toward him pleading with him not to shoot is not V's responsibility it's the cops. I would instead describe his plan as meant to confuse the cops about who to grab, giving him the opportunity to slip away. This is supported by the fact that he was actually surprised at how quickly the cops showed up. As for the "enormous bomb" well, it really wasn't that enormous. It was quite small enough to allow the cops and the civilians to get away entirely, leaving the facility to be destroyed. You'll notice that Finch was intent on making it to safety, as though it were a real possibility, and that the guy who disarmed the bomb stated quite clearly that his reasons for disarming it were to save the building, not to save himself or anyone else's lives. So there's actual evidence from the film that V arranged things in such a way as to allow the people to escape the building. Not terrorism.
3: A girl tries to stand up for her basic human rights and gets shot by a nazi cop, so now V is a terrorist?
Eagle Prince answered 3 just fine.
Peripherally evil item
1: Yes, V does peripherally evil things, this makes him potentially a serial killer or at the least a murderer, not a terrorist. Unless you want to argue that every murderer ever convicted is also a terrorist?
2: As for the whole Evey being tortured thing. Yeah, that's a rather silly part of the story. Being imprisoned and tortured for a few days does not magically make people into strong fearless folks. Read Solzhenitsyn or any of the holocaust survivor works to see that. Despite it's being silly, yeah V's crazy. No argument here on that score. But it doesn't make him a terrorist.
As for the caveat. We're not talking about the books, as you freely admit, and as someone who hasn't read them I can say 2 things, 1:He may very well be portrayed as a terrorist in the books, irrelevant. and 2: From my perspective the film did not show him to be a terrorist. You're probably right, they most likely watered his actions down in order to make him more sympathetic. In doing so they made him something other than a terrorist.
e: I"m not sure how you can *not* call someone a terrorist who is working on his own and is causing damage and hurting civilians without an actual approach that will effectively take down a government with minimal damage.
As you yourself said, intent. I'm sure V hurt civilians. But he went out of his way not to, at least in the film. Such is not the case with the people we're calling terrorists nowadays, who deliberately hurt innocents. I'll concede that V is a terrorist in the same sense that eco-terrorists are, in that ecoterrorists blow up sources of pollution but try not to hurt actual people... but if it were up to me I wouldn't have labeled them terrorists because of that regard for human life, I would have labeled them criminals. But I'm not in charge. As for having an approach that effectively takes down a government with minimal damage...V did pretty well, if we're to assume that he took down the government. Two buildings ain't much.
-
"Let's just say that I loved it--and I love you. "
LOL
Yeah I haven't read the comic. Weren't they written in the 80s? If that letter is very close to the one in the comic, then it is cool they put it in. BUT-- I still think it would have been better w/o it. I'm not sure if the directors were trying to stay close as possible to the core material, but if they were then its forgivable. Of course, I never would have known that if you hadn't said it (or maybe if the movie had ispired me to go read them).
Also take no offence about my case of V being a terorist or not. If you think he is a terrorist, I don't care. I just never thought he was one (and still don't after reading your reasons for him).
This might have got lost in my other post, anyone have any ideas on the significance of the USA being at civil war in the movie (or also in the comic if that was in there too)?
-
We're obviously defining terrorist differently, which will make this discussion impossible. In my eyes you don't have to kill innocents to be a terrorist--blowing up non-military targets with the intent of causing terror and chaos is enough.
-
Well I don't think he was blowing up parliment to cause terror and mass panic. E said something about the Revolutionary War and this distiction about declaring your actions and such. V did not go onto the TV and say "I want this and this or I will blow up a building" but rather he declared his actions and the reasons for them to everyone.
-
Oh, okay then. Well of course he wasn't a terrorist.
:)
-
I do agree that he very much resembles a terrorist, and cleary not perfect in the never-do-wrong superhero sense. My point about demolitions and such was only to say that the intention of the action is what I'd judge something on. If killing is justified or possibly even considered... good? I will leave that up to God. But I would not call everyone who killed a murderer without considering the circumstances and why they did it. Where is why I never thought of V as a terrorist, but I do agree that some of the things he did are similiar to the things terrorists also do.
One of the things that got under my skin from the show was the Doctor's journal, when she was talking about the "test subjects". She says "I find them pathetic" and I was like, so you kidnap a bunch of innocent people and then subject them to horrible deaths, AND call them pathetic. Heh, that is just mean.
And you really need no better argument for V being a little off his rocker than the scene where he is cheering about being on fire, lol.
-
I don't want to get into this discussion, because I haven't seen the movie, but I thought this might be helpful:
Terrorism Definitions:
From the US Code of Federal Regulations:
"..the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)
From the FBI:
Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or its territories without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
From the European Union:
"include intentional acts, by their nature and context, which may be seriously damaging to a country or to an international organisation, as defined under national law, where committed with the aim of:
(i) seriously intimidating a population, or
(ii) unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or to abstain from performing any act, or
(iii) destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or international organisation"
(It shouldn't be too surprising that the EU's definition is the most vague and useless.)
-
We're obviously defining terrorist differently, which will make this discussion impossible. In my eyes you don't have to kill innocents to be a terrorist--blowing up non-military targets with the intent of causing terror and chaos is enough.
Well, as I said, I see a difference between "snuff terrorists" and people who wreck bulldozers to save the trees. The problem I have is that I believe firmly in the right, nay the duty, of citizens to overthrow bad governments by armed force (which unavoidably causes terror and chaos). You can't overthrow bad governments through peaceful means, by definition. Doing so involves inconveniencing the government by any means possible, which unavoidably scares people and causes chaos. But you CAN overthrow bad governments without targeting innocents. But, of course, the line is very hard to draw.
For example, the government you're trying to overthrow deliberately draws it's military food supplies from the same pool the innocent civilians draw from, or even its medical supplies. Is it OK to blow up those supplies knowing you will also be depriving innocents of essential supplies? In VietNam the NVA and the VC both took advantage of the fact that the press publicly declared that it was U.S. Military policy not to bomb villages even if they had anti-aircraft emplacements or trucks known to be carrying arms and ammunition parked in the middle of them. They were brazen. We still didn't bomb those villages. And we were right not to. But it gave them an advantage and cost our soldiers their lives.
So I can't abide people being labeled terrorists merely because their ideology disagrees with mine. In my world they have to be doing things that are not acceptable, like targeting innocents, to earn that label instead of the label "revolutionary"
-
Yes Skar, I agree 100% with you on it being a right and basically a duty to overthrow tyrannical governments.
I am not too knowledgeable on law, especially EU law. But by U.S. definition anyone fighting government in V would not be a terrorist. For very brief view, as you can see above it happens to clearly state 'unlawful'. And as every US citizen should know, it is a 2nd amendment right to fight tyrannical goverments by force of arms.
-
I find it telling that all the definitions of terrorist/m HoM gave us, (thanks by the way it's always good to toss in some actual references to supplement the pontification) would plainly have labeled the American Revolutionaries as terrorists. I don't find it surprising though. It is the nature of a government to preserve its own existence and therefore it's not surprising that these government bodies call anything that would inconvenience or disempower them terrorism.
I explained why I feel the need to differentiate in the above post.
-
So you're excusing him because you agree with his motives--that's fine, so do I. It was actually Benjamin Franklin who said that the only difference between a revoultionary and a criminal was how history chose to remember him.
I still think V's a terrorist, by my own definition and by all three definitions quoted by Mustard. Not by your definition, obviously, which again is fine with me.
-
So you're excusing him because you agree with his motives--that's fine, so do I. It was actually Benjamin Franklin who said that the only difference between a revoultionary and a criminal was how history chose to remember him.
No. I'm excusing him and I agree with his motives, but the relationship is not causal; my agreeing with his motives wouldn't make any difference. For example, I would not agree with the motives of communist revolutionaries trying to take over any given country. But, assuming the government they're trying to overthrow doesn't provide any means of peaceful change and that the commies refrain from deliberately murdering innocents, I wouldn't have any problem with them call them terrorists for employing violence against that government and its infrastructure and I would label them revolutionaries rather than terrorists. For that matter I wouldn't have any problem with the government they were trying to overthrow fighting back either as long as they themselves also refrained from targeting innocents. I'd probably choose a side but IMO violent revolution is not immoral as long as you have no other recourse and don't do things like deliberately murder innocents.
-
I still think V's a terrorist, by my own definition and by all three definitions quoted by Mustard.
If I may--
"..the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)
You are therefore not a terrorist if using force and violence LAWFULLY, correct? How exactly is it unlawful for a US Citizen to use weapons to stop tyranny?
Now I quote-
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." (Second Amendment to the Constitution.)
-
sticking points in that argument may indeed be hidden in the well regulated part of the sentance, which indicate an organized National Guard more than a force of hoplite citizen soldiers with itchy trigger fingers.
Plus try shooting people to get your point of view across in this country,... I doubt it will be looked upon well. Force is almost never lawfully correct in our society unless the government is the force behind it.
-
And, unfortunately, should the government ever get to the point where it needs to be overthrown by shooting, whether or not it's legal to do so will be an academic point at best since the threatened government is also the government that would be making and enforcing the law.
So, I agree, according to the definitions Mustard cited, V was, in fact, a terrorist. In my mind that does not make him the moral equivalent to AlQuaeda or Timothy McVeigh though. And since the makers of the film rather obviously wanted him to be seen as a stand in for AlQuaeda (so we could all realize that they're people too or some such), they failed to do so in any meaningful way. Semantics do not a moral equivalent make.
-
Um excuse me but the Militia is NOT the damned National Guard. I am part of the militia, you are part of the militia. Sorry, but you are woefully ignorate on this topic to say that. Why don't you try reading this report by the Subcommittee on the Constituion (ie Congress).
http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm
Let me quote Orrin Hatch, who called the Second Ammendment the "right most valued by free men."
"Yet in all too many instances, courts or commentators have sought, for reasons only tangentially related to constitutional history, to construe this right out of existence. They argue that the Second Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a right of the state" -- apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First and Fourth Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores that the second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms. These commentators contend instead that the amendment's preamble regarding the necessity of a "well regulated militia . . . to a free state" means that the right to keep and bear arms applies only to a National Guard. Such a reading fails to note that the Framers used the term "militia" to relate to every citizen capable of bearing arms, and that the Congress has established the present National Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia."
-
Putting hte 2nd Amendment into context: it was both a justification for what they had done in the Revolutionary war (in line with many of the philosophers at the time) as well as a justification for them to rebel again, if necessary. Back then, there *was* no difference between a militia formed of otherwise civilian members and the army. The 2nd Amendment was *not* put in place to allow hunters or shooting range officianados. It was there specifically to permit the government from being capable of controlling citizens because the citizens would be unarmed and therefore less able to resist government oppression.
It's much easier to understand the Constitution when you realize that it was primarily a boundary defining document when it was conceived. Basically the main document was there to say "these are things teh government could do." Many Federalists were against an explicit BIll of Rights because they assumed that because the Constitution didn't specifically grant the government power to restrict those rights, it was unnecessary to specifically grant them. This group was afraid that delimiting the rights citizens would have would make the people think that these were the *only* rights given to the people. Whereas those who objected to the Constitution without a Bill of Rights were afraid that because no rights were specified, it would be interpreted that none were granted. Thus, as conceived, the main body of the Constitution was conceived to specify what the government could do, and then not go any further, and the Bill of Rights was added to say "and they DEFINITELY can't go here."
Looking at historical Constitutional treatment, it appears that anti-Bill of Right Federalists were correct in their fears: Today we treat any right not specifically granted in the Constitution as fair game for removal by the government.
I'm not trying to take a side with the above spiel, but I'm sure some came out. So let me specify:
I believe that the militia and the right to bear arms does not specifically refer to an institutionalized armed force controlled by the state or federal governmnet. It doesn't make sense, since why wouldn't a government have a right to make an army? Plus that ability *is* specifically stated in the main body of the Constitution when it gives power to make war. Thus the second amendment must be granting permission to groups other than the US Army/National Guard/etc
I don't believe the Bill of Rights was a mistake. While those who opposed it were right to fear that we would have rights restricted, I don't thyink the presence of the Bill of Rights is solely responsible for that attitude.
-
This conversation is now officially no fun anymore.
-
*You're* officially no fun anymore.
-
But I have an official "Fellfrosch=Fun" T-shirt and bumper sticker.
-
This is because you're foolish
-
I had never considered the idea that "right of the people," if you assume the framers were at least consistent in their use of the phrase, leads fairly obviously to the conclusion that they were not referring to institutionalized bodies like the National Guard or Police Forces as the "people" who are allowed to bear arms.
I shall garner much glee from using that line of reasoning the next time I encounter an anti-gun nut...so I declare this conversation...FUN!
-
Skar, what state do you live in anyway? I live in Utah, and so I also add the Utah constitution which says--
The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.
So as you can see quite clearly that I have an individual right to own a gun. In fact, should you wish to further go over the Utah laws then you will find that I have the right to own a gun and even open carry it w/o a licence if it is unloaded. And they define unloaded as being 2 actions away from firing, ie it could have a full clip as long as it didn't have one in the chamber, thus I have to cock it and then pull the trigger to fire. Or with a six-shooter (assuming single action, so the chamber will rotate when I pull the trigger) no bullet in the chamber under the hammer or in the following chamber- that is what is considered unloaded. With a concealed weapon permit you can pack fully-loaded, ie point, pull trigger, bullet is fired. I find the laws for conceal permit a little too strick, but they are okay I suppose. If you've never been covicted of a crime of thieft or violence, then they HAVE to issue a concealed weapon permit to anyone who requests one (doing all the paperwork, etc.. I think there is about a 50$ fee also).
-
I live in Utah.
If you add a reasonable instructor's fee, which instruction you have to get in order to apply for a CCW, to the processing fees, it comes to about 120 bucks.
-
First of all Eagle, thats enough of that right now. If you want to debate this topic, I'll do that elsewhere, but I'll do it civilly and without you bandying about emotionally charged messages like calling me ignorant thank you very much. However passionate you feel about the topic, and however many articles you have read about the subject or want me to read, I will warn you now that if you want to curry me over to your side, insulting me isnt the way to do it. In fact since you dont really even know my postition on the topic, but rather a 3 second comment on an element of yours that in no way reflects the depth of how I feel about it I would suggest that you ask me more rather than attacking me blindly. Perhaps you wrote in haste, fine, I'll just have to ask you to please take the time to not do that any time you decide to call a person names.
-
Yeah its not too bad, but I think it should not disqualify all convicted felons + crimes of thief/violence. It should be more like convicted felons of thief/violence, ie misdemeanors not counted and felonies considered by type.
You can also get a temp permit w/o doing the paperwork and such if your life is in immediate danger. Of course when they get around to doing the paperwork and if found that you didn't qualify, then they could take it away.
I think they should teach gun use/safety in school same as drivers ed, and you could take a course and pay all fees/etc to get the permit. Makes a lot of sense to me, but maybe that is just me. This would also center around your 18th birthday rather than 16th, but you get the idea.
Jeffe, I did not mean anything offensive. Sorry if you felt so.
-
I can say, without equivocation, that people who argue vehemently for their right to carry a gun are the ones who most frighten me when I think about them owning one.
-
Gunowners who most frighten me are those who illegaly own them, especially those with intent to use them for illegal and immoral pursuits.
-
So the thought of me owning a gun frightens you? Why?
-
Actually, Skar, in the seven or eight years I've known you I don't think I've ever heard you argue vehemently for gun ownership. I'm talking about people like Super Dell, who wave their gun around in public and call people morons for not owning one.
-
Ah, I see. I'm not trying to get you to group me with SuperDell (heaven forbid :o) but I must say that I have often argued vehemently (without the pistol waving) for gun ownership and I will continue to do so.
My time overseas only accentuated my beliefs on the matter. Not because I'm afraid the Taliban or AlQaeda is going to come over here and "get me" but because it became very clear just how short the distance is between our society and those where I lived for 2 years. Only a few things would have to change in order for us, not just our children, us...to experience the full measure of a radical despotic government. One of the things that would have to change is we, as a populace, would have to be disarmed. And there is a committed and vocal political party out there who's stated goal is just that. If I don't argue against them, who will? (rhetorical)
-
Dangit, and you know where I live!
-
I know it was rhetorical, but, to answer your question, not many. To get a gun control law passed in this day and age, all you have to do, in essence, is to cite a couple (often skewed, and almost always misinterpreted) facts about guns, tell a sob story or two about people dying from gunshots, tell how your law is supposed to keep this from happening again, and close with something to the effect of, "If we could save even one life with this law, isn't it worth it?" The real answer, for the vast majority of these laws is "no," but in this day and age, it is socially unacceptable, if you believe that passing a law will save a human life, to vote against it. If you do, it is assumed that you don't care that these people die, because you could not possibly deem the rights of millions of people still living to be more important than saving whatever amount of lives per year.
-
Dangit, and you know where I live!
I don't actually. I'm pretty sure you've moved at least twice since I was last at your house.
-
Excellent...
-
Going back to the actual movie, but staying the heck out of the terrorist conversation...
What struck me during the movie was actually a comparison to something totally different. It reminded me of Kyoto storyline in the Kenshin anime series - with Lord Shishio - who was burned badly in a fire, who was transformed into this monster with super-human strength. Who decided to take down the government who had done this to him.
Someone else who has seen both might disagree with me, but I thought it was interesting to see this story from the other side, and to even try to sympathize with the villian.
I have to say I would have been more comfortable watching this movie 5 years ago, before everything that's actually happened in the real world in the last five years has happened. But maybe comfort isn't the point.
*sigh*
-
So...what, you're trying to say that lord Shishywhatever was a revolutionary instead of a terrorist?! You're crazy! Fire makes people GOOD, not BAD.
-
So...what, you're trying to say that revolutionaries aren't terrorists?! You're crazy! And yes, I'm just yanking your chain!
-
Clinkety clink.
-
No, I think I'm saying that V was a terrorist instead of a revolutionary. Oh, heck with you, I don't need movies that make me think, what was that preview for the new fast and the furious movie?
-
Fasterly and Furiouser?
-
Faster and More Furiously
The Sound and the Fury
2 Fast and 2 Furious 2 Be 4gotten
-
3 Fast 3 Furious is probably what they'll go with
That or the Fast and the FUrious: Attack of the Clones.
-
So Fast and Furious it's Not Even Funny
-
Nor will it ever be.
-
Fast and Furry-ous: Werewolves in Hotrods
-
f4$t & t3h fur|0u$: teh h4xx0r||\|6.
-
Fast and Furious meets Dumb and Dumberer
its in the tradition of the great Abbot and Costello Classics