If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Bowling for Columbine
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I saw this for the first time today and I was not impressed.
Moore is simply spouting propaganda as to why guns are 'unethical'. Rightly (in my view) he questions why gun-related murders are of a higher rate in the US by comparison with other developed nations.
It was also funny to see Chartlon Heston walk out of the interview.
Moore is simply spouting propaganda as to why guns are 'unethical'. Rightly (in my view) he questions why gun-related murders are of a higher rate in the US by comparison with other developed nations.
It was also funny to see Chartlon Heston walk out of the interview.
0
Comments
He offered shock at being given one free when opening a bank account... He commented that a population thats out of control with fear maybe shouldn't have access to a lot of guns... I don't think he ever said guns are unethical.
In fact he declares in several points his love of guns, that he's had from an early age.
He points out that canada has litteralyy tons of fire-arms, yet don't have anywhere near the US's gun murder problem.
In fact, I think one of the messages is that he doesn't know what the root cause of the problem is.
I've now read the first post 4 times, and the only explanation I can think of is that we've seen different films.
The main message I really got was that american's are, in general a pretty fearful bunch of peeps, and until the media starts addressing that and admitting at least some guilt the problem isn't going to go away.
That, or Canada really is a great place to live.
I don't believe there is anything wrong with the state of gun ownership in the US.
Is it possible you watched it but didn't quite understand all of the language?
As Moore himself stated, it's not gun ownership that is the problem. Maybe it's societal.
Gun ownership is an issue of freedom and people should possess the freedom to own arms.
The day killing is legalised you can ask again.
But then again I don't know why I'm wasting my time on this since you also believe people should be free to own nuclear weapons. :rolleyes:
I can kill someone with the knife I use to chop vegetables. Oh I forget, chopping doesn't violate a person's rights even though the knife is potentially a lethal weapon..:rolleyes:
Who is to say what a person can own as property? As long as owning the object does not violate another rights then I have no problem with it.
In the context of an anarcho-capitalist society (which was the basis of my comment in that regard) then yes,
Please take note of people's comments in full if you want your answers to have any credibility whatsoever.
And no, even in the US where the debate rages, the pro-gun lobby's constant reference to the "right to bear arms" conveniently ignores the precondition clearly spelled out for that clause "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...".
Now in the time when the Constitution was drafted, defence was a state matter comprised of civil militias (much as one finds in Switzerland (to which pro-gun types also love to refer)). That is no longer the case as national defence is the responsibility of a fully professional standing army and national guard. Thus the Constitution does not give some blanket "right" for any Tom, Dick or Harry (or Jane too) to possess whatever firearm suits his fancy. That "right" was merely conveyed for the purpose of "a well regulated militia". Remove the condition and you negate the clause.
Furthermore, assailing someone with a knife offers a far greater chance for the target to fight back and possibly disarm the attacker, using a gun largely negates any possibility of self defense.
Are people such pussies that the mere ownership of a gun can frigthen them?
The issue was that a gun is specifically designed to kill. I clarified that postulate somewhat by referring specifically to handguns or military assault weaponry.
Clay pigeon shooting is done with shotguns not either of the other two categroies of guns (unless one takes utter gun loonies as a rule of thumb, which they are not).
Noone argued that a knife cannot be used to attack someone, but it is not specifically designed to kill another person.
Now you can either aknowledge and respond to the exact issue put forward or you can continue to be obtuse, contradictory and otherwise evasive of the point raised as you normally are.
Damn right! Gun owners, responsible or not, are in possesion of a deadly weapon. Far more deadly than a kitchen knife. The gun owner might not use the gun to kill someone, but what about relatives? What about theives? Someone could steal your gun and use it to rob someone else. I do find this scary.
If someone tries to attack me with a knife I can run away. If that person attacks me with a gun, running won't help.
Just because someone owns a gun that does not mean that are automatically going to shoot you.
In a free society people should be allowed to own guns.
Heck, Moore HIMSELF said that gun ownership is common in Canada, yet their total of deaths from gun usage is FAR lower than in the US!!!!
(also as said in the film) Where do you draw the line?
Other lines i liked:
"We have to accept that high powered assult rifles, like the one used to kill my son, are NOT used for hunting. They have no usful purpose"
"Violent crime has in fact reduced 20%, but the news coverage in the media has increased 600%"
Gun ownership is not a right. Get it in your head once and for all and give the whole 'property rights' issue a rest for a while, will you?
Who are you to state what people can or cannot own as property?
The US Constitution has never given a blanket (unconditional) right to US citizens to own guns. The constant use of Amendment II by the pro-gun lobby has always been selectively applied so as to ignore the conditional phrase contained within the amendment...
As I mentioned previously, what held true at the time the Constitution was drafted is no longer so today. We have a professional standing army answerable to the federal government, not the state governments. A "well regulated militia" is a thing of the past and thus the amendment in its entirety does not provide inalienable rights to all and sundry to own any sort of gun they wish as the NRA would always contend.
Not of everything. No one has the right to own anything they please, whichever way you want to look at it.
And in any case, the right of property is debatable.
In my mind, a person has a natural right to property.
And I think a person can own anything as long as they don't infringe on others' rights.
Property may be purchased if one has the means, or taken by force if one cares nought for the suppression of others, but if it were a natural right then we would be endowed with property at birth.
One could just as adequately contend with your presumption that property ownership does not infringe others' rights. Look to the American Indians and their view that the land owned us and not the other way round. All were free to settle anywhere and to roam freely. Until white man came along and started placing boundries everywhere there was more actual individual liberty. If anything, "property" tends to circumscribe one's perceptions of liberty and limits it.
And I think a person can own anything as long as they don't infringe on others' rights. [/B][/QUOTE]
And the right to 'all' property is only subscribed to amongst extreme free-marketing ultra capitalists.
A person has a 'right' to property: to own a home, their own clothes, etc. But there are limitations to what a person can own, and rightly so.
Locke you fool. And you say you've studied politics....
Well human rights are natural rights. By your rationale, people should be born into trade unions.
Property ownership does not infringe on another's rights.
If one acquires it without force, then that simply is the case.
The recognition of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as set forth in the DoI are the extent to which Locke (and to some extent Rousseau's) concepts were adopted into a concrete social contract.
Sure you can argue in the theoretical realm till the cows come home however, insofar as theories are translated into commonly held principles for society, property is not counted amongst those rights recognised by society as inalienable.
Don't have a clue what nonsense you are suggesting in rebuttal to my last point. What do labour unions have to do with anything? :rolleyes:
I'm not American dispshit. The DoI does not apply to me.
What society are you talking about? And you're understanding of natural rights is flawed (especially for somebody who has claimed to have sutided politics).
The reasoning behind natural rights is that a person cannot be denied the right to life, liberty and property since they are inherent.
However, one gun shot wound can be fatal and it'd only take a six year old kid to take a look at Daddy's gun and BANG!. Get me?
I wouldn't want to bring my kids up in an environment where guns are legal and where the kid is forced to pledge every day in school, just because I wouldn't have faith in society there. Whatever the arguement is, a gun is a weapon used for killing and anybody can get hold of one over there. It'd only take somebody to lose their rag before they pull one out and waste the poor bastard they're arguing with.
Canada seemed cool, however.
Anyways, my problem is exactly this. People shouldn't have the right to own guns because who wants any untrained person or untested person regarding mental capacity using a gun? Doesn't make me feel safe.
I never suggested you were subject to the DoI, little man. The point which seems to escape your one liner mind is that the DoI, unlike some theoretical work by Locke or Rousseau, contains a legal embodiment of the principles of "natural rights" of which you are so vociferous.
That being the case, there is NO mention of "property" as being a natural right. If anything property is a privelege.
I suggest you go study some politics and then try to come to grips with how little reality matches up with this or that philosphical conceptualisation of what society should be. Then you can get on your high horse with some degree of credibility.
Actually pnj, Canada is pretty darn clean and orderly (almost to the point of being boring) and if youve ever visited in the Summer, it can be extremely hot.
I don't think so.
I am vociferous of natural rights as they are a basis of libertarian belief. I am a libertarian.
By your own subjective reasoning.
Well I already have a degree in politics you know. And who is to say what 'philosophical conceptulaisation' is correct or incorrect?
From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is part of many nations' statutes.
So the right to property is not simply 'theory'.
It's fact.
Maybe you should have thought of this before attempting to look the bad man by rebuking me.