Video ‘guns have changed, shouldn’t our gun laws?"

[andysayshi]

It's a good ad to a point. It's amusing. It's not exactly true, but most advertising isn't based on truth.

You realise that it's satire, right? Here's the dictionary definition:

satire
the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

Gun laws have changed. I didn't see where that was addressed.

The only federal gun laws that have changed during Obama's administration have reduced gun restrictions in the US. Obama has not successfully enacted one single law to address gun violence in his entire Presidency.

The current administration with it's selective enforcement has prosecuted fewer gun purchase violation cases than any preceding administration. Isn't that weird. It's almost like they want there to be an impression that there are not adequate laws already on the books.

Unfortunately, senators and congressman on both sides of the aisle have shown that money from the gun lobby is much more important to them than the desire of their constituents. There hasn't even been an official Director of the ATF since it required Senate approval from 2006. The NRA has funded politicians who then suppress gun regulation for many years. As a result, gun laws never pass, and laws that enable gun law enforcement are suppressed. There hasn't been a meaningful government study into gun crime in the US for almost two decades, because funding any such study is prevented by politicians who have accepted substantial funding from the NRA.

 

[Rolyo85]

I think what the ad shows best is that what has changed is people -- everyone in that office was both ignorant and a fucking coward.

In that they didn't all draw a gun and turn it into a western? How ignorant and cowardly of them indeed...

 

[Adrock-JD]

The U.S. Senate voted with a majority of 54 votes out of 100 to expand background checks.

The problem (if you see it as such) is with the filibuster requiring 60 votes to end it.

 

[Kulindahr]

I can not wait until gun ass holes have patriot missiles in there back yard!

That's not something one can "keep and bear".

Since it is not possible to enforce bravery as a matter of law, it might be more prudent to remove the weapons of instant destruction that require bravery as a response from ordinary citizens.

Not possible. Thirteen-y.o. kids in caves in Pakistan turn out AKs and other weapons using only rudimentary tools, so the only way to "remove the weapons of instant destruction" would be to drag the whole world technologically backwards a few centuries.

Obama has not successfully enacted one single law to address gun violence in his entire Presidency.

Nor has he -- or any other Democrat, for that matter -- proposed any, except arguably the one that shows them as hypocrites: the background check requirement.

 

[Kulindahr]

In that they didn't all draw a gun and turn it into a western? How ignorant and cowardly of them indeed...

Sounds like you'd be right there with them, apparently in the lead.

I can't believe you still hold to the mantra, demonstrated to be false over and over, that letting citizens be armed will result in "a western".

 

[CowboyBob]

Yep, that's just what the police want. Terrified office workers shooting back at the guy storming in with a gun. Bullets flying all over the place.

Miss Pitney in accounts receivable pulling a loaded gun from her purse firing in the direction of the gunman, all the while Mr Haynes, Mr Pasternack & Mrs Wylder get caught in the crossfire. Great idea!

/end sarcasm

Real life isn't a Charles Bronson or Clint Eastwood movie. Sorry Kulindar that those people in the office didn't behave like you think they should.

 

[Rolyo85]

Sounds like you'd be right there with them, apparently in the lead.

I can't believe you still hold to the mantra, demonstrated to be false over and over, that letting citizens be armed will result in "a western".

It's not a mantra and as the south clearly shows, it's not false either. It's an obvious reality. Did you check the Mother Jones link I posted? Any comment on that?

 

[Kulindahr]

The U.S. Senate voted with a majority of 54 votes out of 100 to expand background checks.

That was an amazing show of hypocrisy. Up until now, Democrats have been dead set against opening the NICS to private sellers; now they want it mandatory.

Love the ad - if only Adam Lanza had a musket

Add another to the ignorant group in the ad. Once again I'll point out that kids in caves with only basic tools make AK-47s over open fires, high school students have made bolt-action hunting pieces in school shop, and people make their own rifles of all sorts in their home shops. The real flaw in that ad is that people will think exactly as you did above, engaging in pure fantasy.

The flaw in the system is not the availability of firearms, it's to whom they're available. Specifically, people who have clearly shown themselves to be a danger to the public should be flagged in the NICS, plus weapons when not in us should be stored so no one else can use them, either. One of my worst nightmares is someone else using one of my firearms to do harm, which is why the few times I've been required to leave one where someone else could theoretically get at it, I've disabled the piece so it's just a chunk of metal. I can't wrap my mind around how anyone would be so irresponsible as to leave their weapons where someone else can just walk off with them, especially when mass shooters have found that an easy source of implements (heck, I'm designing a hidden wall compartment so the safe for my disabled weapons isn't even visible).

 

[Kulindahr]

Yep, that's just what the police want. Terrified office workers shooting back at the guy storming in with a gun. Bullets flying all over the place.

Miss Pitney in accounts receivable pulling a loaded gun from her purse firing in the direction of the gunman, all the while Mr Haynes, Mr Pasternack & Mrs Wylder get caught in the crossfire. Great idea!

/end sarcasm

Real life isn't a Charles Bronson or Clint Eastwood movie. Sorry Kulindar that those people in the office didn't behave like you think they should.

Well, the propagandists for cowardice have got you thinking their way, all right -- shivering over "bullets flying", even though every last time that fear has been put forth to oppose a law that strengthened Americans' natural right of self-defense, the opposite has been true.

I think people should act with intelligence and some courage. Anyone with an ounce of awareness and a functioning forebrain would have noticed that once the first shot was off, ending the situation could have been achieved without even hurrying.

 

[Durango95]

How was this satire? The whole ad is an inference. The guy is using a musket which is to connote the type weapon commonly used when the Constitution was written. The actual inference is that the Constitution is archaic and therefore shortsighted in the context of today's modern weaponry. The tag line is completely untrue. Guns have changed. Gun laws have changed as well.

The deception is the clear. The actual inference is completely unrelated to the content.

 

[Rolyo85]

I am sorry, are American children raised in caves by fundamentalists living in a state of perpetual civil war and constant armed conflict? I forget.

You have never addressed the fact that the civilized world has strict gun control yet no apocalypse scenarios have utterly failed to occur. That does indeed speak of ignorance.

So, about the MJ link?

 

[Rolyo85]

How was this satire? The whole ad is an inference. The guy is using a musket which is to connote the type weapon commonly used when the Constitution was written. The actual inference is that the Constitution is archaic and therefore shortsighted in the context of today's modern weaponry. The tag line is completely untrue. Guns have changed. Gun laws have changed as well.

The deception is the clear. The actual inference is completely unrelated to the content.

Gun laws have not changed anywhere near enough, and many of the changes have been for the worse. And the constitution's AUTHORS recognized that it would need to be changed with the times. Weirdly, gun nuts refuse to see what those authors saw centuries ago.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's not a mantra and as the south clearly shows, it's not false either. It's an obvious reality. Did you check the Mother Jones link I posted? Any comment on that?

I just reviewed the figures for the South, and in not a single case did a strengthening of citizens' ability to freely exercise their Second Amendment rights result in anything remotely resembling "a western".


BTW, searched the thread back and forth, and don't see such a link.

 

[Rolyo85]

I just reviewed the figures for the South, and in not a single case did a strengthening of citizens' ability to freely exercise their Second Amendment rights result in anything remotely resembling "a western".

BTW, searched the thread back and forth, and don't see such a link.

It's in the gun filibuster thread. And it's enough to just drive through Texas to see all the cowboys flaunting weapons, and sense the tension and danger.

 

[Kulindahr]

How was this satire? The whole ad is an inference. The guy is using a musket which is to connote the type weapon commonly used when the Constitution was written. The actual inference is that the Constitution is archaic and therefore shortsighted in the context of today's modern weaponry. The tag line is completely untrue. Guns have changed. Gun laws have changed as well.

The deception is the clear. The actual inference is completely unrelated to the content.

It's a piece designed to get people to react with emotion and simple-minded knee-jerk response. Anyone with a functioning brain and a modicum of alertness will realize that the bad guys aren't using muskets, and the good guys need to keep up with them. Of course to the anti-gun folks it's better that everyone be sheep ready and available to the wolves so long as they can pat themselves on the back for having made it harder for the law-abiding to buy protection. Somehow, despite the fact that even kids can make firearms in their parents' garages or basements, they believe that criminals are going to give up firearms just because the law-abiding are supposed to change their behavior.

BTW, the Founding Fathers knew about changes in weapons tech -- they lived through a significant one while applying their natural right to insurrection. For those capable of critical thinking, it's plain that they had no problem with the citizenry having better weapons than the military.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's in the gun filibuster thread. And it's enough to just drive through Texas to see all the cowboys flaunting weapons, and sense the tension and danger.

"Flaunting"? I've been in Texas often enough to know there's little or none of that.

Nor have I noticed any tension and danger, either in Texas, Indiana, Colorado, Montana, or Oregon, all places I've lived or been where people openly exercising their natural right of being armed. I can believe that you, who believe most people are irresponsible and not to be trusted, felt tense and that the situation was dangerous, but those are projections onto the scene, not facets of it.

 

[CowboyBob]

*sigh*

9 tirades and counting.

 

[Rolyo85]

"Flaunting"? I've been in Texas often enough to know there's little or none of that.

Nor have I noticed any tension and danger, either in Texas, Indiana, Colorado, Montana, or Oregon, all places I've lived or been where people openly exercising their natural right of being armed. I can believe that you, who believe most people are irresponsible and not to be trusted, felt tense and that the situation was dangerous, but those are projections onto the scene, not facets of it.

So I am projecting uncertainty, but your assumption that guns make you safe despite what's happening all around you is, um... being objective?

 

[vulgar_newcomer]

I think people should act with intelligence and some courage. Anyone with an ounce of awareness and a functioning forebrain would have noticed that once the first shot was off, ending the situation could have been achieved without even hurrying.

And proven historical fact again & again has shown that what you are saying doesn't always happen. More times then not even the most skilled and brave have gone down in a blaze of glory all the way back to the most primitive musket. Pffft! I side with the posters ascertaining your wild west mentality and the romance you hold of bravery/courage is of a era that never was except in folklore and Clint Eastwood movies. Thinking that office workers in a situation like this should be trained & skilled to stand and have a shoot out instead of take sides with the natural instinct to hunker down and find cover is ludicrous , just nutty perhaps making you the type of person that shouldn't pass the muster in the mental dept to own a fire arm? The allure and illusion clouds logical civilian thought in a civilized (supposed to be) society.

 

[chrisrobin]

.
NEOCON WET DREAM or why we need guns for our "protection".

Wolverines!