Courtesy of Time:
In the ad, an upset-looking man — presumably a former employee — storms into an office with a rifle and draws a bead on his boss. What happens next makes this what may be, in the words of BuzzFeed, “the best gun control ad ever produced.”
I firmly believe that if, by some miracle, the Founding Fathers were to be transported forward into time and see how badly the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted and how much devastation that it has caused, they would either petition to excise the entire thing or subject it to severe rewrites in order to further clarify what they had meant by it.
They would probably also choose to walk through the halls of Congress slapping each and every Republican lawmaker that hey happened across.
Love it!
ReplyDeleteLaws are slow to catch up with technology. Too slow.
You can secretly videotape someone in their home and not go to jail
as long as their is no audio----how is that sane? Are we to still expected to see guns and their effects on society the same way we did almost two-hundred and fifty years ago before armies and police forces? Thirty thousand gun deaths a year. Thirty thousand. Murder, suicide and accidental shootings. If we could give this a name like a disease we would have been well on our way to irradicating it by now.
Wow. That is great!!
ReplyDeleteGreat ad.
ReplyDeleteIn Aurora there would have been 2 dead if shooter had a flintlock.
After the shooter killed the first person, the crowd would have beat the shooter to death, before he could reload.
He probably wouldn't have even hit anyone at all.
DeleteVery thought-provoking...if the powers that be ever bothered to give it any thought at all.
ReplyDeletePreaching to the choir. Excellent gun control ads only appear great to people who think gun control is a good idea.
ReplyDeleteShow this to any slavering gun worshiper and you know damn well what the reaction will be. No amount of common sense or logic gets through.
Too true, sadly. Have you seen the idiot-fest going on in the Youtube comments for the video? I know, I know, with Youtube comments that's like saying "Have you seen today's sky is blue??", but really, even for Youtube it's impressive. No "huh, that's a really good point, interesting", just lots of "BUT...MAH GUNZ! [insert racial epithet for Obama here] [insert unrelated rant about Boston here] AND ALSO...MAH GUNZ!!"
DeleteLast night a newscaster stated that background checks did not pass last week. A stranger yelled "guns don't kill people, people kill people".
DeleteIf that is their stance then background checks to prevent or reduce violent or high risk people from buying guns would be logical. Logic does not exist nor do they process proposals.
I doubt most even comprehend what a background check is.
@5:42
Delete"guns don't kill people, people kill people".
*****
I know you were just quoting "Them" but by their logic then,
If that's the case...why do they need guns?
goddamned these people are Stoopid as shit.
5:42 and 6:11 -
DeleteSo why are they fighting the background checks? No one is asking for background checks on guns...we want them on the PEOPLE who use those guns.
And I haven't heard anyone explain why background checks for licensed dealers are fine but expanding those VERY SAME CHECKS to private dealers who may be sitting at the next table at a gun show somehow becomes unconstitutional.
Anonymous6:57 AM They are fighting the background checks b/c PEOPLE kill not guns doncha know!
Deleteor
b/c they are fuckin' idiots!
Yep, I can imagine...
Delete"Well they should ban cars then, cars kill people
Yes they do. And people have to GET a LICENSE for a CAR any of 'em all of them and Ins. to drive the car. Can't wait until THAT is proposed, also,too!
If we were to interpret the Constitution under strict constructionist standards, as Alito & Scalia claim, AND ASSUME the 2nd A is an individual right and not a collective right (an assumption I do not concede, but allow for the sake of this argument) then everyone would have a right to own a musket and a canon. There is NO WAY anyone could have considered the rights related to high capacity magazines.
ReplyDeleteOutstanding.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with this argument is if you are going to interpret the Amendments based on the technology of the time, then following that, an argument can be made that we should only have freedom of the press as it relates to physical printed news and NOT TV, radio, internet, ... since that is what the founding fathers had in mind when then wrote it.
ReplyDeleteNice try.
DeleteWhat do you mean "Nice try"? Either you strictly interpret or you don't. Please explain.
DeleteAnd just for some context (and to say I'm not a troll), I believe in the 2nd but I also believe in some gun control with stricter background checks at the top of the list. I just find the argument in this video really weak.
I have to imagine that you are a troll since my mind cannot comprehend how you can equate the inherent problems improved technology presents when dealing with the first amendment as opposed to the second.
DeleteSure there may be more ways to broadcast your opinions, with the newer technologies available, but the 1st Amendment specifically protects your "free speech" not how you disseminate it.
On the other hand the 2nd amendment specifically identifies the "right to bear rems" as pertaining to maintaining a "well regulated militia" in defense of the "free state."
That is NOT how guns are used in this day and age, and it is clearly NOT how the fore fathers intended the law to be interpreted. They seemed to be reasonable men so I have to believe that if they saw how weapons had improved, and the devastation they could cause, they would gladly modify that amendment to be far more strict.
I think when a person's Facebook page massacres a room full of children you might have a point. Until then, not so much.
Yyyeah, no. The key difference is that WORDS (protected by the first amendment) haven't fundamentally changed, just their method of dissemination; someone could say pretty much the same things 200 years ago as they could now, but now they're just saying them in a different way.
DeleteIn the case of the second amendment the very item mentioned in the amendment - the "arms" - have changed. The proper second amendment analogy to how technology has changed the first amendment would be if we still only had muskets and cannons but we could now order them through Amazon. The ARMS would still be the same, but the method of acquiring them would have been updated. In that case, sure, there'd be a compelling legal argument.
Your interpretation would only hold up if the second amendment did not grant the right to bear arms, but the right to "fire bullets". If it said that, then, well, yeah, we fire bullets differently now but we declared "the act of firing bullets" to be a basic American right. Fortunately, the founding fathers weren't that stupid.
Come to think of it, this might be the basic misreading that lots of the gun nuts are coming up against; somehow "the right to bear arms" has morphed into "the right to fire bullets", which would explain why something as common-sense as limiting high-capacity magazines or banning assault rifles freaks them the heck out...
But we do revisit the 1st Amendment when new technology is developed. In fact, right now, there are all kinds of formal and informal challenges having to do with the internet. For example, can you post naked photos your girlfriend sent you over the phone to your web site? What are the legal ramifications of "cyber bullying" if your victim kills herself?
DeleteAnd that is besides the fact that the 2nd Amendment was extremely focused on one thing, a well-regulated militia that made sense at the time the constitution was written. Freedom of Speed/Press/Religion are universal through time and space. And even then we place reasonable limits on them when they place people in danger.
Gryphen7:02 AM
DeleteEXACTLY!!!
The video is right on! The laws should be updated and amended/changed.
Well said Gryphen....it makes so much sense it is impossible not to comprehend, but there are billions involved here. The rest of the world is right when they say America is a capitalist whore. Our government (present esp) proves it with every vote. Violence and crime are big business...keep as much fear going as possible, and the prisons will be full.
ReplyDeleteThis ad was exceptional....simple enough for even the dimmest lightbulb, not that it will change their mindset. Look at the fire power the 2 Boston bombers had...all illegal, but surely easy to get. It would be awesome if Mark Kelly got into politics, esp in AZ. Now there is a true American patriot and he is married to another one....beautiful, inspiring couple that put "country first".
A number of things have changed since the 2nd amendment was written. Back in the 1780's, the standing militia was called on to fight border wars, against the Native Americans, who used to live there. The army that Washington put together were volunteers, including boys. That was the standing militia of those times.
ReplyDeleteThe 2nd amendment does not guarantee a military arsenal of weapons for individual use. They are intended for a well regulated militia. Limiting the number of shots in a round, or the kind of weapon does not infringe on the right to own a gun. The NRA doesn't seem to object to other regulations, such as a minimum age for a gun permit. The 19 year old in Boston was not legally qualified to own a weapon.
This ad is GREAT!!!
ReplyDeletePalin is supposed to give a speech at some NRA thing in May. I'm sure that she will trot out her famous joke "he got the rifle and I got the rack," even though it's not original. (Dustin Lynch, She Cranks my Tractor). Palin is the perfect speaker for the NRA, since her father had to load her rifle for her. (Does it kick, Daddy?) When Sarah gives her NRA speech, that would be a good time to post the video of Sarah Palin's Alaska where she shoots and misses, she shoots and misses, she shoots and misses. Hey that rack ain't helpin' a bit.
ReplyDeleteNow Sarah Palin has a new Facebook post. She is complaining that the bible verses, etched onto some guns for the military have to be removed. Yeah, killing in the name of God, there's a good idea. Actually, God said that you should not kill. It's one of his 10 commandments.
ReplyDeleteBrilliant ad. It may not change many minds but I venture to say that it will get some thinking about it.
ReplyDeleteSheesh
Reminds me of President Obama's "horses and bayonets" references during the debates.
ReplyDeleteThat ad was BRILLIANT!
ReplyDeleteM from MD