Miss Sloane - A Woman Fights for Stricter Gun Control
- Thread starter Marter
- Start date
But I thought that ALL lobbyists were bad. At least that's what I'm constantly hit over my head with when it comes to politics. The last movie I saw with a lobbyist as its "hero" was "Thank You For Smoking", and that was meant to be satirical.
I see she's also reunited, to roll with reviewer parlance, with Mark Strong, too. But yeah, phenomenal pretty much sums her up - Zero Dark Thirty and Tree Of Life would be my two favourite performances.Marter said:
Oddly that trailer wasn't available in the UK, but here's one that is:
...oh look, a high dislike rate and wacky people whining about the evils of the 'MSM', who'd a thunk it.
Fun fact about gun control, the Left eventually stops opposing it if you go far enough. (I mean the American left).
-Your friendly Internet Socialist.
-Your friendly Internet Socialist.
Unfortunately there aren't many high-priced lobbies interested in doing that. Everyone is for free speech before someone says something they don't like, though. In some ways it's a much more complicated issue than guns.90sgamer said:
A movie like this set around the drama of a slander or libel case might be quite interesting, though, and delved into important aspects of that debate. I'm not sure how much this movie actually delves into the Second Amendment, even.
"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?"Fox12 said:90sgamer said:
Stalin saying "we don't let our people have guns" would make all the schoolkids who just received their firearms training go "huh?".
You are exactly right. Speech is a fascinating and complicated issue as all amendment rights are.hentropy said:
I was being pretty tongue-in-cheek with my original post, but we all need to remember, it was not guns that got the likes of Trump/Hitler in power, The PATRIOT ACT passed, or the War on Terror started. The most harmful events are caused first by words, but no one is tripping over themselves to attack the 1st Amendment, and therein lies our hypocrisy.
"Free Speech Zones" would tend to disagree with that statement. Their proponents just don't come out and say "we want to repeal the first amendment", because they don't actually want to repeal the first amendment, at least for themselves. Just like no one comes out and says "we want to repeal the second amendment", because they don't actually want to repeal the second amendment, just, you know, cleave a bit stronger to the "well regulated militia" part of the statement.90sgamer said:
That said, most gun control, and just about all gun control laws passed in the states, doesn't actually conflict with the second amendment. For example, rocket launchers are "arms", but unless you got permits and security clearances out the wazoo, they're hilariously illegal.
so yeah gun control doesn't work, at least not in the US as the heaviest gun controlled cites have the most gun related crimes. Its not a gun control problem its a mental health problem that could be fixed by actually checking up on reports of people who may be a danger to themselves or others.
And then you could break it down into what?s unconstitutional or not depending on the wording. 2nd Amendment points out the State, neither the federal government nor Country, and we all know what a militia is. So would that mean the Permanent Federal Military is unconstitutional? Congress only has the right to draft, not maintain, an army. So PFM would be a violation of the 2nd Amendment due to it putting militia and gun control in the hands of the federal government, not the state governments as detailed by the 2nd Amendment.altnameJag said:
And this is where gun control/2nd Amendment discussions end up breaking down. The difference between how people view the 2nd Amendment, who makes the arms, state and federal government?s role in weapons, and what/if there should be any sort of control whatsoever. My belief in what the 2nd Amendment allows and not allows is different than the vast majority of US citizens believe the 2nd Amendment is for, and those beliefs can and have changed over the years.
Wow! I'm thinking that whoever fronted the money for this one is currently considering shooting themselves. When one of the biggest takeaways from the 2016 US election is rather blatantly a great shout from flyover country of "STOP PREACHING AT US ASSHOLES!!!" directed at Hollywood and the Media, a movie about a Heroic Elitist Liberal Lobbyist using every dirty trick in the book to fight for Gun Control seems like an amazingly bad investment. Like Ghostbusters'16 or an Adam Sandler movie level bad. Why not just light the money on fire?
They had the mid-term election right after Sandy Hook, one of the Democrats talking points was that the Republican wouldn't support gun control. And yet the Dems lost that time badly, too. The people in the "fly over states", don't want gun control. It's just the elitist who think they know best, who want it.faefrost said:
Just out of curiosity, I'm British and a bit of an outsider to the whole gun control debate.
So without wanting to start a flame war, what exactly is the basis of people not wanting stricter gun control laws?
From an outsiders perspective it seems like a no brainer that a dangerous weapon shouldn't be readily available to people who aren't responsible enough to own it?
Am I simplifying the issue too much, or missing a grander point? Just genuinely curious
So without wanting to start a flame war, what exactly is the basis of people not wanting stricter gun control laws?
From an outsiders perspective it seems like a no brainer that a dangerous weapon shouldn't be readily available to people who aren't responsible enough to own it?
Am I simplifying the issue too much, or missing a grander point? Just genuinely curious
You do have a fair point. Here in Canada we have a mental health standard when it comes to gun ownership. The US doesn't. The gun control talks only come about when a mass shooting happens, and never when it comes to every day violence in places like Chicago or Compton.ecoho said:
One outsider to another as I'm Canadian, it stems a lot from the US Left wanting to implement laws that they've tried before that don't actually reduce gun crime and the US Right will not budge on any gun control issue at all. If the Left simply said they want mental health checks I think the Right would be down for that. So far in the US the places with the strictest gun control have the highest per capita illegal gun use. And the Media only shoves the argument down people's throats when a mass shooting happens, but ignores general gun crime.Brewin said:
One thing that always got me is that the US Left deflects mental health as an issue with gun control when the majority of mass shooters in the last 20 have been found to have been medicated, or having just come off of medication for their issue. Furthermore the fact that most gun deaths in the US are suicides shows favour to the "get mental health into the discussion" argument. The Right is simply sick of being labelled as gun nuts when the majority of gun owners are responsible and will never cause a crime.
Both sides take it to nutty levels though.
You mean like under the Gun Control Act of 1968, a law passed almost 50 years ago?AzrealMaximillion said:
"It is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person ?has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.?
Conflating Suicide, which is most often a result of depression, with gun control is a terrible conflation for a number of reasons. First and foremost being that most suicides are a result of untreated (and there for undocumented) depression, so a law stopping depressed people from owning guns would only block people responsible enough to get help. You know, the ones who are less likely to commit suicide anyways.
So why not have a test whenever someone wants to buy a firearm? People with poor vision are rarely allowed to drive, why not have a firearm license? And in all honesty, how many gun stores will turn away the crazy looking guy if his criminal record is clean? My guess is none.Ukomba said: