Donations accepted for 2nd amendment documentary

[Lithium381]

Guy is putting together a film on the 2nd amendment and the recent attacks on it and is gathering funds to finish it. Was wondering if we had any support here for that sort of thing.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects...-rights-under-fire-finishing-fund-c?ref=users

Looks interesting and maybe it'll see some small theatre time. I'm just hoping it's out soon enough to be seen before this we lose everything. I've seen other donation drives around here for various things and figured if you can't get a donation drive together to protect the constitution then what else is there?

Lets not turn this into a political thread, lets keep it on the film, please.

Sorry. Despite your wishes, Craig 234 made this entirely political rather than about a movie, so to P&N it goes.
admin allisolm

 

[Newbian]

Lets not turn this into a political thread, lets keep it on the film, please.

Sorry but the moment you post that kind of link it's doomed to head to P&N.

Also there have been no attacks and just a bunch of people freaking out like always.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Damn, and here I was all this time thinking it was attacks on children that everyone was all up in arms about.

 

[Newbian]

Damn, and here I was all this time thinking it was attacks on children that everyone was all up in arms about.

Pssh what have those little leeches ever done for us other then to eat all the candy in the candy van?

 

[tcsenter]

This is like the third such amateur effort I've seen in 10 years, I even donated to one circa 2002 or 2003. Either they never seem to materialize or end-up being so poorly done that nobody wants to promote or distribute it.

 

[Craig234]

I'll donate if the title is "False documentary about a straw man misrepesenting gun regulation".

The word 'protect is one of the most dishonestly used words for propaganda.

You're not anti-black, you want to PROTECT STATES' RIGHTS! You're not pro-gay discrimination, you want to PROTECT MARRIAGE!

You don't want to violate the principle of freedom and equality of religion, you want to PROTECT CHRSITIANITIY AND CHRISTMAS!

No one wants thousands of people to be killed because of a lack of responsible gun regulations - they want to PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION!

Goebbels wrote that any government can get the people to support war by telling them the country is under attack and needs to be protected.

Remember Iraq? It wasn't the oil industry and Republicans with a shared agenda for selfish reasons to go to war - it was to PROTECT us from the MUSHROOM CLOUD.

This is how a problem killing thousands of Americans a year and the discussion of policy is attacked by pretending it's about 'PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTION'.

Funny, the same people have zero concern usually about protecting other parts of the constitution - which the ACLU fights for, warrantless wiretapping, corporations = people.

 

[tcsenter]

Funny, the same people have zero concern usually about protecting other parts of the constitution - which the ACLU fights for, warrantless wiretapping, corporations = people.

Well the same could be said of the ACLU. i.e. it zealously defends every part of the constitution which invokes or implies "the right of the people" except for the 2nd A, where the ACLU reads "the people" to mean "the government" or "the state", as though while penning and debating one lone amendment, the framers/authors completely confused the two due to a collective stroke or something. Drunkeness, maybe?

 

[Craig234]

Well the same could be said of the ACLU. i.e. it zealously defends every part of the constitution which invokes or implies "the right of the people" except for the 2nd A, where the ACLU reads "the people" to mean "the government" or "the state", as though while penning and debating one lone amendment, the framers/authors completely confused the two due to a collective stroke or something. Drunkeness, maybe?

The ACLU protects the 2nd amendment like it does any other part of the constitution.

The issue there is that some people have their own interpretation of that amendment (sadly some are on the Supreme Court) that's different.

I can't say that the right to free speech includes the right to express an opinion by punching people in the face and then claim the ACLU doesn't protect the constitution because they don't defend that interpretation. They defend the constitution, but obviously not everyone's version.

What are the first three words of the second amendment, and why are they there? If it was all about 'personal right', why wouldn't it be written without those words?

The Supreme Court did not rule on the interpretation for over 200 years and by a slim margin when it did. You might disagree with the ACLU's intepretation, but it's reasonable, not some partisan hypocrisy like the type I described by people who care only for bits while refusing to protect large rights from clear violations. Big difference between the two.

Something like 'corporations are people' is totally absent from the actual constitution and granted only because of corruption because of the powerful corporate interests.

In the years after the 14th amendment was passed - an amendment clearly for the equal rights of people who had been slaves and any return of that legal discrimination - there were far more lawsuits heard by the Supreme Court about the 14th amendment regarding their never-ending push to get corporations rights than there were for black people.

 

[KB]

What are the first three words of the second amendment, and why are they there? If it was all about 'personal right', why wouldn't it be written without those words?

The personal right words are there. You just have to keep reading. "the rights of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed." It doesn't say the rights of the military or the state, it says the people. Amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 are all personal rights, why not the 2nd?


Remember what "A well regulated militia" was at the time of the constitution. It was local farmers banding together into a unprofessional army.

From wikipedia: A militia (pron.: /mɨˈlɪʃə/),[1] or irregular army, generally refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular soldiers or, historically, members of the fighting nobility.

Before the Militia Act of 1903, which created the National guard, the US had an "unorganized" militia consisting of all males from ages 17 to 45 "

 

[Lithium381]

Hey Craig, long time no see!

Semantics are very powerful; using the power of words and repitition can change how people think. For example, people polled ( I'll try and find the link) all agreed that guns should be allowed to have "standard capacity magazines" but shouldn't have "extended magazines" . . . guess what standard is? typically 15 for a pistol and 30 for an AR-15 platform. By using dishonest language "high capacity" they're trying to shape peoples thoughts on the matter.

"Anti-gun-safety" lobby is a group of gun nuts? Really? You mean they have to fight against the "anti-personal-protection-lobby?" on the left?

"Common sense gun control" "Sensible gun regulation" are misnomers, meant to make it sound like if you oppose them, then you're obviously a fringe crazy person.

"Who needs 30 rounds for hunting". FFS, It's not about hunting!!! Any person who tries to tell me that the 2nd-A is about hunting is immediatley discredited and should not be allowed to participate in the discussion because they obviously lack knowledge of our history.

I wish we could all be honest about this discussion and talk about facts. That's what I'm hoping this film can do, is bust some of the myths and misconceptions that have been created by DiFi and her ilk.

None of this charade about stopping "gun violence" is about the violence. . . it's about the guns. It's part of an agenda to disarm the populace. There are hundreds of thousands of RESPONSIBLE gun owners out there who want to protect themselves and their families. As I've said in other threads, AVG response time around here for police is 18 minutes. Even then they have no duty to protect you. . .

 

[Lithium381]

This is like the third such amateur effort I've seen in 10 years, I even donated to one circa 2002 or 2003. Either they never seem to materialize or end-up being so poorly done that nobody wants to promote or distribute it.

This one has a decent crew it seems . . . and if it never gets funded, nobody pays, which is the great thing about kickstarter. Even if it doesn't hit the big-screens, though I'm hoping some small theatres would pick it up, it'll be available on dvd and digitial download

 

[monovillage]

Hey Craig, long time no see!

Semantics are very powerful; using the power of words and repitition can change how people think. For example, people polled ( I'll try and find the link) all agreed that guns should be allowed to have "standard capacity magazines" but shouldn't have "extended magazines" . . . guess what standard is? typically 15 for a pistol and 30 for an AR-15 platform. By using dishonest language "high capacity" they're trying to shape peoples thoughts on the matter.

"Anti-gun-safety" lobby is a group of gun nuts? Really? You mean they have to fight against the "anti-personal-protection-lobby?" on the left?

"Common sense gun control" "Sensible gun regulation" are misnomers, meant to make it sound like if you oppose them, then you're obviously a fringe crazy person.

"Who needs 30 rounds for hunting". FFS, It's not about hunting!!! Any person who tries to tell me that the 2nd-A is about hunting is immediatley discredited and should not be allowed to participate in the discussion because they obviously lack knowledge of our history.

I wish we could all be honest about this discussion and talk about facts. That's what I'm hoping this film can do, is bust some of the myths and misconceptions that have been created by DiFi and her ilk.

None of this charade about stopping "gun violence" is about the violence. . . it's about the guns. It's part of an agenda to disarm the populace. There are hundreds of thousands of RESPONSIBLE gun owners out there who want to protect themselves and their families. As I've said in other threads, AVG response time around here for police is 18 minutes. Even then they have no duty to protect you. . .

Most excellent post. The use of semantics in politics and polling is often the key to acceptance.

 

[basslover1]

I'd donate, but it seems kickstarter only uses Amazon Payments and for whatever reason to set up AP, they want my SSN. No thanks.

 

[Zebo]

The ACLU protects the 2nd amendment like it does any other part of the constitution.

The issue there is that some people have their own interpretation of that amendment (sadly some are on the Supreme Court) that's different.

I can't say that the right to free speech includes the right to express an opinion by punching people in the face and then claim the ACLU doesn't protect the constitution because they don't defend that interpretation. They defend the constitution, but obviously not everyone's version.

What are the first three words of the second amendment, and why are they there? If it was all about 'personal right', why wouldn't it be written without those words?

The Supreme Court did not rule on the interpretation for over 200 years and by a slim margin when it did. You might disagree with the ACLU's intepretation, but it's reasonable, not some partisan hypocrisy like the type I described by people who care only for bits while refusing to protect large rights from clear violations. Big difference between the two.

Something like 'corporations are people' is totally absent from the actual constitution and granted only because of corruption because of the powerful corporate interests.

In the years after the 14th amendment was passed - an amendment clearly for the equal rights of people who had been slaves and any return of that legal discrimination - there were far more lawsuits heard by the Supreme Court about the 14th amendment regarding their never-ending push to get corporations rights than there were for black people.

ACLU is FoS on their stance though. I understand it they don't want to piss off other civil liberatarins and high liberal people who support them but there is no way you can read notes of what the people said who wrote it, the context of all other Amendments which are to protect the individual, or even Amendment itself and not conclude it's a individual liberty.

In sum they lie. Like many liberals do to themselves on this civil liberty.

That's alright like I said I understand. I just hate having to be a lifetime member of NRA to protect 2nd and ACLU at same time.

 

[Zebo]

I gave him $50. I don't know this guy/org but it seems legit.

 

[Zebo]

This is like the third such amateur effort I've seen in 10 years, I even donated to one circa 2002 or 2003. Either they never seem to materialize or end-up being so poorly done that nobody wants to promote or distribute it.

If you get paid you're a pro by definition.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I'll donate if the title is "False documentary about a straw man misrepesenting gun regulation".

The word 'protect is one of the most dishonestly used words for propaganda.

You're not anti-black, you want to PROTECT STATES' RIGHTS! You're not pro-gay discrimination, you want to PROTECT MARRIAGE!

You don't want to violate the principle of freedom and equality of religion, you want to PROTECT CHRSITIANITIY AND CHRISTMAS!

No one wants thousands of people to be killed because of a lack of responsible gun regulations - they want to PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION!

Goebbels wrote that any government can get the people to support war by telling them the country is under attack and needs to be protected.

Remember Iraq? It wasn't the oil industry and Republicans with a shared agenda for selfish reasons to go to war - it was to PROTECT us from the MUSHROOM CLOUD.

This is how a problem killing thousands of Americans a year and the discussion of policy is attacked by pretending it's about 'PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTION'.

Funny, the same people have zero concern usually about protecting other parts of the constitution - which the ACLU fights for, warrantless wiretapping, corporations = people.

Fuck off and die in a fire you ignorant wise and beautiful woman.

 

[PrinceofWands]

The ACLU protects the 2nd amendment like it does any other part of the constitution.

The issue there is that some people have their own interpretation of that amendment (sadly some are on the Supreme Court) that's different.

I can't say that the right to free speech includes the right to express an opinion by punching people in the face and then claim the ACLU doesn't protect the constitution because they don't defend that interpretation. They defend the constitution, but obviously not everyone's version.

What are the first three words of the second amendment, and why are they there? If it was all about 'personal right', why wouldn't it be written without those words?

The Supreme Court did not rule on the interpretation for over 200 years and by a slim margin when it did. You might disagree with the ACLU's intepretation, but it's reasonable, not some partisan hypocrisy like the type I described by people who care only for bits while refusing to protect large rights from clear violations. Big difference between the two.

Something like 'corporations are people' is totally absent from the actual constitution and granted only because of corruption because of the powerful corporate interests.

In the years after the 14th amendment was passed - an amendment clearly for the equal rights of people who had been slaves and any return of that legal discrimination - there were far more lawsuits heard by the Supreme Court about the 14th amendment regarding their never-ending push to get corporations rights than there were for black people.

Fuck off and die in a fire you ignorant wise and beautiful woman.

You are utterly wrong about everything you think, feel, do, or say.

 

[Fenixgoon]

The ACLU protects the 2nd amendment like it does any other part of the constitution.

The issue there is that some people have their own interpretation of that amendment (sadly some are on the Supreme Court) that's different.

I can't say that the right to free speech includes the right to express an opinion by punching people in the face and then claim the ACLU doesn't protect the constitution because they don't defend that interpretation. They defend the constitution, but obviously not everyone's version.

What are the first three words of the second amendment, and why are they there? If it was all about 'personal right', why wouldn't it be written without those words?

The Supreme Court did not rule on the interpretation for over 200 years and by a slim margin when it did. You might disagree with the ACLU's intepretation, but it's reasonable, not some partisan hypocrisy like the type I described by people who care only for bits while refusing to protect large rights from clear violations. Big difference between the two.

Something like 'corporations are people' is totally absent from the actual constitution and granted only because of corruption because of the powerful corporate interests.

In the years after the 14th amendment was passed - an amendment clearly for the equal rights of people who had been slaves and any return of that legal discrimination - there were far more lawsuits heard by the Supreme Court about the 14th amendment regarding their never-ending push to get corporations rights than there were for black people.

every word in the second amendment is important. so is a proper understanding of the english language.

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.

let's do some basic grammar work here:
http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

the 2nd amendment, as interpreted strictly through the grammar of the english language.

the conclusions of the grammatical analysis were the following:

The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.

The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.

The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia

To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

so, i dont care how many "assault weapons" look scary. we have a right to them. this right isn't endowed by the 2nd amendment, it is protected by the 2nd amendment.

1) "assault weapons" barely account for homicides in the US. you really want to stop gun violence? focus on illegally owned handguns, which will undoubtedly be tied to drug- and gang-related violence.

2) all violent crime, including homicides, has been falling for 2 decades straight.

3) want to stop accidental deaths? improve firearms education.

4) want to prevent suicides? improve the mental health system.

5) want to stop crazy people from obtaining firearms? do a more thorough background check.

 

[Lithium381]

every word in the second amendment is important. so is a proper understanding of the english language.



let's do some basic grammar work here:
http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

the 2nd amendment, as interpreted strictly through the grammar of the english language.

the conclusions of the grammatical analysis were the following:









so, i dont care how many "assault weapons" look scary. we have a right to them. this right isn't endowed by the 2nd amendment, it is protected by the 2nd amendment.

1) "assault weapons" barely account for homicides in the US. you really want to stop gun violence? focus on illegally owned handguns, which will undoubtedly be tied to drug- and gang-related violence.

2) all violent crime, including homicides, has been falling for 2 decades straight.

3) want to stop accidental deaths? improve firearms education.

4) want to prevent suicides? improve the mental health system.

5) want to stop crazy people from obtaining firearms? do a more thorough background check.

I think you're way off base here. You're focusing more on stopping VIOLENCE than getting legally owned guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. That's not what the agenda is. We need to take these dangerous weapons off the streets that account for fewer than 300 deaths per year rather than focus on handguns that are used 6000 times a year for murder. You're saying we need to get the ROOT of the problem instead of just trying to appease peoples fickle emotions by playing them with words! Commrade, I'm dissapointed.

/Sarcasm

The misinformation spread by the anti-gun people is amazing. I'm sure at least half of them do it to further their agenda, and the rest are just ignorant and being tugged by emotional respones. A barrel shroud is NOT the shoulder thing that goes up. I'm curious to know how factual this movie turns out to be and if any anti watching it would be open to hearing the facts and accepting them rather than saying "but they're scary!"

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Fuck off and die in a fire you ignorant wise and beautiful woman.

You are utterly wrong about everything you think, feel, do, or say.

Oh dear.

Looking forward to the new political discussion forum.

 

[shortylickens]

I'll donate if the title is "False documentary about a straw man misrepesenting gun regulation".

The word 'protect is one of the most dishonestly used words for propaganda.

You're not anti-black, you want to PROTECT STATES' RIGHTS! You're not pro-gay discrimination, you want to PROTECT MARRIAGE!

You don't want to violate the principle of freedom and equality of religion, you want to PROTECT CHRSITIANITIY AND CHRISTMAS!

No one wants thousands of people to be killed because of a lack of responsible gun regulations - they want to PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION!

Goebbels wrote that any government can get the people to support war by telling them the country is under attack and needs to be protected.

Remember Iraq? It wasn't the oil industry and Republicans with a shared agenda for selfish reasons to go to war - it was to PROTECT us from the MUSHROOM CLOUD.

This is how a problem killing thousands of Americans a year and the discussion of policy is attacked by pretending it's about 'PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTION'.

Funny, the same people have zero concern usually about protecting other parts of the constitution - which the ACLU fights for, warrantless wiretapping, corporations = people.

You cant regulate desire.
Get over yourself. You arent in control. That lack of control is what makes you angry. Learn to deal with it, instead of being a whiny bastard child.

 

[Ausm]

Fuck off and die in a fire you ignorant wise and beautiful woman.

 

[Emos]

Fuck off and die in a fire you ignorant wise and beautiful woman.

What an intelligent rebuttal!

 

[moonbogg]

My opinion on this matter is now a thoroughly confused one. My first reaction was like many, I wanted "assault" rifles out of this country and stricter controls for all guns...then I tried to buy a pistol. Living in california, I knew we had more controls, but I did not understand just how bad it was already here.
I wanted a target pistol, something very accurate and easy to shoot for recreation. I learned that the majority of these pistols are banned due to larger than 10 round clips. Furthermore, any new models of handguns are also banned in an arbitrary way, regardless of magazine capacity or other features, because they have not been "approved" and added to a list of approved hand guns. They are deemed "unsafe" until money is paid to the state and the gun is tested and added. This is a back door approach to banning/limiting hand guns and hand gun choices in california.
My rights were suddenly under threat and my opinion changed. I felt I was being treated unfairly. I got to watch people on gunbroker.com from other states bid on their favorite handguns while I had to sit by and watch the pistol I wanted be purchased by someone else. If this is not an infringement on the 2nd amandment then I don't know what is.
I then became fearful (yes, fearful) that the American public would no longer possess deterence capabilities from corruption in government if our weapons of choice for self defense were taken away. They are not going after target/hunting rifles, they are going after the class of weapon (really the only weapon available to us) that is ideally suited for self defense against anything more than a single burglar.
So then I read some statistics, and I became even more worried. Long guns of any type are so rarely used in crimes that it became as clear as day to me that this was not about, and could not be about trying to protect americans. I strongly feel that it is about disarming the public from effective weapons, period.
That said, I have confused emotions about wanting to protect people from slaughter, but I am no longer sure that banning any kind of gun will do that. I would donate to a legitimate documentary, but I would be wary of being taken advantage of.