More Media Lies

[langwadt@fonz.dk]

On Dec 18, 12:10 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-
My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 13:00:00 -0800 (PST), "langw...@fonz.dk"









langw...@fonz.dk> wrote:
On Dec 17, 12:29 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-
My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:18:01 -0800, cameo <ca...@unreal.invalid
wrote:

On 12/16/2012 1:51 PM, John Larkin wrote:
I think that gun glorification, in movies, TV shows, and video games, is more
important. And modern semi-auto carbon-fiber Glock type weapons are a lot more
glamorous than an old wood-stock bolt-action .22, not to mention a lot more
deadly. Look at the movies: hardly anybody fires one shot; they blast off 65
rounds at the bad guys in a few seconds without even reloading. Gun violence is
seductive, especially to the weak and alienated. I cite Thompson's juvenile
fantasies of automatic-weapon liberal-blasting mayhem.

Hollywood is a major contributor so many of today's social pathologies. And a
major contributor to Democrats.

Actually, I have a feeling that most of these killers were probably
addicted to shooter type video games and that made them feel like some
kind of heroes unappreciated by society. So they decide to move from
their video heroics to real life shooting. Why else would they dress up
in SWAT type gear even though they picked a target where there was very
little likelygood meeting any opposition that would shoot back? So they
are basically cowards who are heroes only in their own mind.

I wonder when the media will actually explore this angle of the killer's
background.

I think a lot of it is disintegration of the family unit. How many
families sit down, eat dinner together and discuss the days events,
problems and solutions?

Just drive by any average high school and observe that the MAJORITY of
the males are butt-crack-exposing punks, and the majority of the
females are dressed like whores.

you must really be getting old

Of course ;-)  I graduated high school ~55 years ago.

I know you are old in numbers, but when you forget that no teenager
would be caught dead in something their parents would wear you are
really getting old

I'm sure if you go back a few generation you would be considered a
jean
wearing punk for not wearing a suit,

But I stopped wearing jeans when I started working for a living.

And those school boys/girls probably will too depending on what
business
they end up in, every where I've been the only people that isn't
usually
in jeans are accounting and sales

and any woman wearing pants
instead
of a dress was bad company ..

Women haven't worn pants in my lifetime... until Hillary >:-}

figuratively or literally ?

maybe if she had been more "bad" company Bill wouldn't have given
Starr as much ammunition for his which hunt

-Lasse

 

[flipper]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 17:51:49 -0500, T <kd1s.nospam@cox.nospam.net>
wrote:

In article <kclpc85a4d6t9rgj8gg0frhprfrn6319o3@4ax.com>, To-Email-Use-
The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com says...

More Media Lies

The media keeps saying "semi-automatic", but all weapons used were
pistols...

http://tinyurl.com/d35ffhv

...Jim Thompson

By definition a pistol is a semi-auto weapon. The automatic involves the
chambering of the round. It's completely automatic in a pistol. Now
repeat capability is what's lacking.

Then what are these?

http://relicman.com/weapons/imageweapon/W1011A.JPG

http://www.gunblast.com/images/FA-2008/DSC04409.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/Pepperbox_tula3.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Steyr_M1912.jpg

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Ian Field wrote:

And you guys wonder why I have a problem with the nut job; JT!

Not all all. We all know that you keep your head up your ass while
you play Ostrich.

 

[flipper]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 20:51:02 -0000, "Ian Field"
<gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:cf0sc89bp60idp5f9rgnsb8chhsv0eg4ah@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 14:45:31 +0000 (UTC), RipeCrisbies
GnomeLess@lympledger.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:47:39 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
How's the crime rate in London?
Or Liverpool? Or Manchester?


Killed by Guns Last Year:

UK approx 35

USA approx 9500

No, the number is more like 30,000 with somewhat more than half being
suicides.

But the US homicide rate is about 3.5x that of the UK, nothing like
9500/35.


At the end of the day, what's really important is whether 20 or so school
kids massacred every few months

Hysterical gibberish.

is a price worth paying for

Ignoring mental illness?

the freedom of a
minority.

Self defense is a universal right and not a 'minority'.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 18 Dec, 13:37, flipper <flip...@fish.net> wrote:

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 20:51:02 -0000, "Ian Field"









gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message
news:cf0sc89bp60idp5f9rgnsb8chhsv0eg4ah@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 14:45:31 +0000 (UTC), RipeCrisbies
GnomeL...@lympledger.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:47:39 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
How's the crime rate in London?
Or Liverpool?  Or Manchester?

Killed by Guns Last Year:

UK approx 35

USA approx 9500

No, the number is more like 30,000 with somewhat more than half being
suicides.

But the US homicide rate is about 3.5x that of the UK, nothing like
9500/35.

At the end of the day, what's really important is whether 20 or so school
kids massacred every few months

Hysterical gibberish.

Seems like a perfectly reasonable claim to me - nothing hysterical
about it.

is a price worth paying for

Ignoring mental illness?

the freedom of a
minority.

Self defense is a universal right and not a 'minority'.

But having a gun at home to help you defend yourself isn't any kind of
universal right. Having guns spread widely through the community has
disadvantages, and most advanced industrial countries don't think that
the advantages come anywhere near compensating for the disadvantages.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 18 Dec, 01:57, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Dec 17, 7:17 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:









On 17 Dec, 12:18, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Dec 16, 7:21 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 17 Dec, 03:23, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Dec 16, 9:45 am, RipeCrisbies <GnomeL...@lympledger.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:47:39 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
How's the crime rate in London?
Or Liverpool?  Or Manchester?

Killed by Guns Last Year:

UK approx 35

USA approx 9500

The UK has it's problems but I know where I'd rather be! What sort of
democracy needs it's citizens to own guns. Afghanistan, Iraq?

Switzerland.  Ours are for protection against the government,
ultimately.

Switzerland has the kind of well-regulated militia that the founding
tax evaders had in mind. The founding tax evaders would be horrified
to learn that their well-meant proposition had been converted into a
license for non-property-owning citizens to won guns.

 That was the original rationale,

James Arthur conveniently neglects the "well regulated militia"
element, and the inconvenient fact that an armed but undisciplined and
disorganised rabble is no protection against the kind of trained
troops that any government can muster.

When America was forming, lots of people feared a too-powerful federal
government.  The guys promoting the Constitution reassured them in
plain words in the Federalist Papers: citizens were allowed to keep
arms as the People's final check on the federal government ever
getting too big for its britches.

Didn't work too well at the time. Remember the Whisky Rebellion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

The militias from the surrounding states moved in to allow the federal
government to remain too big for its britches.

The Federalist Papers specifically lay out the scenario of the
hopeless, hapless, folly of a federal force, should it ever be arrayed
against an armed citizenry--who outnumber them by 20:1 (IIRC)--as
proof the People could never be conquered by their government.

500 local rebels were intimidated by 13,000 well-regulated militia
troops when push came to shove. That particular group were decisively
conquered, happily without anybody getting shot.

But you knew that, as always.

Knew that you were going to invoke the Federalist papers, rather than
contemporary history? Only in the sense that you predictably see only
the facts that suit your version of history.

Ah.  So, the proper way to know what the founders thought and intended
is not to read their extensive, clear, and plain contemporaneous
writings detailing exactly that, but to look years later to
"contemporary history" explain what they intended, as interpreted by
you.

The Federalist Papers were written for a particular audience, to
create a particular effect.
Contemporary propaganda isn't a window into what they thought, it's a
window into what they wanted other people to believe, which isn't
quite the same thing. Contemporary history - which reveals what they
did - is a little more reliable.

You should find it curious, that Tom Paine - who was a such a prolific
and effective pamphleteer before and during the revolutionary war -
doesn't feature in the Federalist Papers. From my slightly more
cynical point of view it's entirely understandable. Tom Paine was a
proponent of the radical enlightenment, who believed in liberty and
equality for all, while the Federalist Papers were written by
proponents of the moderate enlightenment, who believed in some liberty
and equality for everybody, but not to the extent of dismantling the
bulk of the advantages of the rich and well-connected class to whom
they belonged.

Genius.

Compared with you? Perhaps. But it is an excessively flattering
comparison. You don't know much, and have to be very selective about
what you might learn - you value your political prejudices and can't
afford to expose them to the wrong facts.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 18 Dec, 02:10, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 06:57:07 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:









On Dec 17, 7:17 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 17 Dec, 12:18, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Dec 16, 7:21 pm,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 17 Dec, 03:23, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Dec 16, 9:45 am, RipeCrisbies <GnomeL...@lympledger.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:47:39 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
How's the crime rate in London?
Or Liverpool?  Or Manchester?

Killed by Guns Last Year:

UK approx 35

USA approx 9500

The UK has it's problems but I know where I'd rather be! What sort of
democracy needs it's citizens to own guns. Afghanistan, Iraq?

Switzerland.  Ours are for protection against the government,
ultimately.

Switzerland has the kind of well-regulated militia that the founding
tax evaders had in mind. The founding tax evaders would be horrified
to learn that their well-meant proposition had been converted into a
license for non-property-owning citizens to won guns.

 That was the original rationale,

James Arthur conveniently neglects the "well regulated militia"
element, and the inconvenient fact that an armed but undisciplined and
disorganised rabble is no protection against the kind of trained
troops that any government can muster.

When America was forming, lots of people feared a too-powerful federal
government.  The guys promoting the Constitution reassured them in
plain words in the Federalist Papers: citizens were allowed to keep
arms as the People's final check on the federal government ever
getting too big for its britches.

Didn't work too well at the time. Remember the Whisky Rebellion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

The militias from the surrounding states moved in to allow the federal
government to remain too big for its britches.

The Federalist Papers specifically lay out the scenario of the
hopeless, hapless, folly of a federal force, should it ever be arrayed
against an armed citizenry--who outnumber them by 20:1 (IIRC)--as
proof the People could never be conquered by their government.

500 local rebels were intimidated by 13,000 well-regulated militia
troops when push came to shove. That particular group were decisively
conquered, happily without anybody getting shot.

But you knew that, as always.

Knew that you were going to invoke the Federalist papers, rather than
contemporary history? Only in the sense that you predictably see only
the facts that suit your version of history.

Ah.  So, the proper way to know what the founders thought and intended
is not to read their extensive, clear, and plain contemporaneous
writings detailing exactly that, but to look years later to
"contemporary history" explain what they intended, as interpreted by
you.

Genius.

Slowman?  Nope.

Village idiot, YES!

Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson gets it wrong again. Not that I
really need to point this out ...

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Dec 17, 4:36 pm, k...@att.bizzz wrote:

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:44:28 -0800, John Larkin









jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:52:55 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Dec 16, 4:51 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 11:12:09 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

Methinks it's more likely a Great Society thing--unsupervised kids
growing up on the gov't farm, not properly loved, tended, or taught.

I think that gun glorification, in movies, TV shows, and video games, is more
important. And modern semi-auto carbon-fiber Glock type weapons are a lot more
glamorous than an old wood-stock bolt-action .22, not to mention a lot more
deadly. Look at the movies: hardly anybody fires one shot; they blast off 65
rounds at the bad guys in a few seconds without even reloading. Gun violence is
seductive, especially to the weak and alienated. I cite Thompson's juvenile
fantasies of automatic-weapon liberal-blasting mayhem.

Hollywood is a major contributor so many of today's social pathologies. And a
major contributor to Democrats.

Left-think says if Sarah Palin says "target" once, she personally
killed Gabby Giffords.[*]  If Hollywood guns-a-blazing action-heroes
drill in billions of viewer-hours of glam-violence on screens across
the country, that has no effect.

[*] who lived.

James

The First Amendment allows Hollywood [1] to glamorize sadism and
violence, and the Second Amendment makes guns available. Neither is
going to be changed any time soon. Hollywood could be shamed into not
exploiting violence, except that Hollywood has no sense of
responsibility, or shame. So, get used to it.

Why should Hollyweird be forced to produce what people don't want[*]?
That's the way it is in a free society.  Get used to it.

Not force. Decency.

James

 

[P E Schoen]

"Bill Sloman" wrote in message
news:cb7e0bbb-fef5-43ea-9d8e-33188450aed6@ah9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com...

On 18 Dec, 15:38, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Dec 17, 4:36 pm, k...@att.bizzz wrote:

Why should Hollyweird be forced to produce what people don't want[*]?
That's the way it is in a free society. Get used to it.

Not force. Decency.

Decency doesn't sell movies.

Yes, and if one is all for a free market and elimination of excessive
government intrusion, one should also abandon all forms of censorship, and
also eliminate the "war on drugs", and allow prostitution and gambling and
public nudity and alcohol sales on Sunday and other "victimless crimes".

Paul

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 18 Dec, 15:38, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Dec 17, 4:36 pm, k...@att.bizzz wrote:









On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:44:28 -0800, John Larkin

jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:52:55 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Dec 16, 4:51 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 11:12:09 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

Methinks it's more likely a Great Society thing--unsupervised kids
growing up on the gov't farm, not properly loved, tended, or taught.

I think that gun glorification, in movies, TV shows, and video games, is more
important. And modern semi-auto carbon-fiber Glock type weapons are a lot more
glamorous than an old wood-stock bolt-action .22, not to mention a lot more
deadly. Look at the movies: hardly anybody fires one shot; they blast off 65
rounds at the bad guys in a few seconds without even reloading. Gun violence is
seductive, especially to the weak and alienated. I cite Thompson's juvenile
fantasies of automatic-weapon liberal-blasting mayhem.

Hollywood is a major contributor so many of today's social pathologies. And a
major contributor to Democrats.

Left-think says if Sarah Palin says "target" once, she personally
killed Gabby Giffords.[*]  If Hollywood guns-a-blazing action-heroes
drill in billions of viewer-hours of glam-violence on screens across
the country, that has no effect.

[*] who lived.

James

The First Amendment allows Hollywood [1] to glamorize sadism and
violence, and the Second Amendment makes guns available. Neither is
going to be changed any time soon. Hollywood could be shamed into not
exploiting violence, except that Hollywood has no sense of
responsibility, or shame. So, get used to it.

Why should Hollyweird be forced to produce what people don't want[*]?
That's the way it is in a free society.  Get used to it.

Not force.  Decency.

Decency doesn't sell movies.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 2012-12-18 08:53, Bill Sloman wrote:

On 18 Dec, 15:38, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Dec 17, 4:36 pm, k...@att.bizzz wrote:

The First Amendment allows Hollywood [1] to glamorize sadism and
violence, and the Second Amendment makes guns available. Neither is
going to be changed any time soon. Hollywood could be shamed into not
exploiting violence, except that Hollywood has no sense of
responsibility, or shame. So, get used to it.

Why should Hollyweird be forced to produce what people don't want[*]?
That's the way it is in a free society. Get used to it.

Not force. Decency.

Decency doesn't sell movies.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Notions of decency are all wrong in the entertainment business
anyway, particularly in the US. How is it possible to freely
show people getting killed, but censor the depiction of the
physical expression of love?

It's royally messed up, I tell you.

Jeroen Belleman

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 18 Dec, 21:24, Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

On 2012-12-18 08:53, Bill Sloman wrote:









On 18 Dec, 15:38, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Dec 17, 4:36 pm, k...@att.bizzz wrote:

The First Amendment allows Hollywood [1] to glamorize sadism and
violence, and the Second Amendment makes guns available. Neither is
going to be changed any time soon. Hollywood could be shamed into not
exploiting violence, except that Hollywood has no sense of
responsibility, or shame. So, get used to it.

Why should Hollyweird be forced to produce what people don't want[*]?
That's the way it is in a free society.  Get used to it.

Not force.  Decency.

Decency doesn't sell movies.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Notions of decency are all wrong in the entertainment business
anyway, particularly in the US. How is it possible to freely
show people getting killed, but censor the depiction of the
physical expression of love?

It's royally messed up, I tell you.

Nowhere near as messed up as the people who are relaxed about seeing
people killed and uptight about watching them fornicate.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 18 Dec, 07:28, WangoTango <Asgar...@mindspring.com> wrote:

In article <kakmqb$ss...@dont-email.me>, GnomeL...@lympledger.co.uk
says...> On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:47:39 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
How's the crime rate in London?
Or Liverpool?  Or Manchester?

Killed by Guns Last Year:

UK approx 35

USA approx 9500

The UK has it's problems but I know where I'd rather be! What sort of
democracy needs it's citizens to own guns. Afghanistan, Iraq?

The kind where you are a citizen and not a subject.

Income inequality gives a clue about who is a citizen and who is a
subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

There are three big countries with Gini indexes around 40% - Russia
with 40.1%, the USA with 40.8% and China with 42.5%. Respectable
countries start at about 36.2%, with New Zealand. Australia and the UK
depressing close behind. Germany has a Gini index of 28.3% and
Denmark, Japan, Sweden and Norway do best with Gini indexes of 25%.

As the Occupy movement has pointed out, 99% of US citizens are the
subjects of the remaining 1%, and sprinkling guns around liberally
doesn't turn them into citizens with any kind of an equal right to the
goodies on offer. You've been suckered.

I know it's not that bad as the vast majority of Americans are sensible
and like the rest of the sane world do not own guns. The few that do kill
thousands each year.

I don't even know how to respond to such outlandish bullshit.

You could shoot yourself - you are the most likely victim of any gun
you own.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0805923

In 2005 some 16,000 of your compatriots used their guns that way.

Try to resist the temptation to kill a bunch of kids and school
teachers in the process.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 18 Dec, 11:03, John Larkin <jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 17:53:09 -0500, T <kd1s.nos...@cox.nospam.net
wrote:









In article <kakmqb$ss...@dont-email.me>, GnomeL...@lympledger.co.uk
says...

On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:47:39 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
How's the crime rate in London?
Or Liverpool?  Or Manchester?

Killed by Guns Last Year:

UK approx 35

USA approx 9500

The UK has it's problems but I know where I'd rather be! What sort of
democracy needs it's citizens to own guns. Afghanistan, Iraq?

I know it's not that bad as the vast majority of Americans are sensible
and like the rest of the sane world do not own guns. The few that do kill
thousands each year.

Actually murder rates in the U.S. are fewer than 9,500 last year.

Just go google FBI UCR Stats by state.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-t...

Sounds like about 14K to me. Other sources estimate 12K to 16K. That's
about 1 in 20,000. For well-behaved folks in a quiet town, the chance
of being murdered is low, maybe a few PPM, well below the risk of
dying in a car crash.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0805923

You seem to be ignoring US gun suicides, some 16,000-odd a year in
2005, which represent more than half of all reported suicides, and
roughly half the rate of deaths in US car accidents

Suicide by car isn't often reported as suicide. Reducing access to
cars poses more problems than reducing access to guns, so it might be
worth working on minimising gun suicides first.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 20:38:33 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Dec 17, 4:36 pm, k...@att.bizzz wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:44:28 -0800, John Larkin









jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:52:55 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Dec 16, 4:51 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 11:12:09 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

Methinks it's more likely a Great Society thing--unsupervised kids
growing up on the gov't farm, not properly loved, tended, or taught.

I think that gun glorification, in movies, TV shows, and video games, is more
important. And modern semi-auto carbon-fiber Glock type weapons are a lot more
glamorous than an old wood-stock bolt-action .22, not to mention a lot more
deadly. Look at the movies: hardly anybody fires one shot; they blast off 65
rounds at the bad guys in a few seconds without even reloading. Gun violence is
seductive, especially to the weak and alienated. I cite Thompson's juvenile
fantasies of automatic-weapon liberal-blasting mayhem.

Hollywood is a major contributor so many of today's social pathologies. And a
major contributor to Democrats.

Left-think says if Sarah Palin says "target" once, she personally
killed Gabby Giffords.[*]  If Hollywood guns-a-blazing action-heroes
drill in billions of viewer-hours of glam-violence on screens across
the country, that has no effect.

[*] who lived.

James

The First Amendment allows Hollywood [1] to glamorize sadism and
violence, and the Second Amendment makes guns available. Neither is
going to be changed any time soon. Hollywood could be shamed into not
exploiting violence, except that Hollywood has no sense of
responsibility, or shame. So, get used to it.

Why should Hollyweird be forced to produce what people don't want[*]?
That's the way it is in a free society.  Get used to it.

Not force. Decency.

Decency can only be demanded from the bottom up, at least in a free
society.

 

[The Keeper of the Key to]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 09:36:20 -0500, krw@att.bizzz wrote:

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 20:38:33 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:


The First Amendment allows Hollywood [1] to glamorize sadism and
violence, and the Second Amendment makes guns available. Neither is
going to be changed any time soon. Hollywood could be shamed into not
exploiting violence, except that Hollywood has no sense of
responsibility, or shame. So, get used to it.

Why should Hollyweird be forced to produce what people don't want[*]?
That's the way it is in a free society.  Get used to it.

Not force. Decency.

Decency can only be demanded from the bottom up, at least in a free
society.

Well, then welcome to the New Sodom and Gomorrah

 

[Ian Field]

"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1v2dnYHtr4drUVLNnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@earthlink.com...

Ian Field wrote:

And you guys wonder why I have a problem with the nut job; JT!



Not all all. We all know that you keep your head up your ass while
you play Ostrich.

A reasonable enough strategy when the problem is 3000 miles away.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 19 Dec, 01:36, k...@att.bizzz wrote:

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 20:38:33 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:









On Dec 17, 4:36 pm, k...@att.bizzz wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:44:28 -0800, John Larkin

jlar...@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:52:55 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Dec 16, 4:51 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 11:12:09 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

Methinks it's more likely a Great Society thing--unsupervised kids
growing up on the gov't farm, not properly loved, tended, or taught.

I think that gun glorification, in movies, TV shows, and video games, is more
important. And modern semi-auto carbon-fiber Glock type weapons are a lot more
glamorous than an old wood-stock bolt-action .22, not to mention a lot more
deadly. Look at the movies: hardly anybody fires one shot; they blast off 65
rounds at the bad guys in a few seconds without even reloading. Gun violence is
seductive, especially to the weak and alienated. I cite Thompson's juvenile
fantasies of automatic-weapon liberal-blasting mayhem.

Hollywood is a major contributor so many of today's social pathologies. And a
major contributor to Democrats.

Left-think says if Sarah Palin says "target" once, she personally
killed Gabby Giffords.[*]  If Hollywood guns-a-blazing action-heroes
drill in billions of viewer-hours of glam-violence on screens across
the country, that has no effect.

[*] who lived.

James

The First Amendment allows Hollywood [1] to glamorize sadism and
violence, and the Second Amendment makes guns available. Neither is
going to be changed any time soon. Hollywood could be shamed into not
exploiting violence, except that Hollywood has no sense of
responsibility, or shame. So, get used to it.

Why should Hollyweird be forced to produce what people don't want[*]?
That's the way it is in a free society.  Get used to it.

Not force.  Decency.

Decency can only be demanded from the bottom up, at least in a free
society.

Anybody can demand "decency". Nobody can define it precisely enough to
make it a legally enforceable constraint.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[flipper]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 17:25:10 -0600, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

<snip>

I've seen experts who could fire a double action faster than a
semi-auto, AND on target. (and also speed load as fast as a clip ).

Simply for general amazement, here is the one I had in mind, Jerry
Miculek', when speaking of faster than a semi-auto. This is 12 shots
in under 3 seconds. Yes, 12. That means a RELOAD as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw

That was on 'one' target. Here's another shooter doing 5 separate
targets in under 1 second. This time with a single action revolver.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vl9FniemlE

The next is Bob Munden (unfortunately he died this month) doing one of
his standard demonstrations shooting two balloon so fast you only
'hear' one shot. His usual 'proof' is to load only two rounds, do the
shot, and then present the two spent shells. This is from the show
"Super Humans" because they electronically time it. The 'measured'
sequence begins around 10:15

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ir9kGRoBIrc

 

[josephkk]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 03:10:34 -0500, "P E Schoen" <paul@peschoen.com>
wrote:

"Bill Sloman" wrote in message
news:cb7e0bbb-fef5-43ea-9d8e-33188450aed6@ah9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com....

On 18 Dec, 15:38, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Dec 17, 4:36 pm, k...@att.bizzz wrote:

Why should Hollyweird be forced to produce what people don't want[*]?
That's the way it is in a free society. Get used to it.

Not force. Decency.

Decency doesn't sell movies.

Yes, and if one is all for a free market and elimination of excessive
government intrusion, one should also abandon all forms of censorship, and
also eliminate the "war on drugs", and allow prostitution and gambling and
public nudity and alcohol sales on Sunday and other "victimless crimes".

Paul

Wow, Paul, you finally get it. (NOT! When compared with the rest of your
posts.)

?-)