http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/the-constitution/rights-and-responsibilities-of-the-2nd-amendment/msg373254/#msg373254

I was just thinking about what you said here and I think this deserves it's own thread.   It got me thinking of Nickolas Cruz, David Hogg and Emma Gonzolez and the platform and stance they have chosen to take.  Even if there was no 2nd amendment wouldn't it make more sense to campaign for better mental health services and more institutions so those like Cruz could be properly evaluated and treated?  How does it make sense to put controls on a tool instead of attempting to fix what is in a man's head and heart?  Why didn't they campaign for better mental health services?

And, there were many warning signs of Nikolas Cruz's behavior.  Why wasn't he baker enacted?  Shouldn't we be concentrating on these types of laws instead of banning guns ?  Like widening the use of the baker act.   It just seems to me that there is all of this emotionalism against guns without any kind of rational thought and discussion. 

What do you all think?    I think Solar you may be right.  What if there really is a leftist agenda who capitalized on this act of horror to push what they wanted?

Quote from: alienhand on February 20, 2019, 11:17:00 PM
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/the-constitution/rights-and-responsibilities-of-the-2nd-amendment/msg373254/#msg373254

I was just thinking about what you said here and I think this deserves it's own thread.   It got me thinking of Nickolas Cruz, David Hogg and Emma Gonzolez and the platform and stance they have chosen to take.  Even if there was no 2nd amendment wouldn't it make more sense to campaign for better mental health services and more institutions so those like Cruz could be properly evaluated and treated?  How does it make sense to put controls on a tool instead of attempting to fix what is in a man's head and heart?  Why didn't they campaign for better mental health services?

And, there were many warning signs of Nikolas Cruz's behavior.  Why wasn't he baker enacted?  Shouldn't we be concentrating on these types of laws instead of banning guns ?  Like widening the use of the baker act.   It just seems to me that there is all of this emotionalism against guns without any kind of rational thought and discussion. 

What do you all think?    I think Solar you may be right.  What if there really is a leftist agenda who capitalized on this act of horror to push what they wanted?

Hogg and his bunch have bought into the left's version of the cure, in other words, if we take away all guns we will not have to answer for the failures of a liberal system, in this case the failures of sheriff Israel. Here is a question for you, since the left wants to confiscate our guns, why does the huge liberal organization known as hollywood glorify gun violence? Part of the problem, and I think you are hitting on it, is the ones yelling about gun control (confiscation) are the only ones getting the media coverage. Hogg has no answers, but he helps the left sell their version of the cure. To your other question as to why not concentrate on other laws, in the cruz situation, laws and services were in place but it was the people in charge of those systems who failed. More laws will not help that.

Quote from: s3779m on February 21, 2019, 03:39:05 AM
Hogg and his bunch have bought into the left's version of the cure, in other words, if we take away all guns we will not have to answer for the failures of a liberal system, in this case the failures of sheriff Israel. Here is a question for you, since the left wants to confiscate our guns, why does the huge liberal organization known as hollywood glorify gun violence? Part of the problem, and I think you are hitting on it, is the ones yelling about gun control (confiscation) are the only ones getting the media coverage. Hogg has no answers, but he helps the left sell their version of the cure. To your other question as to why not concentrate on other laws, in the cruz situation, laws and services were in place but it was the people in charge of those systems who failed. More laws will not help that.

I forgot to respond to this.  I don't know if your question is rhetorical or expects a real answer so I will answer.

Why does Hollywood glorify gun violence?   Here is my take on it. 

First, a lot of movies today just fucking suck and are mostly remakes upon remakes upon remakes.  A lot of movies are either shallow or simply make no sense logically even if they're fantasy.  The plots make no sense. 

Second,  Glorify means to praise, worship, to think in high regards.

Third, the purpose of a story including movies is either to make a point, entertain, and/or they could be used for propaganda purposes.

With these things said, I've never interacted with those from Hollywood, nor understand how they think, nor know how they actually live.  My guess based upon what I understand is they don't glorify violence in of itself.  They're a business is what they are.  They produce what will sell.  Violence especially mindless violence sells.  Stories and movies aren't used to make points or to entertain but to make a profit through viewers and ratings.  I've noticed that movies or stories that involve any kind of depth of thought or philosophy really does not sell. 

In other words, don't just look at the businessmen look at the consumer as well.  Mindless violence sells.  Sex sells. 

You also said "To your other question as to why not concentrate on other laws, in the cruz situation, laws and services were in place but it was the people in charge of those systems who failed. More laws will not help that."

Sorry, I should have been more clear.  What I was asking was why not examine the current laws and why they failed.  Was it the people who were in charge of enforcing them failed like you said?  If it was, why did they fail?  Communication breakdown?  Laziness?  Bribed to look the other way by leftists?  Did they follow the policy in place to the letter and the policy simply didn't work?  If so, what failed?  Hogg's answer is way to simplistic.  It can't just be the "guns."

Quote from: alienhand on March 17, 2019, 12:35:59 AM
I forgot to respond to this.  I don't know if your question is rhetorical or expects a real answer so I will answer.

Why does Hollywood glorify gun violence?   Here is my take on it. 

First, a lot of movies today just fucking suck and are mostly remakes upon remakes upon remakes.  A lot of movies are either shallow or simply make no sense logically even if they're fantasy.  The plots make no sense. 

Second,  Glorify means to praise, worship, to think in high regards.

Third, the purpose of a story including movies is either to make a point, entertain, and/or they could be used for propaganda purposes.

With these things said, I've never interacted with those from Hollywood, nor understand how they think, nor know how they actually live.  My guess based upon what I understand is they don't glorify violence in of itself.  They're a business is what they are.  They produce what will sell.  Violence especially mindless violence sells.  Stories and movies aren't used to make points or to entertain but to make a profit through viewers and ratings.  I've noticed that movies or stories that involve any kind of depth of thought or philosophy really does not sell. 

In other words, don't just look at the businessmen look at the consumer as well.  Mindless violence sells.  Sex sells. 

You also said "To your other question as to why not concentrate on other laws, in the cruz situation, laws and services were in place but it was the people in charge of those systems who failed. More laws will not help that."

Sorry, I should have been more clear.  What I was asking was why not examine the current laws and why they failed.  Was it the people who were in charge of enforcing them failed like you said?  If it was, why did they fail?  Communication breakdown?  Laziness?  Bribed to look the other way by leftists?  Did they follow the policy in place to the letter and the policy simply didn't work?  If so, what failed?  Hogg's answer is way to simplistic.  It can't just be the "guns."

Yes, Hollywood is a business, but, it is a business full of liberals who see the "importance" of constantly feeling the need to change the way you think. Over inflated egos, coming out of hollywood  feel the need to tell you how to vote, who is not their president, global warming is real, ect. They also want to preach on gun control. Hogg just bought into it, was it due to his sudden celebrity status, all the mics in his face, who cares. But if they preach to me on gun control, why are they making movies where gun violence is caused by the "good" guy? And this isn't really a question, just another statement saying I am sick of the hypocrites who think taking away my guns will somehow solve the bad guys problem. Once again, if the liberals have a solution to the gun violence, let them try it out in Chicago first and we will see how it works.