Quote:
Originally posted by CamChicks
I just saw this on TV
after all the blahblahblah about it, it does seem most missed the point.
It really wasn't an anti-gun piece. You think it will be at first..
and maybe some pro-gun people just tuned out or turned it off..
but it slowly changes course.
It's about all the fear being sold to us. By the government who wants your support ... by the media who want the ratings ... And it's about how all that fearmongering results in an exagerated sense of danger.
Kindof a "no wonder why americans have their finger on the trigger"
He goes to Canada to try to prove that point. Lots of guns there.
But they aren't using them on eachother with the frequency that we are.
Why? He thinks it's because they feel safer.
He didn't harrass Charlton Heston for owning a gun.
He (MM) asked if he (CH) had ever been the victim of a crime.
CH said no. So MM asked why he needs a loaded gun laying around.
Why not at least take out the bullets?
again, it's this "constant imminent threat" theme.
The only thing he did chastize the NRA about was the fact that they always seem to show up after tragedys, while families are still grieving, to rally the troops to pre-empt any gun control movement. It's politicising death, and grossly insensitive.
|
Im not pro gun and never once said that i was here and i got the point of the movie.
My point about the heston thing was the way he went about telling him look at this picture. Weather he was rallying or not. He was not responsible for it and he has his views about freedom to own guns. Do you think there were not a buch of people at the same place saying "see this is why we should ban guns". That is most likely why he was there. Is it any less insensitive for the other side to push thier views on people after a siuation like that???