Django Unchained
January 11th, 2013 at 3:37:36 PM
permalink
My usual initial response to any Quentin Tarantino movie is that the movie was too long and I felt exhausted from all the violence. However, they always go down much better the second, third, fourth, and every subsequent viewing. Much like a Stanley Kubrick movie, I think they are meant to be watched repeatedly. However, to get such pleasure, you have to survive the first viewing.
Django Unchained fits this usual Tarantino mold perfectly. I have to admit I left the theater feeling like I had survived watching over 100 people being killed over 165 minutes. However, two days later, I'm eager to watch it again, but in the comfort of my own home, one chapter at a time.
What is it about, you might ask? It is the story of two bounty hunters, one a German dentist, and the other a freed slave. They do their jobs with great success and make a great team. However, the former slaves ultimate goal is to rescue his wife, whom he was separated from years ago. This will not be easy, has she is owned by a perverse plantation owner in Mississippi who delights in gladiator-style fights to the death between slaves. The two must turn a blind eye to the brutality of that to buy/free the one they came for.
For those, like me, who enjoyed the roll of the Jew hunter in Inglourious Basterds, you'll be happy to know the same actor, Christopher Waltz, plays the part of the dentist. Both characters share a similar personality, but in Django he is a good guy. Django himself is also played perfectly by Jamie Foxx. If there was any roll I thought seemed to be not perfectly cast it was Leonardo DeCaprio as the plantation owner. I thought he overacted a bit, and his southern accent seemed like was over-personifying Gone with the Wind.
So, if you're a Tarantino fan, you can't miss this one. On my 0 to 10 scale I give it an 8 for now, but have a feeling I'll move it up to a 9 in time.
Django Unchained fits this usual Tarantino mold perfectly. I have to admit I left the theater feeling like I had survived watching over 100 people being killed over 165 minutes. However, two days later, I'm eager to watch it again, but in the comfort of my own home, one chapter at a time.
What is it about, you might ask? It is the story of two bounty hunters, one a German dentist, and the other a freed slave. They do their jobs with great success and make a great team. However, the former slaves ultimate goal is to rescue his wife, whom he was separated from years ago. This will not be easy, has she is owned by a perverse plantation owner in Mississippi who delights in gladiator-style fights to the death between slaves. The two must turn a blind eye to the brutality of that to buy/free the one they came for.
For those, like me, who enjoyed the roll of the Jew hunter in Inglourious Basterds, you'll be happy to know the same actor, Christopher Waltz, plays the part of the dentist. Both characters share a similar personality, but in Django he is a good guy. Django himself is also played perfectly by Jamie Foxx. If there was any roll I thought seemed to be not perfectly cast it was Leonardo DeCaprio as the plantation owner. I thought he overacted a bit, and his southern accent seemed like was over-personifying Gone with the Wind.
So, if you're a Tarantino fan, you can't miss this one. On my 0 to 10 scale I give it an 8 for now, but have a feeling I'll move it up to a 9 in time.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
January 11th, 2013 at 5:49:58 PM
permalink
I also saw Foxx in a TV show say how satisfying it was that he got to kill every last white person in the movie. In humor, jest, or being said with conviction, that is wrong, especially after understanding how many white people gave their lives in the Civil War so that blacks could rightfully be freed from slavery. That's the reason I'll never go see this movie, although I do like Foxx & DiCaprio as actors.
January 11th, 2013 at 6:17:52 PM
permalink
Quote: iluvdisco33I also saw Foxx in a TV show say how satisfying it was that he got to kill every last white person in the movie...That's the reason I'll never go see this movie
I agree, I'll never see it either. I think Tarantino is disgusting,
he'll make any kind of movie to make money. I saw Pulp Fiction and
nothing of his since. They say the scene where Travolta gets
high on smack started more people down the road to heroin
than any other movie scene in history. I'm sure Tarantino
is bursting with pride. Jerk..
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
January 11th, 2013 at 6:41:27 PM
permalink
Thanks for the review. I really have neglected my cinema in the last few years. In high school/most of college I watched EVERYTHING. I think for the entirety of law school I saw five or six movies in the cinema.
This is really a good time of year for commercial cinema. I still want to see Django, The Master, and Lincoln.
Inglorious Bastards was so delightful, it instantly became one of my favorite movies.
This is really a good time of year for commercial cinema. I still want to see Django, The Master, and Lincoln.
Inglorious Bastards was so delightful, it instantly became one of my favorite movies.
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
January 11th, 2013 at 7:05:59 PM
permalink
I'm about to fire up "Beasts of the Southern Wild" in the home theater room ...
"What, me worry?"
January 11th, 2013 at 9:21:45 PM
permalink
Quote: iluvdisco33I also saw Foxx in a TV show say how satisfying it was that he got to kill every last white person in the movie.
There were lots he didn't kill. I don't think a single female was killed in the movie, and he certainly didn't kill his partner the dentist. Foxx probably said that in character. The joke of the movie was the irony of a freed slave being paid to kill white people.
Quote: EvenBobI agree, I'll never see it either. I think Tarantino is disgusting,..
If you don't like Tarantino then don't see this movie. You'll hate it. You either love him or hate him. As someone who has watched Pulp Fiction and the Kill Bill movies numerous times, you know where I stand. Resevior Dogs is still too heavy for even me, I must admit.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
January 11th, 2013 at 9:48:25 PM
permalink
Harvey Keitel in Reservoir Dogs. WOW !!!!
Mr. White: [aiming his gun at Mr. Pink's face] You wanna shoot me, you little piece of shit? Take a shot!
Mr. White: [aiming his gun at Mr. Pink's face] You wanna shoot me, you little piece of shit? Take a shot!
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
January 11th, 2013 at 11:21:48 PM
permalink
Haven't seen Django yet, but it's certainly on my list of movies to see when they come out on dvd. I picked up Looper and watched it tonight and thoroughly enjoyed that movie. A few parts I'm still working through in my head, but it was one of those movies I really wasn't expecting much out of it and I ended up rather enjoying it. It's a bit removed from the stereotypical "time travel" movie, but I felt it became predictable by the end. Looking forward to a second watch as I'm sure I missed some things along the way.
January 11th, 2013 at 11:50:01 PM
permalink
Quote: Wizard
If you don't like Tarantino then don't see this movie. You'll hate it. .
This is such an odd society. Why didn't we have people
shooting up schools in 1875 or 1900? Guns were readily
available to anyone, even children. A 12 year old kid could
buy any gun he liked. There were no mass shootings because
it wasn't socially acceptable then. It took movies and TV in
the last half of the 20th century to accomplish that mindset.
Congratulations..
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
January 11th, 2013 at 11:59:57 PM
permalink
I can see the basis behind the argument that movies, video games, and media are at fault, but this isn't the whole picture. Yes, these things all exist, and yes, some are exceedingly violent or contain adult content, but that is why ratings agencies exist. Parents need to set boundaries as to what is and is not acceptable for their children and some are just completely oblivious to what their children are involved with. Technology has come so far and unfortunately the younger generation is able to pick up on technological advancements far quicker than their parents (for the most part). All it takes is a community of parents allowing their children to play a certain game or watch a certain movie at a predetermined age for that to become the norm. Unfortunately, these are becoming acceptable at younger and younger ages and children are being exposed to things they really have no business watching.
For example, I've been to several R-rated films within the past year with an abundance of kids who I would put between the age of 7-10 years old. When going to see "Ted", I saw families in the theater who had their preschool/kindergarten kids with them in the theater. Are people really that dumb?
FWIW, when the time comes for me to have children, I'm not going to care what other people are allowing their kids to do or not do. When I can sit down with my children and have a mature conversation with them about the content of the things they will be playing or watching, then I will be comfortable with them doing so. That age will not be 7 to see an R-rated film.
For example, I've been to several R-rated films within the past year with an abundance of kids who I would put between the age of 7-10 years old. When going to see "Ted", I saw families in the theater who had their preschool/kindergarten kids with them in the theater. Are people really that dumb?
FWIW, when the time comes for me to have children, I'm not going to care what other people are allowing their kids to do or not do. When I can sit down with my children and have a mature conversation with them about the content of the things they will be playing or watching, then I will be comfortable with them doing so. That age will not be 7 to see an R-rated film.
January 12th, 2013 at 12:17:36 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobThis is such an odd society. Why didn't we have people
shooting up schools in 1875 or 1900? Guns were readily
available to anyone, even children. A 12 year old kid could
buy any gun he liked. There were no mass shootings because
it wasn't socially acceptable then. It took movies and TV in
the last half of the 20th century to accomplish that mindset.
Maybe not schools, but sure, everyone carried a gun and people did shoot each other in the streets and in bars at the time for no reason other than he's drunk and said "Draw!" People could get away with it then because there were no cameras in the streets, and a shooter could ride on to the next town and do it again. Some "fastest guns in the West" guys made a name for themselves, just like the school shooters today.
"Poker sure is an easy game to beat if you have the roll to keep rebuying."
January 12th, 2013 at 12:23:04 AM
permalink
Quote: duckmankillaYes, these things all exist, and yes, some are exceedingly violent or contain adult content, but that is why ratings agencies exist. .
You're missing the point. Rating agencies are a day late
and a dollar short. We let this sickness of gratuitous violence
creep into the public's subconscious, and now its an accepted
part of society. Its fine and dandy to sit thru a movie
where dozens of people are mowed down. We love it, we
delight in it. Then we're appalled when it happens in real
life. Why? Isn't that what we're teaching? Duh..
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
January 12th, 2013 at 1:03:46 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobThis is such an odd society. Why didn't we have people
shooting up schools in 1875 or 1900? Guns were readily
available to anyone, even children. A 12 year old kid could
buy any gun he liked. There were no mass shootings because
it wasn't socially acceptable then. It took movies and TV in
the last half of the 20th century to accomplish that mindset.
Congratulations..
Seriously?
Two things:
- The numbers of people killed in all the school shootings from Columbine all the way up to Sandy Hook COMBINED won't even equal the number of people killed by lightning this year. People are panicking waaaaaaaaaaaay too much over something that really isn't that big of a concern.
- Sandy Hook wasn't even the biggest school massacre of all-time. That honor goes to Andrew Kehoe, who was angry he wasn't elected to the clerk position of the Bath Township in Michigan, blew up the Bath school one Spring morning, killing 38 children, 6 adults, and injuring 58 others. He also killed his wife and blew up his own farm before he blew up the school. He then committed suicide by blowing up his truck with him in it. He put shrapnel in the bed of the truck to make it a claymore mine, and take more people with him.
This happened in 1927, before we have all the violent video games, movies, and everything else people blame when evil people cause bad things to happen.
Story
I am so tired of people refusing to acknowledge that there is evil in this world, and sometimes evil people do evil things, instead looking for someone or something else to blame.
January 12th, 2013 at 1:47:25 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobThis is such an odd society. Why didn't we have people
shooting up schools in 1875 or 1900? Guns were readily
available to anyone, even children. A 12 year old kid could
buy any gun he liked. There were no mass shootings because
it wasn't socially acceptable then. It took movies and TV in
the last half of the 20th century to accomplish that mindset.
Congratulations..
First American school shooting on record: July 26, 1764 and it has happened consistently since then. Back then however, people weren't armed to the brink with semi-automatic weapons. "There were no mass shootings beacuse" the guns to get it done weren't available to every random lunatic.
Congratulations NRA.
[edit: added SEMI-automatic]
January 12th, 2013 at 3:01:29 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobWe let this sickness of gratuitous violence
creep into the public's subconscious, and now its an accepted
part of society. Its fine and dandy to sit thru a movie
where dozens of people are mowed down. We love it, we
delight in it. Then we're appalled when it happens in real
life. Why?
Your argument falls flat because clearly everyone that views violent media doesn't go on a shooting spree. If they did then there would be a nice clear line from violent media to mass murder/shootings. I'd be willing to bet most, if not all, of those that have gone on shooting rampages also ate carrots at one time or another. What's the answer, ban carrots? Using your logic that's exactly how to proceed.
Duh, indeed.
Quote: CanyoneroFirst American school shooting on record: July 26, 1764 and it has happened consistently since then. Back then however, people weren't armed to the brink with automatic weapons.
They still aren't. If you disagree with this, and really believe your assertion, I'd like to know where I can legally purchase an automatic weapon.
Quote: Canyonero
"There were no mass shootings beacuse" the guns to get it done weren't available to every random lunatic.
Congratulations NRA.
So, the NRA is to blame for advances in weaponry design? Before cell phones became cheap and ubiquitous IED's weren't nearly as easy to trigger. Thanks Nokia, Samsung, etc.
Blaming technology/stuff for what people use it for is ridiculous. My neighbor had a heart attack while shoveling snow.... stupid snow shovel manufacturers, don't they realize the danger in the product they sell? The examples go on and on. Where is the personal responsibility for one's actions?
January 12th, 2013 at 3:22:19 AM
permalink
Quote: duckmankillaFWIW, when the time comes for me to have children, I'm not going to care what other people are allowing their kids to do or not do.
This will not be as easy as you think. We never allowed our children to have an Xbox. We never allowed them to have a television in their rooms. We limited non school use of a computer to 1/2 hour per day. But they were never restricted when at a friend's house, or else they would have had no friends!
Good luck!
January 12th, 2013 at 3:36:52 AM
permalink
Quote: MonkeyMonkey
So, the NRA is to blame for advances in weaponry design? Before cell phones became cheap and ubiquitous IED's weren't nearly as easy to trigger. Thanks Nokia, Samsung, etc.
No, because the advances in weaponry design aren't the problem. The problem is that advances in regulating these new designs are prevented by the NRA among other lobbyists. This is what they are to blame for.
I don't blame technology. I blame people. People, that for their own personal gain do everything in their power to prevent senible gun control.
January 12th, 2013 at 5:58:56 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardAs someone who has watched Pulp Fiction and the Kill Bill movies numerous times,
You didn't get enough brain damage from the first viewing?
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
January 12th, 2013 at 7:54:22 AM
permalink
Quote: NareedYou didn't get enough brain damage from the first viewing?
Nope. There are still a few good brain cells left.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
January 12th, 2013 at 8:18:31 AM
permalink
Harvey Kietel in Pulp Fiction :
The Wolf: " Fair enough. Now I drive real fucking fast, so keep up. I get my car back any differently than when I gave it, Monster Joe's gonna be disposing of two bodies. "
The Wolf: " Fair enough. Now I drive real fucking fast, so keep up. I get my car back any differently than when I gave it, Monster Joe's gonna be disposing of two bodies. "
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
January 12th, 2013 at 9:56:55 AM
permalink
The Wolf: "That's thirty minutes away. I'll be there in ten."
I've also seen both Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill more times than I can count. Kill Bill brings me back to the old kung-fu movies I grew up with.
Tarantino is hit and miss with me. Some, like PF and KB, are movies I'll watch over and over and over and still love. Others, like that vampire one with Clooney, I only remember because of Salma Hayek.
I might check this one out. Thanks for the review.
I've also seen both Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill more times than I can count. Kill Bill brings me back to the old kung-fu movies I grew up with.
Tarantino is hit and miss with me. Some, like PF and KB, are movies I'll watch over and over and over and still love. Others, like that vampire one with Clooney, I only remember because of Salma Hayek.
I might check this one out. Thanks for the review.
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
January 12th, 2013 at 10:12:31 AM
permalink
I fail to see the fascination with having and or shooting a gun. Protection? Then take them all away and be like the UK. How many mass shootings, "3 people killed in a shootout"'s, or even domestic violence shootings do THEY have?
I used to have a Colt .45 and a shotgun for "protection" but sold them because I never even fired them. When I bought them I felt like a real man, but eventually realized real men don't need guns.
I used to have a Colt .45 and a shotgun for "protection" but sold them because I never even fired them. When I bought them I felt like a real man, but eventually realized real men don't need guns.
January 12th, 2013 at 10:25:09 AM
permalink
Lets see:
Cumbria 2010 : 11 people killed in a spree shooting
Dunblane 1996 : 17 people killed in a school shooting
Monkseaton 1989 : 1 dead, 15 injured in 20 minute shooting spree
Hungerford 1987 : 16 people killed in a small village
Hoddle Street 1987 : 7 dead in a shooting spree
I'll leave others to decide if that is more or less than a similar population in the US.
Handguns were banned for personal possession after the Dunblane shooting (there's more detail to this, but effectively, handguns were banned). Fun fact : the pistol shooting in the London Olympics had to be given special dispensation to occur, as the equipment for those events are illegal in the UK.
Cumbria 2010 : 11 people killed in a spree shooting
Dunblane 1996 : 17 people killed in a school shooting
Monkseaton 1989 : 1 dead, 15 injured in 20 minute shooting spree
Hungerford 1987 : 16 people killed in a small village
Hoddle Street 1987 : 7 dead in a shooting spree
I'll leave others to decide if that is more or less than a similar population in the US.
Handguns were banned for personal possession after the Dunblane shooting (there's more detail to this, but effectively, handguns were banned). Fun fact : the pistol shooting in the London Olympics had to be given special dispensation to occur, as the equipment for those events are illegal in the UK.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
January 12th, 2013 at 10:39:01 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardThere were lots he didn't kill. I don't think a single female was killed in the movie...
Of course you forgot about the unarmed sister who was killed at the end of the movie.
For myself the film's sustained racial violence was too over the top and ruined the illusion of the movie going experience. Too bad since the performances overall were quite good. I was also a little disturbed at the audience with whom I saw it with that were laughing and cheering everytime the bad white guys got blown away in the most graphic manner.
I previously enjoyed most of Tarantino's work (with the exception of Inglouriuos Basterds) where I think the violence seemed to be handled better or at least more palatable in the context of the story.
January 12th, 2013 at 11:18:56 AM
permalink
So after 1996, there's been ONE instance of 11 people killed in a mass shooting there. Sounds like banning handguns was more than effective.
January 12th, 2013 at 11:36:17 AM
permalink
We, the People, have a given right to own and bear firearms.
Not so much for personal protection, or for hunting (although both are valid reasons): no, to act as a check against the possibility of needing them to overthrow a despotic, corrupt government which will not yield power to majority demand.
No, it hasn't happened yet, but it could, and this scenario was envisioned when the Constitution was enacted.
How can The People revolt if the tools of revolution are removed from their hands?
Assault rifles are an essential part of the equation: I'd much prefer to fight with a semi-auto AR with a large clip than with a single shot .22.
It's the price of freedom.
Not so much for personal protection, or for hunting (although both are valid reasons): no, to act as a check against the possibility of needing them to overthrow a despotic, corrupt government which will not yield power to majority demand.
No, it hasn't happened yet, but it could, and this scenario was envisioned when the Constitution was enacted.
How can The People revolt if the tools of revolution are removed from their hands?
Assault rifles are an essential part of the equation: I'd much prefer to fight with a semi-auto AR with a large clip than with a single shot .22.
It's the price of freedom.
"What, me worry?"
January 12th, 2013 at 11:50:22 AM
permalink
Never supposed to say UK in these sorts of arguments. Always say England, so that Ireland and the IRA are not included.
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
January 12th, 2013 at 11:51:37 AM
permalink
"Assault rifles are an essential part of the equation: I'd much prefer to fight with a semi-auto AR with a large clip than with a single shot .22. "
Is it ok for a citizen to have a nuclear weapon then ? Just wondering !
Is it ok for a citizen to have a nuclear weapon then ? Just wondering !
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
January 12th, 2013 at 12:01:47 PM
permalink
Quote: MrVWe, the People, have a given right to own and bear firearms.
[...] to act as a check against the possibility of needing them to overthrow a despotic, corrupt government which will not yield power to majority demand.
.
The US military would do extraordinarily well against any civilian militia armed with all the ARs they can carry.
And is the theoretical possibilty of a despotic government that people are willing to rise up against* really worth the actual death of innocents day after day?
*Fun fact about despotic governments: The People tend to love and support it.
January 12th, 2013 at 12:04:27 PM
permalink
Quote: BuzzardNever supposed to say UK in these sorts of arguments. Always say England, so that Ireland and the IRA are not included.
I purposely didn't count the killings as part of the survey. There's plenty of mass shootings and spree killings you can find in Northern Ireland.
Don't say England. That is only one of the four countries in the United Kingdom. Ireland is not one of the four. Northern Ireland is. It being part of the UK is of course what the IRA dislike, in the past violently, but they are in the past (I hope). Saying England to mean the UK is like me saying California to mean the whole of the US. Dunblane, for example is not in England. It in Scotland.
The IRA, UDF and UVF (among others) were/are para military groups. It's a different question on gun ownership in those cases, as the groups themselves were illegal, their activities illegal and pretty sure the guns were not legally owned in any respect.
Of course, you could cite them as for/against an example of a well-armed militia to protect the people against the state.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
January 12th, 2013 at 12:13:15 PM
permalink
It's a different question on gun ownership in those cases, as the groups themselves were illegal, their activities illegal and pretty sure the guns were not legally owned in any respect.
Who decided they were illegal, the Protestants ?
Who decided they were illegal, the Protestants ?
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
January 12th, 2013 at 12:15:49 PM
permalink
Quote: CanyoneroThe US military would do extraordinarily well against any civilian militia armed with all the ARs they can carry.
So the 2.9 million American Armed Forces personnel can't uproot a few thousand Taliban out of a country whose infrastructure means nothing to them, but they'll do fine against 54 million plus armed Americans in a place where bombing infrastructure means bombing themselves? And you further think that all 2.9 million won't defect and will carry out a war against their neighbors, friends, and family?
America's greatest defense is her people.
Quote: CanyoneroAnd is the theoretical possibilty of a despotic government that people are willing to rise up against* really worth the actual death of innocents day after day?
100% yes.
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
January 12th, 2013 at 12:21:00 PM
permalink
Not everything in the news is bad : http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/11/justice/georgia-gun-video-producer/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
January 12th, 2013 at 12:31:03 PM
permalink
Quote: BuzzardIt's a different question on gun ownership in those cases, as the groups themselves were illegal, their activities illegal and pretty sure the guns were not legally owned in any respect.
Who decided they were illegal, the Protestants ?
The UVF and UDF -were- Protestant groups. The British government decided that armed paramilitary terrorist groups were illegal. Pretty much against the UK law to have a militia. Bombing people, shooting people, strong arming people, beating people up (for their religion or not) are all illegal activities. In the UK at least. Maybe it's different in Colorado?
And, it should be noted, that the troubles started with Protestant groups beating up on, and terrorizing the Catholic quarters of Northern Ireland. The British Army were initially called in to protect the Catholic areas. They really did such a poor job that they were seen as part of the problem. Bloody Sunday was the culmination of a lot crap the British Army had done.
There were indeed laws and activities taken that were biased towards thwarting the IRA and it's political wing, Sinn Fein. Note that until relatively recently (last decade), the big majority of Ulster has wanted to remain part of the United Kingdom. I think it's still true, but with a lesser majority. The self-government at Stormont has been a huge step towards the struggles being now ugly politics rather than ugly violence. The remains of the IRA/UVF/UDF/INLA (and others) operate as various criminal gangs, though I wouldn't doubt that there's be replacements if things came to a head again.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
January 12th, 2013 at 12:44:35 PM
permalink
" Bombing people, shooting people, strong arming people, beating people up (for their religion or not) are all illegal activities. In the UK at least. " Nobody seemed to care as long as it was the Catholics who were the victims.
All power comes from the barrel of a gun !
All power comes from the barrel of a gun !
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
January 12th, 2013 at 1:07:36 PM
permalink
Quote: MrVWe, the People, have a given right to own and bear firearms.
Not so much for personal protection, or for hunting (although both are valid reasons): no, to act as a check against the possibility of needing them to overthrow a despotic, corrupt government which will not yield power to majority demand.
No, it hasn't happened yet, but it could, and this scenario was envisioned when the Constitution was enacted.
How can The People revolt if the tools of revolution are removed from their hands?
It's not necessaily an either/or question. I doubt the government could outrun/outflank the citizen population even if all guns were normally stored in local armories scattered throughout each town and city. If the Federal government tried to coordinate a massive lockdown, the word would get out, most people would get to their guns faster than the governement could stop them.
If you believe otherwise, don't let me catch you going on about government inefficiency. You can't believe in inefficiency just to suit the argument.
Sanitized for Your Protection
January 12th, 2013 at 1:22:59 PM
permalink
Quote: Buzzard" Bombing people, shooting people, strong arming people, beating people up (for their religion or not) are all illegal activities. In the UK at least. "
Nobody seemed to care as long as it was the Catholics who were the victims.
This is not true, and I stated that in what I wrote.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
January 12th, 2013 at 1:44:01 PM
permalink
" And, it should be noted, that the troubles started with Protestant groups beating up on, and terrorizing the Catholic quarters of Northern Ireland. The British Army were initially called in to protect the Catholic areas. They really did such a poor job that they were seen as part of the problem"
I stand by my statement. Nobody cared until the IRA rose up.
I stand by my statement. Nobody cared until the IRA rose up.
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
January 12th, 2013 at 2:03:30 PM
permalink
Quote: Buzzard" And, it should be noted, that the troubles started with Protestant groups beating up on, and terrorizing the Catholic quarters of Northern Ireland. The British Army were initially called in to protect the Catholic areas. They really did such a poor job that they were seen as part of the problem"
I stand by my statement. Nobody cared until the IRA rose up.
I'll let David Hume know that he didn't care until the IRA started bombing and killing people. There was a very active civil rights movement in Ireland before the IRA. The British Government managed to screw any gains they had by sending in rookie, armed soldiers to break up a protest after protest. I am not claiming, by any chalk, that the UK did much right in the first half of the troubles.
The IRA were terrorists. Plain and simple. They weren't nice freedom fighters, or even active and aggressive protesters. Terrorists. They killed civilians and military personnel alike. Don't fall for any rose-tinted view of them. They were not nice people, trying to upset the democratic process and the majority decision of the people of Ulster to be part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This is above and beyond any protection or complaints about sectarian violence (where the IRA and INLA were as guilty as the UDF and UVF ad other groups on both sides).
So stand by your statement all you want, sure.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
January 12th, 2013 at 4:58:41 PM
permalink
Quote: CanyoneroNo, because the advances in weaponry design aren't the problem. The problem is that advances in regulating these new designs are prevented by the NRA among other lobbyists. This is what they are to blame for.
Which advances would those be?
Quote: Canyonero
I don't blame technology. I blame people. People, that for their own personal gain do everything in their power to prevent senible gun control.
What sensible gun control is being prevented?
And, please answer my question about automatic weapons, it seems you omitted it from your last reply. I think I'd rather fancy getting my hands on one but I simply don't know where to shop.
January 13th, 2013 at 12:44:18 AM
permalink
So Django was a pretty good movie...
January 13th, 2013 at 4:05:04 AM
permalink
Quote: duckmankillaSo Django was a pretty good movie...
Hey, are you trying to hijack the thread?!
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
January 13th, 2013 at 6:24:51 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardHey, are you trying to hijack the thread?!
This post is a least movie related.
Saw ZERO DARK THIRTY last night.
Interesting movie. I'm sure very thoroughly researched and as close
to what happened in the search as can be pieced together after
the fact for a very complicated process.
But as a movie, I'll say GOOD but not GREAT. I guess that's 3.5 stars
out of 5.
I think the Mrs wants to see LINCOLN, so that is probably next on the
list.
There's emptiness behind their eyes
There's dust in all their hearts
They just want to steal us all and take us all apart
January 13th, 2013 at 7:26:55 AM
permalink
Quote: duckmankillaSo Django was a pretty good movie...
A saw it on Friday and while initially I was completely drawn into it, my attention started to wane for whatever reason: as someone previously mentioned in the thread, Tarantino's films can be overly long these days. I'm not exactly sure what it is, as while I can appreciate his style and the technical proficiency of his films, there's something about them. I say this as a big fan of Pulp Fiction which I thought was brilliant from start to finish, but not so much his later films. There's no doubt, though, he's a master at what he does and all actors in the film drank it up and didn't hold back.
Lack of prior planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on my part.
January 13th, 2013 at 8:48:51 AM
permalink
Reservoir dogs was on cable last night. Naturally, I had to watch it alone.
Shed not for her
the bitter tear
Nor give the heart
to vain regret
Tis but the casket
that lies here,
The gem that filled it
Sparkles yet
January 14th, 2013 at 2:44:40 AM
permalink
Quote: Canyonero
The US military would do extraordinarily well against any civilian militia armed with all the ARs they can carry.
Ya think? I wonder what went wrong in Vietnam then. Hmmm.
Quote: Canyonero
And is the theoretical possibilty of a despotic government that people are willing to rise up against* really worth the actual death of innocents day after day?
I suppose the answer depends on how much you value freedom.
Quote: Canyonero
*Fun fact about despotic governments: The People tend to love and support it.
Fun fact about despotic governments: The People damn well better act as if they love and support them or they just might end up taking a trip through a wood chipper.
January 14th, 2013 at 6:09:18 AM
permalink
One thing that has been extremely under-reported is the fact that almost all of these psychopaths were under some form of prescription mind-altering drug. Whether they stopped taking their meds for a period of time before going on their killing sprees, who knows. But if they *weren't* on these drugs in the first place, would they have committed the acts that they did?
Two other points: I remember a particular TED talk (http://www.ted.com/talks) where the speaker made the point that you can't legislate everything and that everything can't be perfect. He went on to cite an example of how a school classroom trip got cancelled because there was fear that as one kid going go, then they might be liable, etc etc etc. - or something like that. And he's right. The world isn't perfect and you can't create laws to try and "contain" every bad thing that happens in life. That isn't to say the topic of gun violence should be ignored and that things can't be improved, but certain groups of people shouldn't be transparent with respect to their real motives.
Finally, a good comparison is the murder rate comparison between Chicago and New York City: Chicago has triple the rate but a third of the people, approximately. That's around 1600 less murders a year! So New York discovered something that works, but it's been controversial...
Two other points: I remember a particular TED talk (http://www.ted.com/talks) where the speaker made the point that you can't legislate everything and that everything can't be perfect. He went on to cite an example of how a school classroom trip got cancelled because there was fear that as one kid going go, then they might be liable, etc etc etc. - or something like that. And he's right. The world isn't perfect and you can't create laws to try and "contain" every bad thing that happens in life. That isn't to say the topic of gun violence should be ignored and that things can't be improved, but certain groups of people shouldn't be transparent with respect to their real motives.
Finally, a good comparison is the murder rate comparison between Chicago and New York City: Chicago has triple the rate but a third of the people, approximately. That's around 1600 less murders a year! So New York discovered something that works, but it's been controversial...
Lack of prior planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on my part.
January 14th, 2013 at 8:38:34 AM
permalink
I'm a huge fan of QT and saw Django twice already.
I was not disappointed at all. My only complaint is that this feels somewhat thematically similar to Inglorious Basterds (Jews taking their revenge out on Nazis vs. slaves taking their revenge out on their owners). It has some of the same story beats as IB.
Fun trivia fact: Leonardo DiCaprio actually sliced his hand open during the scene at the dinner table when he slams his hand down. That was not scripted. He needed stitches and they just went with that take and added his injury into the movie. There's a rumor that Kerry Washington wasn't aware he was going to rub the blood in her face, but I don't think that's been confirmed.
I was not disappointed at all. My only complaint is that this feels somewhat thematically similar to Inglorious Basterds (Jews taking their revenge out on Nazis vs. slaves taking their revenge out on their owners). It has some of the same story beats as IB.
Fun trivia fact: Leonardo DiCaprio actually sliced his hand open during the scene at the dinner table when he slams his hand down. That was not scripted. He needed stitches and they just went with that take and added his injury into the movie. There's a rumor that Kerry Washington wasn't aware he was going to rub the blood in her face, but I don't think that's been confirmed.
Ding Dong the Witch is Dead
