MovieChat Forums > The Pianist (2003) Discussion > Wake up call for gun control advocates

Wake up call for gun control advocates


See what happens when another government or even your own rolls into town and you have nothing to defend yourself with? THINK ABOUT IT

They *%#$ you at the drive through.

reply

Shoot the government with my pistol? Good idea. So I´ll just wait until the sonsofbitches roll into town.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

What he's saying is that in EVERY instance of the Government confiscating weapons from its citizenry, including King George tryna take Washington's guns from Minute Men, farmers, craftsmen, or as Stalin did, or Hitler, or any other brutal dictator, what followed was carnage on a mammoth scale. Every time. Another result: When guns are outlawed (as in Chicago) only outlaws have guns.
60 million NRA Members, which is also the largest teaching entity of gun safety in America, do nothing but protect themselves and families from bad guys AND from regimes like Obama's which wants to take away all guns. Got that? EVERY single time the Government does this, carnage of its citizenry results. And you only have to look no further that "Fast And Furious" to see what lengths this regime will go to to see that they don't care about your safety. 2,000 AK-47s were simply allowed to walk across the border by Eric Holder and Obama with zero means of tracking them, and now those weapons are being found at EVERY crime scene on both sides of the border and as far away as Afghanistan, AK-47s are being used to kill American GIs, all because this regime thought that allowing those weapons into circulation would "turn Americans against the 2nd Amendment" and that citizens would rise up and demand that guns be confiscated.

reply

I'm so sorry you had to type all of that out. It would have been a lot easier to say "I'm and idiot" and leave it at that.

reply

Hate to tell ya but talking to mostly the same group standing in lines waiting on their gov freebies. They will agree with anything the driver of their gravy train tells them. That is until us working class funding their freebies get fed up and stop the money flow.

reply

Brilliant, genius.

The military, healthcare, banking fraud/corporate tax evasion, and transportation infrastructure costs will bankrupt your country LONG before the welfare people you worry about.

Try focusing on the biggest problems first, and stop letting the wealthy pick your targets for you.

reply

THANK YOU!

Some people just don't know what their real priorities are.

reply

The French had guns, the Poles had guns, the Russians had guns. They all either lost or struggled against the Nazi war machine. What makes you think a bunch of civilians would do any better? THINK ABOUT IT!

This is just delusional BS that you probably heard on Fox News.

reply

The French, Poles, and Russians had a fighting chance, too.

reply

Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini were white guys with Guns, who hated liberal jews.

Conservatives and libertarians are mostly white guys with guns that hate liberal jews.

reply

Please explain why you automatically equate libertarianism with Antisemitism.

Libertarianism is simply the antithesis of authoritarianism, which the three dictators you just listed exemplified in their regimes.

reply

Stalin wasn't "white".

reply

Alexander Dumas was black.

reply

Yeah, you're going to defend against armored vehicles, armored uniforms, aircraft, drones, electronic jamming and eavesdropping, integrated command and control, and logistical control of fuel and food and health care.

You mis-interpreters of the second amendment are amazingly stupid. Stop masturbating with your guns for a moment and think about the real problems. Your government is going to implode and go bankrupt, or reduce services to nothing before they ever decide to waste millions of dollars hunting you down in your little house.

Yikes people, logic and reality. Try a dose.

reply

rockmail, that's exactly what the Jews said before they were -in your own words- "hunted down."

Less government is good government. Anybody who says different just wants free stuff, but everything has its price in one way or another whether you're the one paying for it or not.

reply

As fruitless as this will be I'll add this:

The "rich" are the ones that have ruined society not the "poor", the controlling class have systematically funnelled money from below for centuries, social care is the only thing that has stopped mass death and starvation. If wages kept up with productivity increases then wages would be double what they are today, all the extra money has lined the pockets of the rich.

IF you required financial assistance you would not be against it... period.

All this talk about more and less government is amusing as both sides increase government control in their own interested fields, the left increase welfare, the right tell you how you should behave (abortion, religion etc) and both tend to help the rich first and the rest second, if at all.

Back to the OP's point, sticks and stones (guns and bullets) will not protect people if your government decided to turn against it's own citizens, it would be akin using a pee shooter. Not wanting to repeat what rockmail has said but I agree that if governments wanted to wipe you out, they could....easily.

If you believe owning a gun protects you from the big bad scary government then fine, but it is beliefs like that that continue to allow unhinged nutters to get guns easier than being able to drive or owning a certain type of pet.

33,000 deaths a year is ridiculous and your attitudes would change in an instant if one of your family members were just a statistic in the backwards history that is gun ownership.

reply

I disagree. It would be infinitely more difficult to invade the United States than it would be to invade European countries that don't allow guns.

Think about it ... the Warsaw Uprising was able to cause significant problems for the Nazis for about a month, and it was just a few of thousand people that were very poorly armed. But, being armed (even with pistols) is important, because otherwise the invading force simply goes right into the building or bunker and shoots everyone without fear of casualties.

Guerrila warfare can be extremely effective against much larger and well-armed forces. We have seen this throughout history.

Imagine how difficult it would be for ground troops attempting to invade the United States, where gun ownership is so high. Not to mention the survivalists and "militia" type groups who are very well armed with assault rifles, bombs, etc.

reply

I agree that it does make it "more" difficult but it is still not "that" difficult, look at Najaf, Iraq. When Muqtada al-Sadr had a small army, mostly well trained, they couldn't hold out for toffee against Apache helicopters, tanks, and better trained and equipped ground troops.

Apart from the fact there is literally no chance of one first world country being properly invaded by another due to nuclear stalemate, the difference it would make if everyone had a gun is negligible.

"But, being armed (even with pistols) is important, because otherwise the invading force simply goes right into the building or bunker and shoots everyone without fear of casualties."

They'd just bomb it, done.

reply

Skreen - Well written. I agree completely. Strangely, many who do receive government assistance are the ones who rail against it. States that consistently push for less government are the same places whose citizens receive the most government aid. When confronted with these illogical statements, the person will say, I deserve food stamps. After all, I have to eat.

reply

"Yeah, you're going to defend against armored vehicles, armored uniforms, aircraft, drones, electronic jamming and eavesdropping, integrated command and control, and logistical control of fuel and food and health care."

Armed civilians can't upset a major power? I guess you've never heard of the Vietcong, IRA or Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

reply

Oh I'm sure they can "upset" a lotta folks alright; don't look like IRA or Al Qaeda are winning any wars or achieving their political objectives though. And comparing Vietcong to a bunch of rednecks running around with revolvers and hunting rifles is a bizarre enough idea in its own right.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

Guess you haven't been watching the news, either, since armed Sunni militants (once again, armed civilians) are gaining Iraqi territory at a shocking rate.

The fact you think of all gun owners as "a bunch of rednecks running around" shows your level of ignorance to the events happening in your own country, so it's really no surprise you have no knowledge of world events, either.

reply

Yeah fella, just get back to me when these "Sunni militants" have completed their famous victory and driven the occupying forces outta their country.

And I'm pretty sure I'm much better informed of what's happening in my country than you are, you Umurika-centric doofus. As for the gun ownership, then normal and civilized people do not itch to murder anyone nor do they need to hunt for food in a modern society, so ones that feel this uncontrollable compulsion to have firearms around, are liable to be some kind of redneck fascists.

And besides, you should be ashamed of yourself attempting to promote the sociopathic gun laws of your country by using an idiotically absurd scenario according to which the Umuriken regular army has been annihilated and the US mainland occupied. And then proceed to insinuate that those handgun wielding rednecks will defeat that mighty army that has already wiped out the entire US military. You for f-cking real?



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

If you do not live in the U.S, I apologize for previously assuming that you did.

There is nothing fascist about the principles of individual liberty, or the principles of self defense and self preservation, all of which are relevant to the right to bare arms. No, I will not be ashamed of myself just because you see my gun ownership as "sociopathic", and yes, the proposed situation was purely hypothetical.

You resort to ad hominen to attack those of us you refuse to see as anything other than "fascist" or "redneck", because there is no logical or moral reason for you or anyone else to tell us that we can't bare the same arms as the powers that rule over us. The large community of gun owners is more diverse than you'll ever know. We come from every walk of life, every social class, every political affiliation, every occupational field and every race. It is you who should be ashamed, for trying to over-simplify such a diverse crowd.

reply

"There is nothing fascist about the principles of individual liberty".

While this is certainly a more fruitful angle from which to view the gun laws, I fail to see why would the right to own objects of which sole purpose is to kill, be included amongst man's basic rights - considering how much damage and tragedy their overabundant presence in the society causes (that's right - I said "overabundant". And have already noted elsewhere on this thread that I'm not necessarily calling for an outright ban on privately owned firearms - making the criteria as to whom to grant such permission much... MUCH... stricter would go a long way).


"The principles of self defence and self preservation".

How often have you come under attack in your days of riding around the prairie on that trusty lil hoss? Or are you just being paranoid? Either way, maybe it'd be wiser to concentrate on trying to get the crime rates down instead of dealing with its consequences?


"And yes, the proposed situation was purely hypothetical".

And since it has got precisely nothing to do with any remotely conceivable reality, it is dishonest to use it in an argument over a very real issue.


"We can't bare the same arms as the powers that rule over us".

So you're also arguing for the private ownership of tanks, fighter jets and rocket launchers?




"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

so no jews had guns back then?

do you really think you're going to take on the United States of America with guns?

really?

really ????????????

if that were the case, the US would have been taken over already by anyone with a gun or any group with guns or any country with guns.

Al-Qaeda has guns. most of the whole world who hates the US has guns

the Germans and Japanese had guns during ww2

today all they need is one tank to take out any militia

the 2nd amendment was enacted over 200 years ago. it's out of date

if you were to take it literally every citizen would have the right to nuclear subs, armed air craft carriers & jets and all the ICBM silos in their yard that they can fit and armed tanks



wake up white people

reply

I really want a Nuclear Sub now.

reply

I was just gonna say that since poster Skreenjunkie here pretty much convinced handguns would be all but useless in the given situation, some smartass from NRA, or something, will be sure to stop by and suggest heavier hardware should be passed around. Like after that previous schoolshooting last winter, some bright folks with a gun fetish suggested that in order to avoid such things happening in the future, even ´more´ guns should be out there. Like, all students should be armed to teeth for school, or something.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

Yeah, seriously. Good luck taking on a drone. Snicker.

reply

You guys have an odd view of how real-life conflicts actually work.

I actually agree with some of your argument -- like, for example, against a drone (or even a tank or air support, etc) a handgun would not be of much help.

Where your argument fails is in discounting the logistics of all that. You act as though the military has unlimited drones, tanks, heavy artillery, and air support. I mean, you think Iraq or Afghanistan has anything close to our military power and technology? We are so far superior in that area that it's ridiculous, but we have been occupying those countries for years because it's very difficult to just identify resistance and then go right in with a drone or tank or whatever and take them out in a few minutes. It doesn't work that way.

reply

Be that as it may, such efforts to justify the sociopathic gun laws by presenting a completely unrealistic, absurd scenario according to which the US has been invaded and overwhelmed by enemy infantry, are hypocritical and dishonest.

It appears that these gun fetishists would apparently rather see half the population shot to death in acts of random violence, rather than give up their lethal objects of obsession - and so they´re making up ridiculous excuses why owning firearms should be an essential civil right.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[deleted]

Don´t see any sane reason why private gun ownership (which, unlike drugs, have only one intended function - to cause bodily harm) should be an essential human right. Why would that be? Also, more destructive weapons like machine guns, mines, fighter jets etc ´cannot´ be legally owned by anyone other than military, so do we have a problem here, too? Because in basic principle, from the civil rights point of view, or a moral one, there´s not much difference. The only difference is the amount of carnage after usage.

And who´s talking about banning, anyway?. A lot tighter screening would go a long way - and perhaps making getting that licence such a hassle that many would simply not want to go through all the trouble.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

I am sephardic Jewish and I own guns, I have a large collection and I believe that gun ownership is a human right, had the jews been able to defend themselves the holocaust may have never happened, some people think that the jews didn't stand a chance against a military with tanks, etc but people also forget how the state of Israel was founded, it was founded by jews with old nazi Mauser k98s from Czech Republic and some imported rifles fighting against all of the surrounding nations and Israel became independent as a result or they would have fallen apart.

It was because of gun control by the nazis that the jews couldn't get the weapons they needed to defend themselves, and if you think you can trust government to protect you, ask the jews and ask the native Americans about that.

I don't think I need someone to tell me the rationals of guns needing to be restricted, I have traveled enough countries where gun control has been implemented and that worked out lovely for Mexico, South Africa, and other nations where the cartels have full control and the innocent people rely on their government, Switzerland on the other hand with everyone being required to be armed seems to be doing just fine.

reply

Your examples of countries who've implemented gun control laws work extremely well in your favor, but share a common theme. Mexico and South Africa both suffer from extremely high poverty. While America does have poverty problems (that don't seem to be getting better fast) it isn't anywhere near as bad as either of those countries. Look at Australia, prime example, very similar to the US.

Aside from that, you're also being picky about how you've chosen to word your point on Nazi gun control. It was a blatant shot at the Jews, as they were the only ones who lost their gun rights. In all actuality, gun control over all other German civilians was loosened during the Nazi reign. They weren't about gun control, only about disarming the Jewish population. The majority of non-Jews in Nazi Germany also had passionate prejudice against Jews, so it's not like there was an incredible amount of unrest among the population when the rights of solely the Jewish population were being tarnished.

The Native Americans (Indigenous Peoples) didn't have a united government when the U.S. invaded and massacred them, so I don't see any merit in bringing them into the conversation.

I know this wasn't a hot-button issue when you posted, but I'd like to point out how much attention has been drawn to Syria since they committed crimes against humanity in gassing their citizens. I would imagine if the U.S. did anything too irrational or inhuman, other leading countries (at least Russia) would make it a point to put our government under a microscope across the globe, and we would be cut off from foreign borrowing (which we can't afford) and trading (which we rely on) at the very least.

This entire argument to me seems like an endless circle of excuses for each argument that opposes it. The United States unfortunately suffers from tens of thousands of gun-related deaths annually. A 2009 census counted more guns than people in America. I'm not an advocate for the prohibition of firearms. But when a right is being so massively abused at the expense of other citizens, it's not only just to see that laws are changed to stand against that abuse, it's simply irresponsible not to.

I've never seen The Pianist, by the way. Just stumbled across this page checking to see who won the 2002 Oscar for Best Actor over Daniel Day Lewis in Gangs of New York.

reply

I guess you missed the part of the movie where the Jews who had been stockpiling guns for months were wiped out complete by the Nazis.

That was in the 1940s, do you think you could stand a chance against your government today with the guns you cling to so desperately? Like someone else said, you wouldn't stand a chance against a modern well equipped, well trained army with drones, tanks, jets, bombs, armour, rockets, etc, etc.

Not only that, but do you live in a democracy, or don't you? A democracy is supposed to be government by the people, of the people, for the people, so if you are scared of your democratic government, you're just scared of your fellow citizens.

The best thing you can do is participate in your democracy -- voting is just the beginning. Complaining about "libruhls" and "gun control" on the internet is as good as doing nothing and just being a lazy whiner.

Why would the government ever want to go after you anyway? What's so important and special about you? You're just a consumerist sheep like the rest of us, those in power are already perfectly content with the way you act.

reply

Spot on.

reply

OP disregards the details of history by making such a black and white comment.

Guns are nothing without the core understanding of why tyrants come to power in the first place.

Limit of the Willing Suspension of Disbelief: directly proportional to its awesomeness.

reply

A movie about the horrors of fascism brings -- of all the things in the world -- an American fascist eager to trumpet the fetid propaganda of his cause. Behold the monster.

reply

Of course OP doesn't want to relinquish his guns, because the Americans already used them to perform their own holocaust a hundred years ago on the Indigenous Americans.

6 million Jews die, the world sheds a tear. 20 million Indians die, the world doesn't care.

Limit of the Willing Suspension of Disbelief: directly proportional to its awesomeness.

reply