-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
truly confused on the message this vignette is trying to convey
- Thread starter solus
- Start date
bc.cruiser
Regular Member
Pretty straightforward, including the quote at the end from Jefferson.
No matter how many "No Gun" notices there are, they are no substitute for being able to defend yourself.
No matter how many "No Gun" notices there are, they are no substitute for being able to defend yourself.
Fallschirjmäger
Active member
All the 'No Guns' signs, whether it's one or a thousand, won't protect you from a criminal who doesn't care about the law. The Only effective means to defend yourself against a deadly threat is to be ready with deadly force. Seems pretty straight forward.
Our guy went back in time to put up a sign - it didn't work,
Our guy went back in time to put up thousand signs - it didn't work
Our guy went back in time to equip her with a firearm to resist deadly force - - it worked.
Our guy went back in time to put up a sign - it didn't work,
Our guy went back in time to put up thousand signs - it didn't work
Our guy went back in time to equip her with a firearm to resist deadly force - - it worked.
truthfully no...
first, please advise, if under the banner of conspicuous no firearm signage, you have left a firearm whom a person then uses to gun someone down...what would be the outcome to joe citizen.
two, jefferson never wrote nor even uttered those words spoken originally from the Italian philosopher Beccaria. quote: jefferson was questioning the constitutionality of anti-carrying laws; he said they were impractical to uphold. unquote http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/07/us/jefferson-rorschach-guns/
third, this is like walking into the middle of a fight and presuming the dead female was the intended victim when in fact she was the aggressor towards another who then got the upper hand and dispatched her, they went for the cops.
sooo, the purpose of this vignette again was ~ ignore conspicious gun-buster signs, leave a firearm out in the open so someone can kill another person, and then misquote jefferson to justify your actions?
ipse
first, please advise, if under the banner of conspicuous no firearm signage, you have left a firearm whom a person then uses to gun someone down...what would be the outcome to joe citizen.
two, jefferson never wrote nor even uttered those words spoken originally from the Italian philosopher Beccaria. quote: jefferson was questioning the constitutionality of anti-carrying laws; he said they were impractical to uphold. unquote http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/07/us/jefferson-rorschach-guns/
third, this is like walking into the middle of a fight and presuming the dead female was the intended victim when in fact she was the aggressor towards another who then got the upper hand and dispatched her, they went for the cops.
sooo, the purpose of this vignette again was ~ ignore conspicious gun-buster signs, leave a firearm out in the open so someone can kill another person, and then misquote jefferson to justify your actions?
ipse
Last edited:
Urban Youth
Regular Member
I'd chalk the sequence if events up to poor plot more than anything else. Like any propaganda piece, it all looks credible at first glance but it doesn't hold up to any real scrutiny. There's definitely some plotholes in the video that should have been addressed, but I think it was more of a lighthearted jab at Anti-American gun grabbers and their similar inconsistent and often sensationalist, tear-jerking propaganda.
Well, at least that's the message I got from it. If I was going to make a pro-gun propaganda piece, it definitely would not have a woman shooting someone inside an abandoned/unfinished building. Why was she there in the first place? How did the guy know she was there before police arrived on scene? Why does he leave her a hammer fired pistol, but she is holding a striker fired pistol in the next scene (I watched the video on mobile, could be wrong on this one, hard to see small details at the angle the shots were filmed)?
A lot of unanswered questions that undermine the message it was attempting to send.
Well, at least that's the message I got from it. If I was going to make a pro-gun propaganda piece, it definitely would not have a woman shooting someone inside an abandoned/unfinished building. Why was she there in the first place? How did the guy know she was there before police arrived on scene? Why does he leave her a hammer fired pistol, but she is holding a striker fired pistol in the next scene (I watched the video on mobile, could be wrong on this one, hard to see small details at the angle the shots were filmed)?
A lot of unanswered questions that undermine the message it was attempting to send.
Fallschirjmäger
Active member
In Georgia? Not a blessed thing; 'No Firearms' signs carry just as much legal weight as 'No Laughing' signs. And if the shooting was in self defense the person is immune from civil suits.
Unless you just happen to understand the context it was filmed in. Using the clues provided, we may presume she was someone known to the man and was a victim of a homicide. We can presume she is innocent of any crime as there is no indication otherwise.
Yes, and no.
Ignore conspicuous and useless 'gun buster' signs, provide an innocent with a firearm with which to defend themselves (it's not exactly out in the open where just anyone might happen across it like being put on the grass in the middle of Central Park, after all.)
Last edited:
'IF' shot in locale(s) where signs mean something, say like IL, CA, etc.
pushing the mythical what 'IF'...the same tactic some abhor in antis propaganda
btw welcome & kudos urban youth on your perceptive catch as i didn't examine the video's firearm per se, only saw the dead 'guy' didn't have one laying near them.
so Fallschirmjager, as you stated, "... unless you just happen to understand the context..." which i didnt, "...we may presume..." which i don't!!
now you understand why i got & still am unsure of the message...even wonder if it could actually fall into the bloomberg/brady message purview?
ipse
pushing the mythical what 'IF'...the same tactic some abhor in antis propaganda
btw welcome & kudos urban youth on your perceptive catch as i didn't examine the video's firearm per se, only saw the dead 'guy' didn't have one laying near them.
so Fallschirmjager, as you stated, "... unless you just happen to understand the context..." which i didnt, "...we may presume..." which i don't!!
now you understand why i got & still am unsure of the message...even wonder if it could actually fall into the bloomberg/brady message purview?
ipse
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
That's what I got out of it.
Sure seems to me that that is the only reasonable interpretation. I got that from it and so have a many others I have discussed it with.
Nemo
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
So, are you saying that three try's is a charm?
bc.cruiser
Regular Member
Confused?
If you truly do not understand the video, perhaps contact with the video company (Reel Clef Studios) or the sponsor (GOA) is in order. Here is a quick cut from the ReelClef Facebook page:
"A Cincinnati nightclub where a recent shooting took place had a “no firearms allowed” sign on its door.
Criminals fear armed gun owners, not disarmed victims.
Special thanks to Reel Clef Studios for joining with GOA to put this short film together, and demonstrating the ineffectiveness of gun free zones!"
If you truly do not understand the video, perhaps contact with the video company (Reel Clef Studios) or the sponsor (GOA) is in order. Here is a quick cut from the ReelClef Facebook page:
"A Cincinnati nightclub where a recent shooting took place had a “no firearms allowed” sign on its door.
Criminals fear armed gun owners, not disarmed victims.
Special thanks to Reel Clef Studios for joining with GOA to put this short film together, and demonstrating the ineffectiveness of gun free zones!"
Last edited:
OC for ME
Regular Member
I think this short was posted here last year sometime. Could be wrong.
thank you BC, that provides a breath of clarity, especially since i do not have FB nor do i have capabilities to mind read!
one might believe they would have put this purpose statement at the beginning of their vignette kinda like they put the bogus Jefferson quote at the end.
but just a further thought based on their alleged purpose statement...
do not the majority of shootings taking place, do so where firearms are not permitted, i mean even in Chicago the entire citizenry are not allowed to have firearms while the police that do shoot youthful citizens in the back and then obstruct justice and lie about it for over a year!!
so if this is a known fact, the purpose of the short video again?
ipse
ipse
My take on it is pretty simple. With all of the gunbuster signs representing suggestions, policies, edicts, and laws, it proves 2 things. Number one is that criminals with guns will ignore said signs. Number two is that it takes an armed person to counter/defend against an armed criminal.
No matter what signage and laws are in place, a criminal, intent on doing harm will do so unless he/she can be stopped or dissuaded by an armed target.
No matter what signage and laws are in place, a criminal, intent on doing harm will do so unless he/she can be stopped or dissuaded by an armed target.
countryclubjoe
Regular Member
Brings to mind this venerable quote from Thomas Paine.
" Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.. Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them".
One can be a victim anywhere, however if one is to travel in a neighborhood depicted in the video, I suggest to be heavily armed, and give no credence to " no firearm signs"..
My .02
CCJ
" Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.. Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them".
One can be a victim anywhere, however if one is to travel in a neighborhood depicted in the video, I suggest to be heavily armed, and give no credence to " no firearm signs"..
My .02
CCJ
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
Well put bbMurphy and CCJ.
OC for ME
Regular Member
If top cops in every jurisdiction were to advocate for restoring unfettered gun rights the public policy side would change virtually overnight.
Unfortunately cops continue to advocate for the CC Industrial Complex.
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
As I always point out, we didn't have our 2A infringed overnight and we aren't getting them all back overnight either. We keep making progress. A decade ago every mention of CC led to cries of "OMG blood in the streets!!" Never happened. Now we are moving versions of constitutional carry forward state by state with opposition making the same cries. And it won't happen. IMO, in due time the positive CC opinion will start applying to constitutional carry when people see that it isn't a problem and law abiding citizens are law abiding citizens with or without a piece of paper.
Just my thoughts..
countryclubjoe
Regular Member
In public they advocate yes, however behind closed doors, they don't want anyone to have guns except those in their little fraternity..
My .02
CCJ
Last edited: