CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:40 am
 


andyt andyt:
But Carrey, don't think I've ever see him carry a gun in his movies, he doesn't play those sorts of roles. 'Course I haven't seen most of his movies.


Image

Image

Image


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Vegas Golden Knights
Profile
Posts: 2577
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:52 am
 


Wait...actor says/does something that garners mass media attention...shortly before their next movie is released...and people are shocked?

Save the phony outrage. This is a marketing move that is playing quite brilliantly in Carrey's favour.

As for what actors do in movies vs reality...well, if there is actual confusion in this regard, it would explain a lot of what I read in the media.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22857
PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 7:05 am
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
bootlegga bootlegga:
No he isn't. If he was just a rich guy like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, there would be hypocrisy there.

However, Obama's kids can be kidnapped and then used to blackmail someone into handing over the launch codes for a few thousand nukes, so I think it's a far different scenario than you make it out to be.


And little kids in Connecticut can be cut down by a crazy guy. Why are they expendable and Obama's kids aren't?


In an ideal world, you wouldn't be able to buy AR-15s at the corner store with your gas and a pack of smokes. However, that is a reality in the US (at least it was at several places I stopped at in Arizona the last time I went through there). I'm guessing that Arizona isn't the only place in your country where this is a reality.

I never said that some kids are expendable and some aren't.

As I said in the wake of Newtown, based on the insanity raging south of the border, it's probably about time to put up fences topped with razor wire and guard towers staffed with sharpshooters to protect kids from the maniacs in your country that have access to far more firepower than they have any realistic need for.

Again, if you are comfortable living in some sort of Wild West/Mad Max dystopia that's you're right, just don't expect most Canadians to agree with that type of insanity.


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
bootlegga bootlegga:
And let's not forget that Obama's kids are prrtected by a federal agency, not some private security firm or a bunch of mercs - that makes it far more legitimate.


Wrong. Obama's kids attend the Sidwell Friends School that has its own private guards who are permissted to carry fully automoatic weapons in a city where the average citizen isn't even allowed to have a handgun in their own home. On top of that the girls have their SS details protecting them.


The only question I have is were there 11 armed guards at this school BEFORE Obama's kids enrolled, or were they added afterwards in light of the potential security risks of having his kids there?

If they were already employed, then it looks like you're country is well on its way to its Postman/Mad Max future dystopia. Congratulations, it looks like you got exactly what you and the NRA proposed after Newtown.

If not, then the point you are trying to make is a major fail.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Or they can go about unarmed like everyone else.


The problem is everyone in the States isn't unarmed - unless you're going to tell the me 300 or so million weapons are in the possession of one person.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22857
PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 7:10 am
 


stratos stratos:
bootlegga bootlegga:
No he isn't. If he was just a rich guy like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, there would be hypocrisy there.

However, Obama's kids can be kidnapped and then used to blackmail someone into handing over the launch codes for a few thousand nukes, so I think it's a far different scenario than you make it out to be.

And let's not forget that Obama's kids are prrtected by a federal agency, not some private security firm or a bunch of mercs - that makes it far more legitimate.

But if 'patriots' like you feel that way, maybe we should just shut down half of the Secret Service (keep the anti-counterfeiting guys) and let ALL politicians and presidents/ex-presidents go unprotected. That includes the Bushes and all the other Republicans who still have teams of officers protecting them too.

Then when an Olympus Has Fallen type scenario occurs, the blame will fall squarely on 'patriots' like you who create false equivalencies like this.


So only the rich and or powerfull people in the USA have the right for their kids to be protected? Parents can not protect their children and home with guns. Only Gov. trianed and equpied people should be allowed to carry weapons? What exactly is the difference between the Secret Service and a trained and liscensed Security/Body Guard besides being Gov. funded?


No, every kid has a right to life - it's sad day indeed when the only way to guarantee that is with guards with automatic weapons.

Two things however;

If you can't understand that preventing the kidnapping/murder of the children of a person in charge of several thousand nuclear warheads is a good thing, then there's not much to discuss.

If you don't know the difference between a government trained Secret Service agent and a rent-a-cop, then there's really nothing we can discuss.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 25313
PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 7:29 am
 


Bart I assume you're against violent video games, because you're demonstrating a lack of being able to separate reality from fiction and entertainment.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Dallas Stars


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 18745
PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:20 am
 


bootlegga bootlegga:
stratos stratos:
bootlegga bootlegga:
No he isn't. If he was just a rich guy like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, there would be hypocrisy there.

However, Obama's kids can be kidnapped and then used to blackmail someone into handing over the launch codes for a few thousand nukes, so I think it's a far different scenario than you make it out to be.

And let's not forget that Obama's kids are prrtected by a federal agency, not some private security firm or a bunch of mercs - that makes it far more legitimate.

But if 'patriots' like you feel that way, maybe we should just shut down half of the Secret Service (keep the anti-counterfeiting guys) and let ALL politicians and presidents/ex-presidents go unprotected. That includes the Bushes and all the other Republicans who still have teams of officers protecting them too.

Then when an Olympus Has Fallen type scenario occurs, the blame will fall squarely on 'patriots' like you who create false equivalencies like this.


So only the rich and or powerfull people in the USA have the right for their kids to be protected? Parents can not protect their children and home with guns. Only Gov. trianed and equpied people should be allowed to carry weapons? What exactly is the difference between the Secret Service and a trained and liscensed Security/Body Guard besides being Gov. funded?


No, every kid has a right to life - it's sad day indeed when the only way to guarantee that is with guards with automatic weapons.

Two things however;

If you can't understand that preventing the kidnapping/murder of the children of a person in charge of several thousand nuclear warheads is a good thing, then there's not much to discuss.

If you don't know the difference between a government trained Secret Service agent and a rent-a-cop, then there's really nothing we can discuss.



Ohhh I do know the difference, considering I was an MP, worked with the US Marshals, worked in corrections, worked for a PI, have done body guard work, currently am a security guard. I've also been offered jobs by TABC, DPS and was offered an interview with the secret service when I left the military. While currently only a LVL2 in security i'll be getting my lvl 3 later this year and either this year or early next my lvl 4. What many beleave and you along with them is that the Secret Service is some ultra great group. When in truth they are part budy guard part Investigator.

One thing I found interesting is that the Sec. of the Treasury, whom the Secret Service was originaly put in place for, only had two Secret Service guards with him when he came to Austin a few years back. He had a driver and a secretary with him also. The driver was probably Secret Service but seeing has how he stayed with the car and did not come inside I do not know for sure.

Now reread the first paragraph I wrote and think on this I have made many enemies over the years. Some of them very dangerous. I've delt with killers, rapeist, drug dealers, arms smugulars, child porn pervs and on and on. So why do I not have the right to protect my family and myself? I have actualy had myself and one of my daughters threatened while walking on the streets by a former inmate who I know is crazy and has had priors of violence towards others.

Stop for just a moment and put yourself in that exact situation. No cops around a crazy guy going off on you and your 13yr old daughter. This crazy person has used a knife on his victims before, bet at that very moment you would wish you had a gun on you. I am glad I did.

I pulled the gun shoved it in his face and calmly said to him "shut the fuck up, walk away or you will die. Look in my eyes and know I mean it." He turned around and ran away. A month later he was in jail again for beating the shit out of some 17yr old girl.

So tell me again why the only politicians deserve to have armed protection and I or anyone else is not allowed to protect ourselfs with a gun?


Last edited by stratos on Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Dallas Stars


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 18745
PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:23 am
 


Tricks Tricks:
Bart I assume you're against violent video games, because you're demonstrating a lack of being able to separate reality from fiction and entertainment.



Totaly off toipc but Tricks I love the Sting pic. Love the show also, I like the US version far more then the UK version. [B-o]


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 25313
PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 4:45 pm
 


stratos stratos:
Tricks Tricks:
Bart I assume you're against violent video games, because you're demonstrating a lack of being able to separate reality from fiction and entertainment.



Totaly off toipc but Tricks I love the Sting pic. Love the show also, I like the US version far more then the UK version. [B-o]

Blasphemy! UK version is clearly superior!


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2271
PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 5:02 pm
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
andyt andyt:
But Carrey, don't think I've ever see him carry a gun in his movies, he doesn't play those sorts of roles. 'Course I haven't seen most of his movies.


Image

Image

Image


Anyone have some movie plot context of these photos. They seem damning but I've seen guns used in movies before to show how violent and pointless they can be.

Still well found Bart it's certainly a conversation starter I just don't recognize any of those shots.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 1186
PostPosted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 6:08 pm
 


Jim Carrey is just a has-been actor. I don't really care what he thinks.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 25313
PostPosted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 4:47 am
 


CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
andyt andyt:
But Carrey, don't think I've ever see him carry a gun in his movies, he doesn't play those sorts of roles. 'Course I haven't seen most of his movies.


Image

Image

Image


Anyone have some movie plot context of these photos. They seem damning but I've seen guns used in movies before to show how violent and pointless they can be.

Still well found Bart it's certainly a conversation starter I just don't recognize any of those shots.

I think the first one is Bruce Almighty. He does a schtick about being clint eastwood in it if I remember right. Second one is Kick Ass 2, he plays a vigilante. The movie is more of a comedy because it's absurd.



Example of first movie. Yes. That's a twelve year old being shot in the chest. Clearly a representation of gun ownership.

So we have one movie where the character is essentially turned into God, and another where kids are dressing up in costume being vigilantes. Both clearly a representation of reality. Both very serious movies too. Fucks sakes.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 22857
PostPosted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:56 am
 


stratos stratos:
bootlegga bootlegga:
No he isn't. If he was just a rich guy like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, there would be hypocrisy there.

However, Obama's kids can be kidnapped and then used to blackmail someone into handing over the launch codes for a few thousand nukes, so I think it's a far different scenario than you make it out to be.

And let's not forget that Obama's kids are prrtected by a federal agency, not some private security firm or a bunch of mercs - that makes it far more legitimate.

But if 'patriots' like you feel that way, maybe we should just shut down half of the Secret Service (keep the anti-counterfeiting guys) and let ALL politicians and presidents/ex-presidents go unprotected. That includes the Bushes and all the other Republicans who still have teams of officers protecting them too.

Then when an Olympus Has Fallen type scenario occurs, the blame will fall squarely on 'patriots' like you who create false equivalencies like this.


bootlegga bootlegga:
No, every kid has a right to life - it's sad day indeed when the only way to guarantee that is with guards with automatic weapons.

Two things however;

If you can't understand that preventing the kidnapping/murder of the children of a person in charge of several thousand nuclear warheads is a good thing, then there's not much to discuss.

If you don't know the difference between a government trained Secret Service agent and a rent-a-cop, then there's really nothing we can discuss.



Ohhh I do know the difference, considering I was an MP, worked with the US Marshals, worked in corrections, worked for a PI, have done body guard work, currently am a security guard. I've also been offered jobs by TABC, DPS and was offered an interview with the secret service when I left the military. While currently only a LVL2 in security i'll be getting my lvl 3 later this year and either this year or early next my lvl 4. What many beleave and you along with them is that the Secret Service is some ultra great group. When in truth they are part budy guard part Investigator.

One thing I found interesting is that the Sec. of the Treasury, whom the Secret Service was originaly put in place for, only had two Secret Service guards with him when he came to Austin a few years back. He had a driver and a secretary with him also. The driver was probably Secret Service but seeing has how he stayed with the car and did not come inside I do not know for sure.

Now reread the first paragraph I wrote and think on this I have made many enemies over the years. Some of them very dangerous. I've delt with killers, rapeist, drug dealers, arms smugulars, child porn pervs and on and on. So why do I not have the right to protect my family and myself? I have actualy had myself and one of my daughters threatened while walking on the streets by a former inmate who I know is crazy and has had priors of violence towards others.

Stop for just a moment and put yourself in that exact situation. No cops around a crazy guy going off on you and your 13yr old daughter. This crazy person has used a knife on his victims before, bet at that very moment you would wish you had a gun on you. I am glad I did.

I pulled the gun shoved it in his face and calmly said to him "shut the fuck up, walk away or you will die. Look in my eyes and know I mean it." He turned around and ran away. A month later he was in jail again for beating the shit out of some 17yr old girl.

So tell me again why the only politicians deserve to have armed protection and I or anyone else is not allowed to protect ourselfs with a gun?


Feel free to point out where I said you don't have a right to protect your children, or where I said ONLY Obama deserves to have agents with automatic weapons protecting his children.

Oh wait, you can't because I NEVER said that.

I simply explained why there is an imperative for some children to be protected 24/7 by agents.

I also have never said you don't have a right to defend yourself or your loved ones - it's actually one of the few occasions where I agree with the use of deadly force (the defence of your country is another).

I have even come to believe that armed guards in schools - given the level of insanity south of the border - is probably not a bad thing.

As I've said now several times, it's a sad state of affairs that society in the US has gone from civilized nation to some sort of Mad Max dystopia where the only way to guarantee your safety is with the profligate use of firearms. Given my description, it may sound sarcastic, but if it was, I would have used emoticons to portray that.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 32860
PostPosted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:53 am
 


bootlegga bootlegga:
I have even come to believe that armed guards in schools - given the level of insanity south of the border - is probably not a bad thing.


It's not a bad idea but it's far from a solution too. The Newtown creature killed 26 people in less than five minutes and expended 300 rounds of ammunition; he must have been one of the lucky ones as his high-capacity magazines didn't jam his rifle as we've been repeatedly told they apparently do. The Columbine killers were engaged by an armed sheriff's deputy at the beginning of their killing spree and it didn't stop them at all; with what we know of how fucked up those two evil scumbags were they probably enjoyed it when someone shot back. The "armed guard stops massacre" scenario remains in the province of Jim Carrey's movie-making world. It's an absurd fantasy, it has rarely ever happened in real life, and is an absolute wretched "solution" to depend on when a mass killer with overwhelming firepower decides to make an appearance in a public area.

By the way, I offer no solutions myself because I don't think there are any. The society-wide saturation of America with firearms is too far past the tipping point to ever be reversed by any political or cultural tinkering. Any attempt at mass confiscation of firearms in the United States would trigger a civil war and end up killing multiple times the number of people that have been killed in firearms violence over the last forty years. The political avenue is paralyzed by special interests like the NRA that now own most of Congress and have owned too many Presidents over the last couple of decades. And, in the Blessed Name Of Austerity, there will be no massive re-investment in mental health or psychiatric services that might be allow potential mass killers to get some help before they go into an active mode. As it is having as many lawful citizens as possible carry their own firearm is the best remedy to prevent them and their families from being the victims of one-on-one crime and violence. But it won't stop any mass killings of the Columbine or Newtown variety. It simply doesn't work that way with any maniac on a suicide mission who is undeterred by the prospect of armed resistance shooting back. They aren't average criminals who might be scared off by a shop owner shooting back. They're insane, and radicalized. And, as the majority of them end up killing themselves, apparently really aren't afraid at all of dying. Anyone saying otherwise, like a single armed someone in a dark smoke-filled movie theatre in a Colorado town was capable of not panicking and then could put down with ease a massively-armed and body armoured mass killer shooting a near-military grade of rapid-fire weapon, are really just some very skilled snake-oilers promoting a ridiculous fantasy and drumming up a false hope where there is none.

Let's play with language for a bit. If a problem becomes so huge that no solution is possible then it really can't be called a problem anymore. It transitions from something any sane culture should fight against to something that can now only be accepted as it and the normal people out there, whose first impulse or reaction isn't to resort to reflexive violence, simply have to put up with it. Yay Team Orwell? :?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 19037
PostPosted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 10:10 am
 


Good points Thanks. IMO, armed guards in school is simply a symptom of the disease and not a solution. It's a sign that a society has accepted this kind of violence as a i fait accompli and is trying to mitigate it as best possible.

But as its been pointed out elsewhere even the current proposed legislation won't really make a difference. Expanded background checks, reduced clip/magazine sizes, limiting certain types of guns. None of these will really put a dent in the violence rate in the US. Maybe half a percentage point at best.

If Americans really, truly want to start curbing the amount of gun violence the thing that needs to be done is the thing that really can't be done. And that is repealing or heavily revising the second amendment. Then combine that with a large scale program of buybacks and confiscations. Of course that's pure fantasy. The NRA has dominated the gun control debate for decades now and still is as ruthless as ever. There will be a gay, atheist president with the last name Rothschild before the second amendment is done away with.


Online
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 34553
PostPosted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 10:17 am
 


This is the best protection for schools or any other enclosed space... but since it doesn't involve a shoot out between the good guys and the bad guys using automatic weapons and high capacity magazines, it probably won't catch on. :(



Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 100 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.