It has a 7.5 on Imdb so not everyone hated it xDD. But to answer your question, yes some critics are biased because of their political views. I don't know how that makes sense either man.
More than passionate acting. Perera picked gun control out of a hat because it's a widely known topic. The movie isn't about gun control, as anyone who's seen it knows. It's about corruption - 'rot' as Miss Sloane calls it - in Washington, something the NRA lobby and their gun-loving minion freaks are blind-sided from understanding. This is an extraordinary movie. Totally extraordinary - and give credit to the incredible score by Max Richter. One of the most powerful heroes of all time, yes a sociopath too, that's the point - it's almost biblical in portent.
this scene throws constitutional law out the window in favor of emotion. It's how societies lose all freedom and become the next Venezuela. Thank God we are a nation built on ones Individual Right and not "The Greater Good"...group think mentality leads to a nation of democide....which is WAY more dangerous than the 2nd amendment
If you think the constitution isn't based on equal parts reason and emotion then you need to read it with a more critical eye, and if you think the constitution was designed to never be changed then you need to start this whole journey over again.
The Preamble is emotion-based, but the rest of the Constitution unemotionally lays out the schematic for the first Post-Enlightenment Republic. Yes, the Constitution can change by Amendment, a difficult process by design. If it could be changed easily, then its protections of individual liberty and due process could also be taken away easily.
murph1329 "Next Venezola" it is a rhetoric that needs to be better explained, because in the rhetoric and actual actions of the American legislators the Constitution bans alcohol in on Amendment and then reestablish the stolen right. Clearly, the Constitution can be edited by "convince of the greater good"; if not, women wouldn't vote and the cotton camps were still a thing. The 2nd Amendment should not be banned, it is a cornerstone to the American ideal, but there are people abusing this liberty. The movie makes a good point: "keep your guns because it is a right of yours, but not everyone is ready to own one", it is not about take guns away from good, law-abiding people.
Your understanding of the Constitution is lacking. The Constitution is THE law. There is no other law, none, zero, nada, zilch. Until the 13th Amendment, slavery was legal and slaves were property. The 18th Amendment made alcohol illegal... it was no longer a right, therefore it could not be "stolen".
This scene is very intensive and take place to an important question. Jessica should have won an Oscar to this film. Its her best performance ever. And she always speaks about important things and woman rights. Love it!
Actor is only as good as who they’re contrasted with, and by deliberately making the counter argument pathetic and schlubby you just make the “passionate” speak masturbatory and hammy. Hard to take it seriously or be emotionally invested when you’re more interested in slamming a message instead of making a good drama.
"It's ironic that the very statement of Rights that you are so quick to invoke is in fact an Amendment." I couldn't have said it any better. Powerful statement.
So you don’t want your first or the other eight amendments because they’re amendments? You also fail to understand that it’s a “right” protected by the govt., not given by the govt. the right to speak or bear arms exists prior to any document stating so. All of the Bill of rights are predicated on the concept that the rights exist sans govt and that the govt is expressly forbidden from infringing on them, all 10.
@@Billsbob Your count of amendments is a touch short there, bub. And rights are an abstraction. They are an invention of our collective society. You cannot measure a right. There is no elemental residue of it. It does not exist as anything but a concept. There are a great many people who'd laugh at your assertion that these rights existed before they were enumerated. They did not. They were willed into being. They only continue to exist so long as we insist they do. Rights are not "natural" in the way the physical universe is. To pretend otherwise is to mistake "ought" for "is."
@@Billsbob Not every amendment is equal just because we call them all amendsments. The second amendment was created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical government. A couple of hundred years later the second amendment is responsible for tens of thousands of innocent, civilian casualties and exactly zero tyrannical gorvernments overthrown. Probably the world's best example of a "right" that has been abused to kill countless numbers of the very people it was written to protect. The intellectual car crash of an argument that tells people the constitution can't be wrong is simply mind numbing. The founding fathers had blind spots. They were a product of their time and prone to errors just like government is today. If you can't make a rational argument for the second amendment other than "it exists therefore it is right", then you're not worth listening to.
The constitution was ratified in 1789, after fierce debate. At that time, they knew that some matters hadn't been settled yet. Will you disrespect an amendment because it wasn't in the constitution in the first place? Shame on you. The 13th Amendment outlawed slavery. The 19th amendment gave women the right to vote... The 26th amendment gave people 18 the right to vote. The 23rd gave D.C. electors to the Electoral college. The 14th established due process. You are drawing an unsustainable and unworthy line here.
@@Billsbob Sloane's statement was meant as a rebuttal to here opponent's false assertion that the constitution is immutable and unwavering when in fact it was specifically designed to be a 'living document' capable of adapting to politics of the time while maintaining legislative continuity. Instead of making a perscriptive argument (What ought to be done) that can be debated, her opponent resorted to making an unassaible descriptive claim (What is) to disguise his real argument and avoid being confronted. Its a classic example of a Motte and Bailey, conflating two positions that share similarities and using the most modest to defend the extreme by proxy.
I am pro guns AND pro gun control. I don't understand why people wouldn't want it to be harder for terrorists and psychos to acquire guns. Many of them get their guns legally, without thorough background checks. If you are a responsible adult who owns a gun you should want to go through the proper channels to acquire your gun. I don't get the problem.
@J P I truly don't get people like you. Does that mean people shouldn't need permission (a permit) to drive cars? Or a certification to practice medicine? Since when are adults just supposed to be able to do what they like when it has potential to harm others?
@J P I noticed you dont answer my question about licenses and certification. Also, how arrogant of you to believe you are the only one that gets liberty. Over 100+ countries have liberty, and without the need to arm themselves to the teeth.
@J P Why does anyone have the inherent right to harm others (which is really what guns are about). You don't have the right to kill, steal, rape, etc. Rights are fine until they infringe on someone else's right to be alive. I understand (to a certain degree) the need to defend yourself but why guns? As for your debate of rights vs liberties, those 100+ countries see less gun violence than the US so maybe it's the US thats in the wrong? If your inherent "right" is being misused to the point of mass shootings in pre schools, maybe this right would be better off as a privalage earned by the sane few who can safely practice it?
@J P i'm equating having a gun to harming people with said gun. As that is the function of a gun. Whether its in self defence or shooting down a wallmart, a gun's primary function is to take a life. Though I don't blame you for backing down, most people do when they can't defend a violent psycho's inherent right to own a semi automatic.
This shouldn't even be an argument. For self defense all you need is a hand gun, anything more than that is unnecessary, anyone that claims they need more than that is probably a psycho.
The emotional argument falls flat with me, but the idea that people should be required to get training before owning a firearm is a very good one, and I think that a reasonably conservative argument can be made for it. Firearm ownership is in large part a method of protection against criminals and against government tyranny. As such, it would benefit the owner of a gun to get training to make them more effective at protecting themselves. It would also make the United States population much more effective should there ever be a war where we needed to defend ourselves. In that vein, I could see my way to mandatory firearm training for every citizen like Switzerland and Israel and Korea. Firearm training as a prerequisite for ownership is a sensible, helpful tool to prevent tyranny and increase safety.
it would decrease gun sales, thats why it will never happen. Mass shootings and threat of gun control increase sales, thats why you see them all the time. The common folk arguing against gun control are just poor ignorant victims, but in their ignorance costs inocent lives.
This movie talks about a (very) real issue: Lobbying in the American political system. However, a lot of people believe it is gun-control propaganda. Seriously? First, actors have better things to do than try to hypnotize you into changing your mind about something. And just because they played a part in a movie, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are anything like their characters or that they have the same views as them. Second. Yes, the movie also talks about gun regulation, but it shows you both sides of the debate (as you can see), as to make you reflect on that a little (or a lot) and develop your OWN opinion... But that isn't even the main topic of the film. This movie is an epic piece of work, and if you think a movie or anyone is capable of brainwashing you... guess what? That's YOUR problem, not theirs. Do yourself a favor and develop some critical thinking skills. If you still refuse to watch it because you have the brain of a 3-year-old (or that topic just doesn't interest you, which is acceptable), it's YOUR loss. Nobody cares. Just don't go around talking (crap) about it as if you had seen it.
But aren't Hollywood actors and other personalities constantly proselytizing for their causes? And if movies aren't capable of brainwashing people: why do governments and activists spend loads of money making films and documentaries meant to sway people to a certain line of thinking (with Triumph of the Will being a classic example?) And does the movie really show both sides of the debate when our hero is thoroughly, indisputably victorious and adored beyond reproach to the tune of epic score while her opponent is a bumbling, stammering moron with no real substantive argument? I, myself, am given the impression that this movie is as much about lobbying as American Psycho is about a guy going around killing people for no reason or Fight Club is about people gathering together to beat each other up. On the surface: that's what those movies seem to be about but American Psycho is really a movie that lampoons the vain and narcissistic subculture of yuppies, Fight Club is really a movie about male identity that also lampoons group therapy sessions, and Miss Sloane is really a vehicle for the proselytization of liberal viewpoints so I haven't been convinced to invest my precious time in watching it when I could be watching Tarkovsky or Lynch films instead.
@@scrunchyhoward8400 Do you have any idea who wrote it and why? He's an English teacher living in South Korea, he read about Jack Abramoff at the BBC. He is not 'Hollywood'.
I live in a country which has very strict gun laws but looking at the US, I would assume it's best to have gun control but not ban guns. Most important is probably that some guns should be definitely forbidden, like automatic rifles.
@@MiguelSanchez-tu2en How was "the left" owned? Shapiro's arguments in the debate are shallow. He states, that, the right's support of gun ownership rights stems from the fear of a tyrannical government rising. Do you honestly believe, ordinary people, even if they had guns, would stand a chance against the US' police force, not to mention, the military? Someone actually made a video refuting Shapiro's arguments, I would highly recommend you check it out: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-gfHXJRqq-qo.html
@@narnius6139 Some people would rather fight back against a tyrannical government then do nothing even though they may lose. In a tyrannical government, I'd rather fight & die standing then to live on my knees in tyranny. Besides if soldiers are given orders to turn on their country, the very reason they joined for, I doubt all of them would. This country is the soldiers home with their families in it, not the military or government.
@@franklopez3873 But in such a case, the military - and which side they'd be on - would be the deciding factor. Mostly disorganised, untrained civilian resistance would be as a leafblower in a hurricane. And if you acquiesce 39,773 American lives destroyed by gun violence in a single year for a chance of an honorable death in defiance to a (narrowly) possible tyrannical government, I believe you need to check your priorities and wether your political opinions are still primarily determined by reason.
If the American people hold their leaders to account via the ballot box, we don't need military weapons as a check on despotism, as we are about to prove.
What I don’t understand about this scene is the reactions of the people watching the news broadcast. Are their faces showing a shocked expression or a sad expression? Can someone explain to me what they reacted like they did?
They were her colleagues, and she went off-speech. She wasn't supposed to say arguments like that, because it was cheap and used tactics of the right. But she deliberately did it bc she plays dirty and believes in fighting fire with fire
A lobbyist will prepare for a debate with their team and work off of a number of pre-determined talking points. In her case, her argument is “the more dangerous the item/machine the stricter the protections and more stringent the qualification requirements” She uses the examples her team has prepared: pilots, fugu chefs and drivers licenses. She has a pre-planned rebuttal for each point but chooses to veer off script. Earlier in the scene she requests that Esmee follow her into the room. Esmee does, not knowing that when her opponent gives Miss Sloane the opportunity, she’s going to win the argument by appealing to every parent and school shooting survivor by making the example personal. Her team’s plan is to stick to the script. Her opponent’s plan is to make the argument as fundamental as possible (“this is infringing on your Very Important Right to own a gun without passing any background checks”). Elizabeth Sloane’s response is to make it intensely and aggressively personal, essentially throwing the personal trauma of every shooting survivor and their parents in his face and then demanding he say his talking point to an actual survivor. It won the argument - but it was an awful way to do it, because she achieved the win by retraumatizing Esmee on national tv.
"Regulated" does not mean what you think it means. Regulated means, within the context of the 2nd Amendment, that the militia (the average citizen) should be well equipped and maintained.
@@nathandennis8078 No. You just misunderstood it or didnt bother to read what it actually said. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Translation: A well equipped and maintained militia being neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The people are the militia which is why they made that particular distinction.
@@MichaelMiller-bs3tz under the control of a state. The people in the state milita have the right to bear arms that was the original intent of the founders. Able bodied males 17-45. Yes citizens UNDER the direction of the state. Read the milita clause the ratifying of the Constitution and Read article 1 section 8 clause 15 and 16. The fact that your president and governor are your commander in Chief of the milita says everything you need to know about what a military is considering there's a chain of command.
@@nathandennis8078 The fact there was a revolution proves you wrong. The colonies were under the command of the king, until they weren't. Until militias rose up. If a militia can overthrow their command structure, doesn't that mean you are incorrect? The militia, by extension its members choose who they follow. The Militia is only relevant if you choose to follow it. Remember, it was treason to rebel, the founders did it anyway. Since the people are the militia and the militia are the people every person has the right to keep and bare arms. No amount of mincing words or splitting hairs will change that. The fact that there are people like me who believe my interpretation is correct proves you wrong.
I think what Americans on either side of the issue truly don't understand about guns is that they're a US exclusive infection with no obvious cure. I live in the UK. I've got family all over europe, and some in America. Guess who I'm most afraid of getting the call from? Guns are a pox once they're in the ecosystem: once guns are commonly available in a country, they always will be, legally or otherwise. That means in order to defend yourself, you need a gun. The police need to be constantly armed with guns. Schools need to be on watch for students with stolen guns. Law enforcement have to deal with encounters assuming the subject is concealing a lethal weapon at all times. When I walk down the steet in the UK, at the VERY MOST I am concerned about being held up by a mugger with a knife. But in broad daylight even on the nastiest streets a knife is far oess threatening than a gun ever can be. Guns are part of life in America... and that's a sickening fact, a reason to be ashamed.
As a european guy, while talking to a girl from Texas, i felt quite astonished in perceiving how she justified the second amendment, i mean... essentially she acted like americans need guns in order to protect themselves from people, they have no trust in the police forces, they don't think these units can prevent anything and... basically it felt like she was actually talking about the Old West. Here in Europe there are murders but they're somehow perceived as an exception, a rare event, something that's not supposed to happen... this girl instead was talking like she was already supposing the crime had to happen, people had to shoot, our exception was american everyday routine. I think i read that amendment was written in a time when foreign troups used to disembark and try to attack american colonies, and all americans everywhere had to be ready to turn into working military anywhere it was needed... and now that amendment seems to be necessary to protect americans from other americans... i mean, it's crazy. Or maybe this is all just bullshit, what i perceived from a faraway country. :/
"they have no trust in the police forces" lol did you forget about all the genocides that have happened in history? Before the Turks and Nazis committed genocide against the Armenians and Jews, one of the first things they did is take away their right to bear arms. The right to preserve yourself should be a human right. Guns are not a right in the US to protect people from other people. They're a right in the US to protect the people from the government. It's a way to decentralize power.
The 2nd Amendment was written to give the American people the RIGHT to stand against, defend against and deter any form of tyranny.... Have you even even heard of the American Revolution... ? Democrats want to abolish the 2nd Amendment so they can form bigger government so they can have more control over the people... Period. How would we the people, be able to rise up, and stand against the worlds greatest army, if ever necessary...? If your rebuttal to that is, "That was a long time ago...it would never happen now in America...".... Just because tyranny doesn't seem likely at this time, doesn't mean it won't happen at all down the line... First they'll want to change the 2nd amendment, then whats to keep them from changing, say... the 1st Amendment to conform to "political correctness"... or any other Amendment? Our country was formed on these rights and liberties. Our Founding Father's took every word into consideration and were very careful in wording it with the future of the country in mind... Unfortunately, not everyone on the planet is a good person. There are bad people who seek to harm others for one reason or another. Just because the law says they can't have a gun, doesn't mean they won't still get one... Whether the 2nd Amendment is abolished, or changed, or whatever... Anyone with the mindset of these mass murders isn't going to just be like: "Oh damn.... Thats right, they changed the 2nd Amendment, they SAY I can't have guns now....forget it..." Unless you completely destroy every weapon on the planet somehow; They will still find a way to commit the atrocity... I'm not saying don't make it harder for these guys to get guns legally.... Of course I agree with that. But abolishing, or changing the second amendment isn't going to fix the issue.... If anything, you would think them knowing that someone else could have a weapon, and end their killing spree early, would help deter most people in that mindset from committing such atrocities...
J P Do you really think you got a chance against government with your semi automatic gun?? Government has tanks, drones, fully automatic guns, your tax money to buy more weapons, fully trained army with bullet proof vests!!!! There is a difference between shooting a running deer or cardboard cutout and shooting a trained soldier who is shooting back at you. If government wants, they can fuck you up any time.
J P For protest and to rebel against a government you don't need a gun. But I don't think you want to understand. Good luck and keep your thoughts and prayers for every kids who will die in a massacre by a legal gun of a father whose son had a bad day at school.
This movie came out 5 year ago, and this was already a hot topic back then. Fast forward 5 years, and we're still on the same place, with the same arguments being made against gun-restrictions, and with a death toll rampaging year after year. It's complete nonsense.
Also worth noting that it's not illegal to operate a vehicle without a driver's license, only to do so on public roads. You can buy a car in a private sale and drive it on your own property without ever registering it or being licensed. You should have the same freedom with a firearm in your home/on your private property.
How is it that every time someone invokes the 2nd amadman right everyone suddenly forgets the first part: "A WEll REGULATED Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..."and only talk about last part ?
Because its the same "well regulated" argument that people read on some random internet or twitter picture that people post thinking they just landed a zinger against the "gun nuts" only to have the argument get massacred each time its brought up and so now we just ignore it.
Not to mention: when the amendment was written, the average weapon was a musket. If you want to exercise your constitutionally protected right to attend a well-ordered militia with your flintlock musket, more power to you. But I’ve never seen a squirrel it takes an AR15 to hunt, so…
@@cloverazar5315 During the Revolutionary War the colonists fought with the same type of weapons the British military had. That would include, by the way, artillery cannons and battleships. By that token we should have the same armaments any modern military has. "Ive never seen a squirrel it takes an AR-15 to hunt" Odd. Usually AR-15s are chambered for .223 which is perfect for small or medium game animals.
@@MichaelMiller-bs3tz that’s great. How many squirrels did the Uvalde shooter bag that day, I forget. See, here’s the thing: I’m not saying it. I don’t believe that the constitution is some inviolable, unimpeachable document - there are quite a few *amendments* to the Constitution that I’m personally fond of. They’re arguing from the position of constitutional inviolability; that they’re “originalist” or whatever the Federalist Society calls it these days. My point is that if they truly wanted to hold to the letter of the 2nd Amendment, they ought to be limited to the weapons available during the original time period
@@cloverazar5315 More than he should have considering the cops, whom every leftist seems to want to both defund and entrust with your safety by having guns taken away from the average citizenry, sat on their asses for over an hour and a half and let that fucker kill those kids. One cop even had a shot on that mother fucker before he even got to the school but didnt shoot him. The founders naively believed that their descendants wouldn't be so mind-numbingly stupid as to actually question what type of weapons they meant by "to keep and bare arms". Otherwise they would have made it so crystal-goddamn-clear that even liberals would understand it.
Quite right! My right to freedom can be taken away (revoked/repealed) if I were to get drunk and mow down a 5 year old and their grandmother crossing the street. The right to bear arms can absolutely be taken away or restricted, but too many ignorant people Re afraid that if the government does start to curtail the right to bear arms than the government will turn into an evil dictatorship that will control us. The government ALREADY control the vast majority of American citizens by using economics (helping the rich to get richer while the poor get poorer and the vanishing middle class are focused on working to avoid being poor (George Carlin).
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Translation: The infant American Nation had very little in terms of an actual standing army, it was up to the states to assemble their own in order mount a defense against the well-armed and equipped global empire they had sought independence from. For this reason citizens needed the right to obtain firearms because the states did not have the means to mass produce and distribute them. So to ensure the "Security of a Free State" it is "necessary" for them to establish "a Well Regulated Militia" Therefore the Federal Government "Shall not infringe" on this as it is the state's rights. If you want to argue what the founding fathers intended it is pretty clear if you look at history and actually read the words to the damn amendment. People are given the right to own weapons so that they can form militias "REGULATED" by the state to provide defense. The Definition of Regulated is to control, maintain, supervise, and set the parameters of a process or organization to conform to rules. Meaning that the States have the right to dictate the rules pertaining to arming and training civilians to defend them, that includes but not limited to who is allowed to receive said arming and training, that's why the National Guard (which is technically the modern equivalent of a militia) doesn't just take anyone who walks in off the street to enlist. The Second Amendment was intended to ensure citizens can obtain firearms so they can serve the state. The problem we have with today is we have people buying guns who have no intention of ensuring the security of the Free State. Anyone can want a gun, that is their inalienable right under the constitution, but the fact is that if you want the state to give you one, you have to be willing to abide by their Regulation to ensure the Security of the Free State. If that means people with criminal records can't have them? People who fail psychological evaluations? people on terror watch lists? Then THAT ensures the Security of the Free State.
There are a number of problems with this argument when you consider that the bill of rights in aggregate was part of a broader settlement between the democrat-republicans and the federalists i.e. those who were afraid of federal power and those were in favour of it. Indeed the approval of the constitution was conditional on the offering of the amendments (all of which didn't pass btw) but not their passage. The concern was to secure individual rights against the federal government which is why a lot of the east coast states have similar provisions in their constitutions as there was no 14 amendment at the time of their enactment. Indeed the manner in which militias both in the united states and overseas in places such as England, or Switzerland was for individual members or the Gentry in the community to provide the arms at their own expense. The payment of arms by the state only arose significantly later. Indeed one of the key ideas for individual right to bear arms versus the collective right to bear arms as you articulate is that those arms may be need to used against the state such as in a war of independence which the founding fathers would have reasonably forseen considering that they had just fought one.
It's ironic, and hypocritical, that liberals say that the Constitution is a "living document" but when it comes to the Second Amendment; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"; they want a strict interpretation.
@@amycrunch3812 What I am trying to tell is that people are praising the acting performance of Jessica Chastain. But I don't consider her acting special. It is the music that makes the scene emotional... Her acting is mediocre.
I have guns. I believe in the second amendment. Specifically the well regulated part. They should require background checks, training, and a reasonable purpose. Waiting for that before being allowed to purchase is not a big deal - but it would affect crimes of passion. Hell, I think there should be a psychological evaluation too. AND storage requirement. I know for a fact no one can get into my safe. Besides me having the key, I’m the only one who knows the combo. It is always locked. I don’t get why people who do have guns don’t want that. I never need to fear my nephew will shoot himself by finding one. He can’t get to them. (Ammo is in another safe so there’s that too). It’s not even a peace of mind thing it’s just flat out minimum responsibility.
And there never should be one! A car isn't a naturally given right, you have to earn it, first learn how to use one, pass a test to prove you did and always have a standardized license (that can be retracted) proving that you did in fact learn. A car should belong to someone or some company, with a matriculation that says who's car it is, have an insurance with it in case an accident happens to you or others involving your car, and to avoid these mentioned accidents should be locked so a kid or someone else can't use it without your knowing consent. I have a car and there is nothing that makes me more angry seeing on the news car accidents because someone was drunk or going insane on the highway, if some founding father made cars a given right because they had carriages with 2 horses that were very important for their defence against monarchs and couldn't predict the hightech death machines that we have today, I would have asked that amendment to be amended too.
@@christophersincoren4730 Not answering questions is a right. You blabbing or shutting up is the choice. The right is the option. "Having" a gun is a choice. The ability to choose A or B is the right. It's not about the ownership of a firearm, it's about the ability to choose it if you wish. I don't own a gun nor do I forsee the need or want for one. But, I try to keep in mind that millions of gun owners *didn't* shoot someone yesterday.
@@angoth so your point is based on "we allow this choice because million people didn't do any bad with that yesterday"? Then all civilians should definitely possess bombs, missiles, radioactive weapon as well driving cars with no training beforehand. I have another good example. We can let people shoot whenever they want. But so they don't hurt other people. Like you can come to NY and just start shooting in the sky, ground, some bin bags. So yesterday millions didn't shoot anyone. And that was enough just one to shoot tens.
@@christophersincoren4730 The practice of a right doesn't not free you from consequences of exercising that right. Freedom of speech still carries consequences if used in certain ways. The right is the choice. The use of it is a choice. Your point seems to be that the right should be taken away because someone might do something after they make a choice allowed. Remember, the choice is the right. Standing in that very specific moment, neither looking forward or backwards in time, whether an American can or cannot choose whether to own a firearm is the crux of the question. It has zero to do with what happens after that. I find the proposal that millions should lose something they practice safely and responsibly because psychopaths choose to do insane shit quite abhorrent. It's the fault of the psychopath, not the other gun owners. edit: spelling
Manucharian is an Armenian last name and she clearly didn't look Armenian so I must protest this ... I'm kidding, fuck that. She's gorgeous. She doesn't look Armenian though lol
He’s making an “appeal to tradition” here, whereas she’s making an “appeal to emotion”. No wonder she wins - what does he have in his arsenal that can beat that?
I agree with everything she said but she should not have pointed at the woman at the end. You can’t pull a victim into political argument like that, especially when they’re unprepared. Other than that, wonderful.
Actually, in the original script (and slightly in the movie) she asked if she was ready that secret to become open if would be a win-or-loose situation and I could see it, she agreed. She just didn't know how and in what manner it would be used. Not protecting Sloan in this case.
Unfortunately she completely sacrificed her own argument and credibility by becoming far, far too emotional. It was unwise to state that the constitution is not a sacred document that is beyond doubt, and to make direct comparisons to relying on biblical text as infallible. I agree with her on that point but making it in an aggressive and condescending fashion meant she immediately lost everyone who holds the constitution in reverence, or more literal Christians, not just because of her argument but because it had the characteristic of an insulting personal attack. Insulting people you are trying to persuade rarely works. However, the situation was still salvageable and some undecideds may have been persuaded. But then, by going on a near screaming rant she just appeared unhinged, no matter what the substance of her point. Doing harm to her own cause by having her opinion linked to "the shouting crazy lady."
When a woman shows passion she's labeled 'emotional'. When a man shows passion he's called 'courageous'. Give me a break. Calling a woman emotional is just your way of saying 'sit down and shut up. the men are talking'.
She could of just said that the 2nd amendment requires to be part of a well regulated militia. It's clearly not meant to be a right to just for one individual.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Did you seriously just skip over the words, "the people"?
It is in DC V Heller, SCOTUS interpreted it to be an individual right because the militia would be made of individuals and law enforcement wasn’t a well structured thing in the past so people were mostly left to defend themselves.
