The constitution is a legal document dude.
The Ultimate Movie Thread of Ultimate Destiny
- Thread starter Serge 13
- Start date
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
And the people who wrote it weren't laws. They were thinking, rationalizing people.
People who wrote a legal document and created a legal institution to interpret this document, which they have done so in a way that discredits the validity and legal basis of your original statement.
The "founding fathers" were pretty quick to suppress armed revolt whenever it actually happened (Washington himself led a military expedition to put a stop to the Whiskey Rebellion), and the constitution authorizes a suspension of habeas corpus in the event of rebellion.
The "founding fathers" were pretty quick to suppress armed revolt whenever it actually happened (Washington himself led a military expedition to put a stop to the Whiskey Rebellion), and the constitution authorizes a suspension of habeas corpus in the event of rebellion.
Last edited:
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
It only discredits it in the sense you believe, because you're making A LEGAL ARGUMENT, like I already stated. I was making a rational argument, and the two are completely separate entities.
It doesn't matter that amendments get repealed, or added to or "interpreted" by legal precedents (the latter of which is NOT part of the constitution, by the way, nor was it ever intended), unless you're making a LEGAL argument, and I never was. You going so far as to push your view as superior to mine because you fail to understand I was NEVER concerned with the legality of the matter just makes it all the more appalling. The highlighted part of your quote just emphasizes that mistake even further. You don't care about the rationale behind it, you care only about the legality of it. Well get this through your head, I DON'T. Yeah, it's a law, yeah, it was designed to be appropriated by a capable legal framework. I was NEVER addressing that. I was addressing its original purpose, a philosophy derived from a historical event.
Ergo, the original purpose of and inherent design intrinsic to the penning of the 2nd Amendment, the so-called "right to bear arms", was that citizens were permitted to own any form of firearm in order to form a militia in order to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. A court ruling establishing legal precedent (again, not even constitutional) has NOTHING to do with that purpose, no matter that the amendment ends up being affected by law.
Events you could construe as hypocrisy (the Whiskey Rebellion you mentioned) don't change that. It's no different than the way the government's stance towards taxation spun on a dime in order to pay off its war debts. I'm not ignoring the consequences of future actions, or contradictions. I'm ONLY interested in the founding principles, because that's all that mattered to my comment.
Do you finally understand? Or are you gonna bring up some more legal commentary and continue to overlook its total irrelevance to anything I've said?
Last edited:
You literally said "[the second amendment] allows ANY form of weapons to the people" when it does not, you are just factually incorrect. The statement doesn't even make sense from your "rational" point of view because obviously the kinds of weapons we have today did not exist at the time it was written, so you can't even argue that it's what they intended in spirit.
Saying that the drafters of the constitution would have thought that civilians should be allowed their own nuclear warheads and drones and tanks is just fucking retarded to be honest. They never even imagined the kind of weapons we have today were possible, back then it took almost an entire minute just to reload after firing once.
Why are you guys talking about this in the movie thread anyways? I don't feel like going back far enough to check.
Edit: And yes the Supreme Court's power of judicial review is an implied power in the constitution, this was literally agreed upon very very early in the nation's history after Marbury v. Madison. It's in articles III and VI of the constitution, and the "founding fathers" made it pretty clear through practice that it's what they wanted.
U.S. Constitution Article III said:
U.S. Constitution Article VI said:
Last edited:
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
So, the answer is you're still oblivious. Fine.
And don't be a TOTAL sack of shit, "you guys"? YOU'RE the asshole who keeps bringing this back up, yet you feel like excluding yourself from responsibility of any amount of participation?
Some of us had a NICE conversation (read: some asshole not coming along and shoving words in people's mouths) about gun control because of a conversation about censorship leading to a comment from me about Bullshit!'s coverage of the topic, as well as other topics, including gun control. The censorship topic naturally originating from a Movie Thread discussion because it was ABOUT censorship in films and media in general. The fact you don't wanna go back and read to answer your own question is very..... fitting.
And don't be a TOTAL sack of shit, "you guys"? YOU'RE the asshole who keeps bringing this back up, yet you feel like excluding yourself from responsibility of any amount of participation?
Some of us had a NICE conversation (read: some asshole not coming along and shoving words in people's mouths) about gun control because of a conversation about censorship leading to a comment from me about Bullshit!'s coverage of the topic, as well as other topics, including gun control. The censorship topic naturally originating from a Movie Thread discussion because it was ABOUT censorship in films and media in general. The fact you don't wanna go back and read to answer your own question is very..... fitting.
An off-topic one.
I literally quoted you dude, your exact words. Sorry that you can't handle being wrong.
If you want to read more about why you were wrong and why the 2nd Amendment does not allow civilians to own ANY weapon then look into United States v. Miller and the arguments made to support the decision, like I was originally telling you to do. It was a pretty uncontroversial decision until relatively recently in history.
Last edited:
Way to turn the movie thread into a gun-control thread. Great job, guys.
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
I saw The Road. Good movie. Small focussed plot, which made me kinda hope something big was going to happen that never did. Still, good.
Last edited by a moderator:
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
Rewatched Fight Club on bluray. Hell of a flick.
I watched Now You See Me and you know, I wasn't expecting it to be good or anything... but I really didn't expect it to be that bad. That seriously had to be the dumbest twist ending I've ever seen in a movie too.
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
Re-watched the Big Lebowski just because. Still funny.
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
I don't get that movie. I was all hyped up. It was fun, quirky. . but just ok overal in my opinion. Not that I think it's overrated, just different strokes for different folks I guess.
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
No, a conversation that branched off of a previous conversation. An "off-topic" conversation is LITERALLY changing topics to something else without warrant. We were discussing movies (the thread's topic), discussing aspects of those movies, and what one person likes and what one person has pet peeves of, then citing examples of those things to continue the discussion, then quoting what was said and continuing the conversation. At no point did the conversation go off-topic, just because the subject veered further and further away from the intended purpose of the thread. Rather, it simply gradually shifted, while maintaining the current topic at all times. There's a difference.
By the same logic, continuing this conversation is ALSO "on topic" because it both continues to be brought up and originated from the branching conversation which began "on topic" without simply and suddenly abandoning the topic.
Woops, I wasn't clear about my accusation. There's me admitting being wrong. (So, that makes you wrong, ironically.) Because I was not talking about your "quote" (taken out of context, by the way, but whatever, it was a direct quote), I'll explain further below.
BIGGER woops, you saying this bullshit (which is WHAT I was referring to):
When did I say that? Riiiiight, NEVER! But that didn't stop you from strawmanning it into the conversation and assuming that's what I meant, did it? Nope. You've got your prerogatives, so naturally that means you have to follow them through, and any and every avenue that allows you to do so is game, right? No? Well I'll provide you the benefit of the doubt. That is, that I DON'T KNOW your intentions. Cause, see, I'm NOT gonna put words in your mouth, unlike some. =P
(That also makes you doubly wrong, incidentally.)
The drafters of the constitution just got done fighting a WAR, and that war was fought with muskets and cannons (on land). There WERE no tanks, no nukes, no drones. But there WERE the methods of taking up arms in one's defense, which is what they did. The constitution's 2nd amendment had 1 very clear purpose: that IN SPITE of a standing military, which would be organized by the government for civil defense, in anticipation of an unrepresentative, tyrannical government, civilians are to be allowed- not prevented by the government -from organizing their own militia to defend themselves, and IT DOES NOT SPECIFY the nature of said "arms". VERBATUM, it reads,
"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."
This is NOT the Miller case, this is the 2nd amendment, as it was passed, in the framing of the Bill of Rights. Your precious legal precedent came AFTERWARDS. No, take notice that what I was saying was the before, and what you were saying was the after, and while I understand what you were saying, the reverse just doesn't seem to be true in the slightest. On top of your "fucking retarded" commentary and insertion of ideas and comments NEVER stated nor insinuated by myself, these lead me to conclude you not only do not understand my perspective, but that you have a warped concept of my prerogative, on top of said obliviousness. I could forgive the latter (see my mottos), but it's that presumption that I will not overlook. Nor your conduct across this discussion.
Does the 2nd amendment say that the people have the right to arm themselves with "nukes and drones"? No. Did I say that it did? No. So who's wrong about what?
Holy fucking shit, you just don't get it? I told you from the beginning, it's a legal argument you're making, and I'm NOT regarding the legal aspects of our rights AT ALL, not was I at any point. Law is about enforcement of a mandate. I personally don't care about that. I care about the IDEA of it, and that was my target all along. Said idea was about the 2nd amendment, as it was written, NOT as it was changed over the years. This makes perfect sense, so it boggles my mind how you fail to grasp this very simple concept, and how none of what you're saying has any bit of the slightest amount of relevance, despite my efforts to explain that to you.
For instance: If I were to make a comment about the PURPOSE of law enforcing civil servants (the police), and that for a long time they were SOLELY law enforcers but NOT under obligation to prevent citizens they arrested from incriminating themselves further nor needing to demonstrate/explain the full extent of their rights to them (that it was the citizen's job to know their own rights), and you came along and said, "Actually, you're wrong", it would be the SAME THING! You wouldn't understand how you COMPLETELY missed the purpose of my statement. A comment about an idea PRECEDING your legal precedent. Past tense. Before. Prior. Pre prefix. Earlier. I know there are other synonyms for me to grab, but I can't think of other ways to say that right now. I'm not sure WHY I'd need to say more than one, cause you keep getting hung up on this "current point, and all things following" idea, no matter how many times I tell you where you're getting confused.
You're operating under the false presumption that I DON'T KNOW the court cases you're referring to. Wrong. Acknowledgement that something doesn't matter is PRECISELY a knowledge of the thing, but that it is absent of relevance. I keep coming back to that word and its derivatives, "relevance", because that's where I PERCEIVE you to be continually stumbling. But, unlike you, I will admit that I DO NOT KNOW for sure that this is the case. I can only go by my observations, and I conclude that you're unable to distinguish the pertinence of relevance with respect to topics being discussed. But you sure are a sore sort, that's for sure.
Back to movies...
Seeing as the last movie I probably saw was Guardians of the Galaxy, and that was a couple months ago, I'll just comment on this:
Yep, that's a really good one. I recently had a conversation about it. I mentioned Snatch and someone said "Brad Pitt's best role" to which somebody else said "No... No, it's gotta be Fight Club." At which point opinions just started getting tossed into the ring left and right. But it was fun getting to talk about and further reminisce about Fight Club. I FULLY do not agree with the overarching anti-consumerism stance of the film, but as a work of cinema and storytelling, it's great. Great twist, great plot, great acting, great action, great narration, great humor. If this was a "rate the above mentioned film and post your own" thread, I'd give it a solid 9/10, minimum. Remember, I hardly ever doll out 10's, and when I say things are awesome, that usually means 8, so 9 from me says a lot. =)
Last edited:
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
I think you've actually misinterpreted the film there. A great scene that I noticed much more this time around is the time the Narrator notices what's going on at the house. The space monkey operation has grown vastly, and there's this whole bit where he walks around and notices the kind of corporate nature of it. Files, uniforms, reports, paperwork etc. I thought that was a great piece of visual storytelling and commentary.
But yeah, some people really take Tyler Durden's monologueing to heart, or just take the movie entirely too seriously. As you said it's just a great piece of cinema. Even the writer thought the movie was better. Not often that happens.
SnapSlav
NMA's local DotA fanatic
Admittedly, I never noticed the parallels between the space monkeys and corporate structure. That's an interesting point. I sorta came away with the notion that the film's message was about a return to simpler times, even if the narrator was against it if it meant bombs and violence. MOST people (from what I hear, anyway) always seem to gloss over any deeper meaning other than "it was him all along!!!!!!" It certainly was one of its highlights, that's for sure...
You should have read the book first. The film is good, Mortensen is amazing as usual, but it doesn't come close to the book when it comes to... intensity.
Edit: I saw some mention of what is supposedly Brad Pitt's best role. Obviously, it's his role in Twelve Monkeys. People who don't think that way should be shot. People who haven't seen that film should be shot again.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
The book is better in a lot of ways, but I thought the movie pulled it off.
Stone Cold Robert House
Mojave Rattlesnake
Not only funny - I would argue it's the greatest comedy of our time. The humor in the film has so many different layers I could watch it now after seeing it so many times and find something new; a new facial tweak, a new use of clever scripting, etc. From small pieces of dialogue like the "chinaman" exchange or more built-up sequences like the "Is this your homework Larry?" scene, it seems that every joke is so well thought out that more brilliance becomes clear the more you hear them.
Like Shakesperean plays which can be enjoyed in many levels, The Big Lebowski acts upon the recursion of dialogue, coupled with a fairly unique direction and cinematography by the Coen brothers, to build a remarkably complex movie that I don't think people recognize on first or even second viewing. The first time I saw it, I only saw a fairly funny and strange comedy movie. Only after viewing it again did I realize how much is truly going on in every scene, and it gets somehow funnier the more I watch it - not because I've come to expect the jokes (which is the case for many other movies I also like to rewatch), or that it's become a classic in my own mind, but because the humor is really so smart it becomes hilarious when you "get" it. A lot of the dialogue is ironic, if cynical, and characters have their own subtle quirks like the Dude being a vocabulary sponge and repeating things he heard earlier in the film - it's such a small, almost unnoticeable thing that they decided to make part of his personality and ends up fitting so well with the person they created, and many members of the cast have similar details.
And the characters are not just players for the punchlines, but have their own developments as well. The Dude tolerates (abiding) pretty much all kinds of insults and injuries, all the while solemnly accepting his lot in life and having a sense of humor about it; he doesn't pursue anything beyond the simple pleasures of bowling, and isn't even interested in keeping the money from the Bunny deal (all he wants is the rug). Walter is just a dick to everyone, and wants to do things his way. He refuses to accept the world around him, which is why he aggressively opposes even one frame in a bowling match. On top of that, his plans are poorly thought out, and his reasoning for everything has something to do with war. Donny is described as child-like by Walter, and spends almost the entire movie asking questions. He is also one of the few genuinely happy characters in the movie.
By itself, that information wouldn't set the movie apart from others of the genre, but when it comes together, it becomes its own brand: despite how ridiculous and outlandish the characters are... everything that they do in the film makes perfect sense, for their character. The Coens have a way about their writing that is so convincing, despite their characters having lives that we could hardly relate to at times. And good movies are chiefly about good stories, no matter how much you compensate it with good action or good loose jokes, that writing is always the core.
And it's interesting because, while each line seems to be lovingly crafted for maximum comedic effect, the writers also knew the exact moments to be completely absurd and still fit the theme in some way. This scene (put side by side with the scene from Hitchcock's "North by Northwest" it references) is what I consider the funniest sight gag in any movie I have ever seen. Why did the man draw a guy with a giant penis while talking on the phone? Why did he take the drawing with him? Who was on the phone and what could they possibly have said? The Dude's face clinches the completely senseless nature of this character's actions and yet, it doesn't feel out of place at all. For once in the movie, The Dude has a great sleuthing idea, and what does it get him? Nothing. My favorite part of this moment is when he has already shaded the image. Then he waits a beat, and shades another 2 or 3 strokes as if he might see something else to make sense of it all when there is obviously nothing else on the paper. It's somehow stupid yet entirely clever if you give it some thought. The same is true of the final scene where the ashes fall right into the Dude's face. It's a culmination of the relationship between the Dude and Walter throughout the story and the absurd moment is made hilarious by Jeff Bridges' and John Goodman's expressions and mannerisms.
There has never been a movie quite like The Big Lebowski and there never will be. It's incredibly funny, it's visually interesting, it tells a good story, it's ridiculous yet feels genuine. It's an inspired work and contains an untrappable quality that makes it a film for the ages.