Checked out the 3rd Batman flick, The Dark Knight Rises?

[Skykid]

I never liked his lisp. It might've worked in American Psycho, but it's tedious to see and listen to anywhere else

I never liked his acting much.

[xbl0x180]

Bale is a blank slate, like Keanu Reeves. There's no "acting" involved; they're just... there

[blackoak]

I saw TDKR opening night, and was kind of underwhelmed. Didn't have any great expectations, but I liked the previous two. After TDK, I was very curious about where they'd take the 3rd, thematically speaking. Batman Begins is an origin story and contrasts Batman's own vigiliantism with other less palatable types. Then TDK gives us a "personfication of madness/chaos" villain... and between these two poles, I wasn't sure where you'd take the next Batman. I felt it would probably need to be a very personal story, perhaps involving vengeance and things like that.

But instead, we basically got a rehash of the first film. The writers may have thought they were "closing the circle," but its a thankless task because no new insights are brought to the audience or the characters. Deep down I suspect the writers knew they had something weak, and just did their best. Many enjoyable scenes though. I especially like the fighting in broad daylight.

There are other, deeper problems with the film that would be interesting to discuss, because they relate to the "new" style of comic book movies generally. By that I mean the tendency toward an aesthetic of realism, but a very jarring comic book-ish sequence of events and motivations that ultimately undermines that realism. It has the lamentable effect, imo, of reinforcing certain idealistic (contra materialism) illusions about the way life is because there simply isn't an opposing view for the mainstream right now. And so we get stuff like TDKR, which shows the American flag in tatters, an innocent boy singing the national anthem, "occupy" and wall st. references, but... it all rings especially false because the film is essentially a good vs evil action fantasy, in both plot and characters. That, of course, reflects deeper anxieties/contradictions in Hollywood and American life generally.

[Skykid]

Bale is a blank slate, like Keanu Reeves. There's no "acting" involved; they're just... there

I like you, you know what you're talking about.

Regarding DKR it's disappointing to hear everyone say it's so similar to Begins, which was weak all in all. Its latter half picked up and was far superior to the former, which was poorly cast, paced, acted and scripted, and had sucky chopped up action scenes. Not a deal breaker, but it could have been much better.

Dark Knight was totally superior, despite some glaring faux pas, but I can give Nolan a pass based on the stuff he (Ledger) did well. That DKR has regressed doesn't sound promising.

[DEL]

Interesting that Mischief Maker wrote that Chicago becomes a Stalinist regime in the movie.


Skykid wrote;

Unfortunately nothing new for the US, you guys have an absurd number of indiscriminate slayings for a civilised country not domestically engaged in warfare

Indiscriminate...?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_yVRZMFbLc
1:30 Batwoman
3:43 Skeletons in a movie theatre
2:19 Gas cannisters going off
There's more in this vid released 17th July, but I won't bore you.
Was 17th July three days before the Batman RISES shooting?

Anyway, time for another credit of Pork ver1.01

[Ed Oscuro]

WARNING! A HUGE POST
"Ed writes about guns"
IS APPROACHING!

(lots of well-argued stuff)

If we assume we have this dream society where a higher percentage of the populace is armed, the last thing you'd still want are multiple people drawing and shooting in a crowded theater full of panicked people

Not as big a problem as you suppose, for two reasons:

I first ought to link the Northeastern U legal professor's article stating that it was hard to see. I already think this argument is provably false.

More interesting for your current point was another article at CNN the same day (didn't find it again), where a Michigan attorney (CCW legalities instructor, expert witness, and amateur gunsmith) pointed out that everybody in a theater - patrons, that is - is sitting in seats, lined up perfectly for "any idiot" to shoot straight up at them. He's not in those seats. Spree shooters or mass murderers typically make themselves conspicuous and want to feel powerful through their head games. The evidence we have indicates that the initial confusion by theater patrons was not that they couldn't see him, it's that their deference towards police or random movie interruptions by entertainers caused them to think he had a reason for being there. They certainly could see him and how he was dressed. He threw a tear gas grenade before firing into the crowd, at which point I believe any person with a handgun would be justified in at least drawing the gun, taking aim, and yelling at the shooter to stop. In fact, they could've started blasting away at him and none of us would be criticizing them for it, other than maybe saying "well that was a risky thing to do," which is kind of a "mind the teacups" objection in my opinion. What about the response that our government trains its agents (even armed border patrol agents!) in - "throw stuff and run away when you can?" Or how about "everybody tackle the victim?" These are the sorts of actions that still get people killed. If you're going to get killed, you might as well make the most spectacular resistance possible, and if that means somebody else might be killed, that is a reasonable risk. Nobody has a crystal ball for the future saying who will survive and who won't, so you have to rely on your best expectation of what will happen when you withhold your fire and the guy with a 100 round beta mag in his S&W AR-15 clone is allowed to keep pulling that trigger without any serious opposition. There was a time when a defensive gun owner (with a 45) failed to stop a spree shooter who was wearing body armor, but if you're at risk of dying, who says you shouldn't go out fighting? It might have been better for that guy if he was hidden, but maybe he wasn't. What makes police magical or special in this respect, anyway? There is a line from Hard Boiled where the main bad guy (a gun smuggler) tries to encourage his thugs in a hospital filled with their hostages, saying the cops only have .38s (revolvers with a slightly less powerful load and worse accuracy than your typical 9mm pistol). That doesn't stop our hero, played by Chow Yun-fat, from using exactly one of those police revolvers to put a bullet in his right eye. Sure, it's a movie.

At the same time, you have to remember that when police come to a shooting scene (like Columbine, or any other recent shooting), they do have a gun readied to fire but they are trying to determine what would be safe. Somebody in that area already has most of the information they need. I made a quip elsewhere when I said "it's not total situational awareness, it's total situational IMMERSION." Police don't have this unless they are right there, and chances are they won't have it.

Contrary to what Professor Fox writes above, this was initially NOT a confused target situation. Many people assume that defensive handgun owners are going to act like George Zimmerman is said to have acted, putting himself and others at risk. Some people unfortunately will act like this, and I agree that ideally they shouldn't have firearms if they are going to kill innocent people in pursuit of no reasonable aim. Unfortunately, there's a gap between "what we would like" theory and "what we have to settle for" practice. Some police have demonstrated the capability to shoot people repeatedly and wound innocent bystanders for what looks like no good reason.

Without needing to read a ton of reference articles, common sense will indicate what I am saying is true: A large number of defensive gun uses (DGUs) do not result in anybody being put in greater danger than they would be exposed to if a policeman was standing there with a holstered pistol. If somebody decides to mug a pedestrian, and stop because they see what might be a pistol in a holster or in clothing, that's not even going to be reflected in the statistics.

(where I'd also assume the CCW holders would be a bit panicked themselves, not really used to facing down some guy with assault rifles and body armor). Your argument isn't bad, but I don't know how realistic it is to assume that concealed weapon holders will be prepared for something like this (or the cops prepared to handle a bunch of freaked out civilians wielding guns).

A gun can be like a hammer in that guns and hammers both can facilitate the mental misjudgment that because they have the tool, every problem can be nailed. That's a problem for training.

On the "most deadliest police chases" and COPS style shows you will hear phrases like "it was the most stressful moment of my life," "when you hear the sound you know it's the real thing...nothing compares to it," and even "nothing could really prepare me for this." Possibly all in the same episode. Being in fear for your life is a situation most of us do not find ourselves in anymore. I'm for training people - mandatory training, even; I'm for improving the educational system and teaching civics in general. Back to what we actually get from training: Many cops only fire their weapon at their yearly qualification, and only marginally pass. Many don't like guns. There are plenty of stories of cops handling firearms inappropriately - their own or others. (I have even linked a video of one such case.) I'm OK if an officer's attitude is that their police work doesn't involve them firing a gun, and most cops go through their careers without ever firing a pistol in anger. However, if they are unqualified (and many do not shoot well), they are taking on unnecessary risks to themselves and to others which will become evident if they are put into a situation without the ability to operate their firearm. They need to be able to continue firing if the firearm experiences a common, easily solved stoppage that they should be drilled in clearing, and ideally they should be able to reload the weapon one-handed with either hand. If they don't have these skills, the public's trust in them to resolve a situation is eroded compared to somebody - anybody - who does have these skills. Police have a different standard than civilians; they are assumed to have a right to use force, just as states throughout the world claim the sole right to use force, and to proscribe certain types of arms to civilians, for example nuclear weapons. But having police or nuclear weapons is not a replacement for the interactions of civilians. If you are about to be killed, you can use what is available to you to try to defend yourself or defuse the situation. If there is not a police officer nearby, you are still assumed to have responsibility to not escalate a shouting match into a brawl, not to jump into a pool you can't climb out of, or use a firearm inappropriately.

I think that if somebody in a crowded theater with a firearm gets mistakenly shot by another patron or by the police instead of the bad guy, that is a risk they are implicitly taking by assuming the role of a private defender. They will have to be aware of that and take steps to prevent that. It is similar for the police, though: Police are not required to expose themselves to certain dangers - in situations like Columbine, again, where they stayed outside in order to secure their own area before moving into a situation where they might end up getting shot and worsening the situation as a result. However, by putting on the uniform, or stopping a car on the highway, or even just by taking on certain cases and duties (Miami Vice again!), police know they are exposed to risks at a higher level than the average private person. That is why police are afforded some special legal protections and are presumed to be acting in accordance with the law - they explicitly take on a wide range of duties and they need help doing so. A private individual typically is not expected to act like a Good Samaritan - they may have their own reasons for not coming to a defense; they don't need to call in sick. Any action a private person takes is voluntary, not obligatory. (Additionally, private individuals with firearms generally don't need to be protected by new laws like the Florida "Stand Your Ground" law which merely reiterated existing law and degraded one provision of the duty to retreat - allowing the spirit of the law to be misinterpreted so that people were freed even when they left a confrontation, went home, and returned to shoot their "assailant" hours later.)

I've heard a lot of pro-gun arguments about preventing crime, I've had plenty of friends who are pro-gun, and I've reached these conclusions: It's a fantasy argument pitched by angry people who feel powerless. Everyone thinks they'll be the one to execute some kind of dramatic rescue, and that CCW holders are some kind of magical super-well-trained force.

Of course that's a fantasy. Part of training needs to be understanding what actually happens in situations. Some of it is getting to know your firearms and how to use them safely (RIP Mr. Gomez - a fair amount of what I've written is influenced directly by his videos). Some of it is knowing when somebody is a threat, and when they are not. Some of it is not having a hero complex.

Gun owners are no different than politicians - we can complain about them, but we know what the ideal should be. We say that the ideal public servant is the one who didn't seek or want the office. We say the ideal defensive gun owner is the one who resolved the situation peacefully. Nobody really argues that we can do without politicians - we can argue about politics and how professional or monetized the practice of politics should be, but we still need somebody practicing politics. Just as there is no prohibition against you or I practicing politics, we could say there's no prohibition against defending yourself. A side note: Given that the bad guy in this case meekly gave up (as do many - many others commit suicide when they encounter resistance), that could've happened.

And nobody stops to think anything of what it might mean to escalate situations such as robberies by opening fire.

I meet this criticism above (look carefully the Tueller article, "How Close is Too Close?"). Basically, if somebody brandishes a hammer threateningly at me from a mile away, I might be concerned, but it isn't to the level where I would shoot them. If they are inside striking distance (which could be 21 feet, or even longer if I am unprepared), then I probably will still want to carefully withdraw for cover. What happens if your back is up against a wall? What if you're working in a convenience store and somebody tries to fight you for a cash register with a piece of wood (this happened; fight them with your mop, obviously). What if you're working in a pawn shop and gunmen burst in, shooting wildly at you (this also happened, and guns placed behind the counters every few feet drove them away). What happens when a widely-respected Thai prizefighter decides that the price of a gold bracelet is too high and decides to take out a pistol to negotiate a better deal? He gets shot to death, and people remember him as a thoughtless jackass rather than for his impressive string of victories and the person that had formerly been a public hero. Ultimately, the person has to engage with the world and this means representing who they are. If who you are is somebody who puts others in fear of their lives, you are going to cop the consequences. It's not a matter of right and wrong, but of perception.

When somebody pulls a weapon, they basically have signalled a willingness to throw the lives of others away. We all implicitly believe this, because many of us worry (as I do) about gun owners making mistakes with their firearms. The difference between the person who trains in using and keeping their weapon safely (not like this gentleman) and the thoughtless gun owner is that the conscientious gun owner is not signalling that they are ready to kill somebody, or that they don't care if somebody gets accidentally killed. Yes, that is true: Having a firearm does not mean you want to use it. Some people do have a hero complex, and that is a problem. But it's not the defining aspect of public defense. Does having big muscles signal that you want to kill people with your bare hands?

I will definitely agree that it is impossible to tell who is actually conscientious and who is just faking it. But by paying for their gun legally, going to training, and paying for any required paperwork, a gun owner has already signaled that they are willing to take measures to protect themselves and others from their firearms. Whether it is a charade - well, there's lots of pranks or even deadly actions somebody could take that we can't prohibit before the act, because the materials or capabilities that allow them are so ubiquitous (everything from poisonous gases, to knives and vehicular assaults, and more). At that point, regardless of what the method is, you are looking primarily at a response phase. There may be some line for gun control here, by saying that guns have a "mystique" for spree killers that making bombs doesn't (apparently untrue, since this theater shooter was apparently very good at making them, and wanted some spectacular explosions - like Anders Breivik, in fact). But let's be less mystically-minded for a moment and try to get some hard facts to back that up; I am open to arguments about the intersection between media, emotions, and guns, but the numbers speak more loudly towards the many people saved by guns in unremarked defensive actions.

There was an interesting case I saw recently in one of the cop shows where a convicted felon walked into a bank - in the US, you're a felon if you have a felony conviction within the past 10 years. He notices another man at a teller's window acting strangely, and the teller's acting strangely too. He rushes up and tackles the guy. Is he taking a risk? Yes, a huge risk. But as somebody who'd been down that road, he recognized the precise behavior and took a gamble that ultimately stopped a robbery in progress. Some people will focus on the fact that he could've been wrong and gotten people killed, or assaulted an innocent man, and that's fine. But ultimately he was heroic, had guts, stopped the robbery, and got public recognition for it. Did the guy in New York who held down a man in a seizure when a subway train rolled over them take a risk? Sure. Everything entails some risk. He could've been wrong in his judgment that there was enough space for the train to roll over them. He ultimately saved a life. In reality, every time you get into a car or even walk into the sun you are taking a risk. You are exposed to risks whether you like it or not. The sensible thing to do is to do what you can to prevent risks from occurring. If you are not good with firearms, don't try to load your own bullets. If you live in a place that is traditionally safe, you might not want to have a gun. There are lots of "ifs" here, but little consideration is given to the fact that in the modern world we respect the concept of freedom because it entails that the individual living their life ought to have some ideas about what their circumstances require. Most people are completely wrong about what kinds of risks they face in everyday life - the average person is more worried about spectacular risks than the little ones that will slowly eat you up. This is as true for gun owners as it is for people who want guns banned, so what actually mediates this problem is the data. The data, as I understand it, shows that legal private gun ownership has prevented a lot of deaths.

The United States has already has a lot of terrible experience with prohibitionist thinking's ill effects, and ironically that "Noble Experiment" was the ultimate cause of the biggest spike of murderous violence, gun and otherwise, that this country has ever seen. The intention was good, though. That doesn't count for a lot. Fantasies of a world without booze, or drugs, or guns is just that - a fantasy enough people find offensive enough to become criminals to prevent. And who would you really fault for being called a "criminal" if they find themselves in Nazi Germany, a Jew, and explicitly disallowed from firearms ownership? There is a lot of contradictory opinionating about the impacts of gun control laws and self-defense during that era (astonishingly, this blogger writes that "The problem is that not only was there resistance to Hitler in these [apparently, all European] areas, but there was incredibly strong resistance to Hitler on the Eastern Front," and also that guns aren't good at preventing starvation. Sheesh. I'll sound off with a AP article's quotes from one of the defenders of the Warsaw Ghetto, Marek Edelman who died in 2009:

“No one believed they would be saved,” Edelman said. “We knew the struggle was doomed, but it showed the world there was resistance against the Nazis, that you could fight the Nazis.”

We have a lot of easy access to guns already. Are we safer for it? Every time, it's "oh it didn't work THAT time because we need even *fewer* laws". Just like tax cuts and deregulation.

I agree that is the wrong argument. However, there is another basis for the argument, which is "why do we believe in absolute rights, like the right not to be enslaved, or the right to be politically active?" It is that kind of right or absolute that we should be talking about.

EDIT: Someone just posted this on FB: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quote ... 24859.html -- I guess Burroughs would have an axe to grind about gun control, given that he killed his wife in a drunken game of William Tell. William S. Burroughs, ever the model of responsible gun ownership. No, they weren't being ironic.

That's just low-hanging fruit and should be disregarded as such. Phil Spector liked guns, too. If everything I said had been a direct quote by Phil Spector, would my plagiarism or the real source refute the logic of the statement? Ad hominems get us nowhere, my friend.

Fun fact: It has been years since I have even touched a firearm, have never owned one, and have never (live) fired one. Book learnin' at its finest!

[Skykid]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_yVRZMFbLc

Jesus god my ears.

[BrianC]

While not live action, I feel Kevin Conroy has the best Batman voice. Also I thought this promo for TAS renacting scenes from TDKR was incredibly awesome.

[mesh control]

Movie had tons of funny parts. Favorites were definitely the neck snapping.

[Ed Oscuro]

While not live action, I feel Kevin Conroy has the best Batman voice. Also I thought this promo for TAS renacting scenes from TDKR was incredibly awesome.

Speaking of Kevin Conroy's awesome voice, I laughed at Batman's "bleh" clip when he's dumped on his face in that clip (at 1:02) and then turned it off. Lots of boring TAS footage forced to serve as filler. Don't get me wrong, TAS is probably my favorite (animated) series after Jonny Quest, maybe even ahead of the Fleischer Superman stuff.

[DJ Incompetent]

we basically got a rehash of the first film

[louisg]

I agree that is the wrong argument. However, there is another basis for the argument, which is "why do we believe in absolute rights, like the right not to be enslaved, or the right to be politically active?" It is that kind of right or absolute that we should be talking about.

Absolutes are for fundamentalists, libertarians, and 3rd graders. Everyone else is capable of nuance. I am generally in favor of gun ownership, but it should be well controlled ("well regulated"). I don't know why everyone has to be an extremist on this issue: Either you're for complete gun abolishment, or you freak out when people suggest that maybe you should have a license for that thing.

And I'll point out that everyone believes in gun control. You can't have surface-to-air missiles, for example, even though those would be nice to have in a gun nut's masturbatory "take down the government!" scenario. But I don't think even the NRA argues that you should be able to have them.

So, the patrons were sitting in seats all throughout the shooting, providing a clear shot the entire time? I find that hard to believe Or does the CCW owner need a front-row seat? I think in a situation like this there is a lot more chaos than you'd think. Also, have fun shooting at some guy in body armor through the tear gas. Have you even been around pepper spray? It can make you uncomfortable surprisingly far away from where it was sprayed. Tear gas I imagine is a teensy bit worse.

When it comes to store robberies, this is a different story. It's good for a store to have a gun or weapon on hand. But given that in most robberies, people want to, uh, rob, there's a reason a lot of places will just give the robber what they want and then call the cops. If pulling a gun worked more often than not, employees would be trained to shoot the bastard. It's because we don't need people with poor judgement (most people) escalating this into some kind of shootout. It doesn't mean you shouldn't be ready for a worst-case scenario, however.

here is a line from Hard Boiled where the main bad guy (a gun smuggler) tries to encourage his thugs in a hospital filled with their hostages, saying the cops only have .38s (revolvers with a slightly less powerful load and worse accuracy than your typical 9mm pistol). That doesn't stop our hero, played by Chow Yun-fat, from using exactly one of those police revolvers to put a bullet in his right eye. Sure, it's a movie.

Yes, it's a movie. An especially ridiculous hong kong action movie. And although it's my favorite action movie, I wouldn't use it as some kind of guide because I'm not a lunatic. This is exactly the problem. All these people who go shoot soda cans on weekends convince themselves that they have the right stuff to take out someone under tough conditions. "Hey, it worked for that guy in Die Hard 3!". I think especially gun fetishists have a need to consider themselves a complete bad ass, and they use their guns like it's some kind of dick extension.

And yes, EVERYONE wishes someone had got this guy before he was able to inflict damage. And I really believe these 2nd amendment arguments coming out right now are just an empty expression of that frustration. On the other hand, nobody wants to see a crime scene where the cops are trying to figure out who the hell shot who in the ensuing panic because of some poorly trained nitwit with a hero complex. And, as you pointed out, even supposedly well-trained cops are always nailing civilians. Just imagine if the cops arrive and a bunch of people are running around with their pistols like that old man who chased the robbers away in the YouTube video that's been going around (again, yes, as a pro-gun argument).

On the topic of stats: I think there are a large number of "justified" CCW brandishings a year (there's an FBI stat on it somewhere). That doesn't mean that each one would've resulted in saving a life. I saw someone before comparing it to the # of homicides every year, implying that every CCW incident would've been a murder otherwise. This is obviously stats abuse.

Ed, you've never fired a gun? It's fun! I recommend everyone do it at least once. It's a lot harder than in Call of Duty You should also attend a gun show at least once.

[xbl0x180]

Hey, so what's the story with Switzerland's citizens being armed to the teeth? How does that happen

I think there are some 2nd Amendment peeps who think they have enough arsenal amongst themselves to form an actual militia to take on a govt. that becomes unjust and overbearing. They think it'd be something like Lybia or Syria, except the U.S. govt. has WMD, chemical weapons, bioweapons, and all kinds of military goodies to take out pretty much any nation, including its own

[Mischief Maker]

we basically got a rehash of the first film

Ha ha! So the moral of Batman 3 is:

"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb!"

[Ed Oscuro]

On the topic of stats: I think there are a large number of "justified" CCW brandishings a year (there's an FBI stat on it somewhere). That doesn't mean that each one would've resulted in saving a life.

I don't believe I wrote anything suggesting that. What I will suggest, however, is that you can view the tradeoffs of such a situation:

The extreme discomfort and fear experienced by a person when a weapon is trained on them, as well as the potential danger; versus
The presumption of actual danger by a person who is ready to brandish a weapon to safeguard their person

Note that the defender does not need to expose the other party to great danger to achieve their aim of deterrence - as I said, criminals don't report when they decide to give up on a "mark" who might be packing a pistol.

Again, it comes down to people acting stupidly, and arguably this is already perfectly well controlled by the justice system. Whether I have a gun or not, and whether a person intends ill or not, if their behavior puts me in fear for my safety - assuming I can make that argument convincingly after the fact - nobody will fault me for taking some action. Moreover, brandishing a pistol (as opposed to immediately executing the worrisome party) is not more offensive to liberty and peace than the person acting in a way they shouldn't, so here it is a wash, at worst. This assumes the person doing the brandishing has a good reason - of course they don't always, but we can presume that a legally-minded, well-trained gun owner is not brandishing a weapon because they like it - and don't forget that brandishing firearms carelessly may result in a misdemeanor or felony conviction, so nobody believes they can routinely shove guns in other peoples' faces and get away with it - unless they're Phil Spector, I suppose).

I think the problem comes when we expect the law to act preemptively all the time. It doesn't. In fact, along this train of thought, I had a discussion with a very strongly anti-gun person who said that the death penalty is a good idea not because it is a preemptive deterrent, but because it is a specific deterrent of that person ever doing ill again. I will not argue extensively for the position that it is wrong to try to catch every possible mistake by private individuals in a law, because few people seriously believe that people shouldn't be free to a range of actions if they can justify them later. Few people would ban cars merely because some people drive their cars dangerously or with criminal intent; we know (or at least hope) that deterrence in the form of civil and criminal liability, and losing your license, will alert drivers to the fact that they will be responsible for any actions resulting from their abuse of driving liberties. I didn't even need to use the word "privilege" there, but if you like, we could use it without changing the argument.

I agree that is the wrong argument. However, there is another basis for the argument, which is "why do we believe in absolute rights, like the right not to be enslaved, or the right to be politically active?" It is that kind of right or absolute that we should be talking about.

Absolutes are for fundamentalists, libertarians, and 3rd graders.

The argument (for me, not for many gun rights advocates and libertarians, however, as you note) isn't that you need to always be able to exercise a positive right - freedom of speech is circumscribed when it infringes on other people's rights in a severe way, such as yelling fire in a crowded theater. But here the argument is for a negative right, and "absolute" rights tend to be negative ones. We say that people have an absolute right to a fair trial and an absolute right to self-defense (in the abstract), and many other absolute rights that must be regarded.

I think gun rights can be a negative right. The difference is this: Positive rights are things that you need to be able to actively exercise, while negative rights are things that other people should not infringe on. So I have a positive duty (just speaking ethically) to save a child drowning in a shallow pool, but I have a negative duty not to push the child down.

Lots of people will disagree with some of this, but importantly, people whose ethics are informed by the Kantian or natural law ethical theories (for example) will disagree that you can take away absolute rights (although Kant will also suggest that you should never kill, but he also says you can never lie, even to save a life).

I agree that talk of absolutes is sticky and apt to get you in trouble. I haven't been able to keep clear view of the object in talking about absolutes here, obviously. However, they are still useful, even if we feel that they are merely some kind of "anti-slippery slope" bulwark principles, and not actually grounded upon any universal truth (which I would deny, actually).

Hey, so what's the story with Switzerland's citizens being armed to the teeth? How does that happen

I think there are some 2nd Amendment peeps who think they have enough arsenal amongst themselves to form an actual militia to take on a govt. that becomes unjust and overbearing. They think it'd be something like Lybia or Syria, except the U.S. govt. has WMD, chemical weapons, bioweapons, and all kinds of military goodies to take out pretty much any nation, including its own

Well, I think that is a problem, because only the most hardened NRAers would find that they actually need a nuclear weapon.

That said, what would you do if the government suddenly went to the Nazis? We like to say "It couldn't happen here" but the bad guys don't telegraph their movements ahead of time. Rome fell after centuries, and really no system of government has been completely consistent and reliable throughout history. Individuals, not governments, are important too, and individuals tend to get lost in the cracks in momentous times like the fall of a great empire.

I would hope that the principles of the American founding fathers (and what they were based on, primarily English, Native American, and ancient philosophy / political systems) would be bulwarks to defend us against unjust actions, but unfortunately there are many injustices perpetrated on some people by our government while the rest of us go on in indifference and enjoying stability in our lives. I think the difference between the folks who emphasize "...when the government fears its people, there is liberty" (Thomas Jefferson) as a pro-private arms argument, and us, is that I would argue that injustice by the government or other sources cannot be totally wiped out, even in a theoretically perfectly functioning government. The whole structure and soundness of the government matters. Ultimately, the way people have been successful fighting injustice by the government has been by going through the courts, not by a Ruby Ridge-style standoff.

(Incidentally, as bad as the security mania and expenditures in this country have become, the government clearly still has good people inside it, as this story indicates. Sure, "our tax dollars at work" but I couldn't think of a better use for them really.)

I think by taking up this "defense against the government" line everybody loses sight of what guns are most pressingly needed for: Home defense. Simple criminals are what people most often would encounter - not black helicopters or aliens. The idea should be - a simple and reliable expedient for some situations, but not a universally applicable defense. As I've emphasized here, the ability to shoot somebody can be itself an incentive for people to use the wrong approach (the old "when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail sticking up" tendency to fit the same pattern of action to all events). So an uprising against the government is not going to be solved merely by force of arms. However, heavy arms might save your bacon against rogues long enough for wisdom to prevail. The other side of this situation is that many actors in the government selfishly wage a campaign against private recording of official actions, because it makes them look bad. Just because it's not, in of itself, going to stop corruption in government, we don't say "those silly people with their cameras, thinking they can save Rodney King." It's just one of many tools that is available to people, and should be used carefully, like any other tool.

[xbl0x180]

But wasn't the 2nd Amendment more in tune with arming people to form a local militia in case they'd have to take arms against their own govt.? I didn't think it was mainly about home defense or hunting. Hence, selling high-powered weapons with magazine clips that can hold a buncha bullets. I think those harrcore NRA members look to China, North Korea, Iran, and those dictatorships where people have nothing to defend themselves against their murderous govts.

[Ed Oscuro]

I think the idea of a "well regulated militia" was more in line with the modern National Guard ("a well regulated militia"). I think that portion of the Second Amendment really covers something different from all private gun ownership. However, the second part of the line seems pretty obvious: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Even if, as many people assert, the Second Amendment is only about the first part ("a well regulated militia"), the Constitution elsewhere provides (in the Ninth Amendment) that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Speaking of looking to countries with murderous regimes, actually, you find the "firearms for the people" argument in some seemingly surprising places. The author of this Finnish page is interested in the history of Finnish resistance against the Russian Empire, and writes:

Gun Control - creation of a dictatorship !

Governor-general Bobrikov [of the Russian Imperial occupation] was fully authorized dictator in Finland since 1903. Among his very first dictations was "A Gracious Act On The Registration And License-compulsion Of The Rifled Fire-arms". Those compulsions were applied to rifled shoulder arms only, including the "gallery rifles", chambered for .22 BB Caps or similar pipsqueaks, known as FLOBERT rounds. Shotguns and handguns were free from registration or license-compulsion. Then-modern military rifles, like Swedish Mauser, were especially risky to possess and use on the outdoor shooting ranges.

I am no expert on German laws, but I recently read that German Jewry looked to pass weapons laws for protection in the pre-Nazi era, which Hitler supposedly vowed to overturn, only to renege on that promise and ban gun ownership first to Jews.

The Straight Dope website seems to have an excellent analysis of this issue here. I won't repeat its conclusions here, but I will strongly recommend reading it, except for one mistake it makes:

Did gun control, then, pave the way for the Nazi rise to power? If guns had been readily available, would the people have risen against their oppressors? That seems dubious. The Nazis had a great deal of popular support. Much of their campaign of intimidation involved old-fashioned strongarm tactics, not guns. Had opponents of the regime been armed, and had there been a tradition of armed resistance in Germany, the Nazis might have had a tougher time of it. But that gets us into a pretty speculative realm.

The author gets sloppy here - in bold I place what I believe are the wrong questions. Yes, if your nation decides to crush you, you're probably screwed. But I think you still have a right to make a stance to protect yourself and your family - your people and entire way of life, in this case. As the author noted earlier, it's hard to have a rebellion without weapons; weapons are one of the prerequisites to effective resistance. Again, saying that "it doesn't matter" is the wrong way of looking at it. Every little thing matters and can make a huge deal. If you can strike a blow against injustice, you should, even if you feel your situation is hopeless - as the Warsaw Ghetto fighter said.

[BrianC]

While not live action, I feel Kevin Conroy has the best Batman voice. Also I thought this promo for TAS renacting scenes from TDKR was incredibly awesome.

Speaking of Kevin Conroy's awesome voice, I laughed at Batman's "bleh" clip when he's dumped on his face in that clip (at 1:02) and then turned it off. Lots of boring TAS footage forced to serve as filler. Don't get me wrong, TAS is probably my favorite (animated) series after Jonny Quest, maybe even ahead of the Fleischer Superman stuff.

It's not meant to be a best of, just bits and pieces of series footage with voice overs quoting dialog from TDKR to make it look like scenes from movie. I like Johnny Quest too, but one of the better HB shows in my opinion, and argubly the best FF media adaption, was their 60s Fanastic Four cartoon. Another cartoon I like is the recent Avengers Earth's Mightest Heroes cartoon (though the art style is a mixed bag).

[Randorama]

WARNING! A HUGE POST
"Ed writes about guns"
IS APPROACHING!

(lots of well-argued stuff)

Paragraphs are too long.

Fail, repeat course, play Blazeon as punishment.

(had to say it).

Saw this one at the cinema. Fell asleep during the second part. Did not pay, once more and no, I am in SVE now, so I used a different trick than for Avatar. I found it really, really dull, to the point that I can't even point my finger of what was lacking. WTF?

[CMoon]

Just a couple thoughts:

1) Why are all the weirdos attracted to batman? Seriously, it seems every town has some loony swinging between buildings and building a batmobile in their backyard. I don't see a lot of aquaman want-to-be's. Perhaps it is no mistake we have phrases like 'bat shit crazy'.

2) Forget Batman; it's muthaluvin' GOATMAN: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/2 ... 90561.html

[evil_ash_xero]

To compare Christian Bale to Keanu Reeves is ridiculous.

Anyway, better than Begins, not as good as Dark Knight.

Very good film. Slow start though.

[Skykid]

To compare Christian Bale to Keanu Reeves is ridiculous.

Haha, why?

They're both shit, and Keanu Reeves was in Bill & Ted and Point Break/instant cred.

[PC Engine Fan X!]

Saw this one at the cinema. Fell asleep during the second part. Did not pay, once more and no, I am in SVE now, so I used a different trick than for Avatar. I found it really, really dull, to the point that I can't even point my finger of what was lacking. WTF?

Fell asleep during the second half of watching TDKR? That calls for a proper second viewing just to find out what happens to the Dark Knight himself. Paying such good money to go see a film, even if I'm really tired, I'd stay awake to see what happens next.

Could it be the very relaxing, darkened and air-conditioned atmosphere that's likely to induce for some folks to catch a bit of (quality) napping time during a movie showing? Some movie theaters in the U.S. have some very robust surround sound systems in place & are capable of outputting at up to 18,000 watts easily (for some bone-jarring super heavy bass going on). Not to mention some of those THX certified theaters, where every so often a THX sound techincian comes to properly calibrate the audio system so that it sounds perfect when showing a sample movie.

PC Engine Fan X! ^_~

[evil_ash_xero]

To compare Christian Bale to Keanu Reeves is ridiculous.

Haha, why?

They're both shit, and Keanu Reeves was in Bill & Ted and Point Break/instant cred.

All the cred from playing Ted is nullified by his Constantine.

[Randorama]

Saw this one at the cinema. Fell asleep during the second part. Did not pay, once more and no, I am in SVE now, so I used a different trick than for Avatar. I found it really, really dull, to the point that I can't even point my finger of what was lacking. WTF?

Fell asleep during the second half of watching TDKR? That calls for a proper second viewing just to find out what happens to the Dark Knight himself. Paying such good money to go see a film, even if I'm really tired, I'd stay awake to see what happens next.

Could it be the very relaxing, darkened and air-conditioned atmosphere that's likely to induce for some folks to catch a bit of (quality) napping time during a movie showing?

I found the movie boring, to be fair. I didn't like the action, it felt too exaggerated, and yet very clichéd. Were they using stock explosions, or something? I also felt a bit of pity for Anne Hathaway, she was completely out of place.

At least I saw a bit of Michael Caine, so everything's fine. *Goes to watch The Ipcress file*

[Mischief Maker]

I found it really, really dull, to the point that I can't even point my finger of what was lacking. WTF?

Perhaps because it's a 2 and a half hour "Batman" movie where Batman only shows up for, like, 15 minutes of screentime?

I'm guessing the original title, before the marketing people stepped in, was "Bruce Wayne gets off his ass."

[Jon]

They're both shit, and Keanu Reeves was in Bill & Ted and Point Break/instant cred.

The Rivers Edge was better than either of those movies.

[xbl0x180]

They're both shit, and Keanu Reeves was in Bill & Ted and Point Break/instant cred.

The Rivers Edge was better than either of those movies.

That was because of Dennis Hopper, who played "Feck" the crazy drunkard! Keanu was also in the cheezorama 80s flick, The Night Before, with Lori Laughlin (I thought she was cute as hell back then). I think this is the movie that has a scene where Keanu eats some gnarly burrito and has a nightmare where he's swimming inside his own stomach and catches a floating bean!

[PC Engine Fan X!]

Yep, Lori Laughlin was cast in the Amityville Horror 3-D sequel as well. Yeah, she was quite a doll back in her younger days and even on the comedy sitcom, Full House, also.

PC Engine Fan X! ^_~

[Ed Oscuro]

At least I saw a bit of Michael Caine, so everything's fine. *Goes to watch The Ipcress file*

Dude! I totally forgot to put that one on my playlist. Thanks a bunch. That's a great film.

You know, when I first heard the line from "A Day In The Life" about the the guy who didn't know the light had changed, I immediately thought of that film. (That's the film, right?)