Has anyone seen this criminally stupid movie? I don't understand how some people can be so disconnected from reality.
If they really want to save lives they should outlaw cars. Wow! Wouldn't that be a riot in the attempt.

http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/hevans_20060303.html

Yeah, I saw that movie, on video of course, not full price at a theater. I didn't get the same impression as these reviewers. I didn't see the focus as guns, in and of themselves, being bad. Maybe that's because I already have my own biased notion of how things work. I saw it as being about a person, Yuri, who found gun running to be lucrative, and lacking much of a conscience, he also found it convenient to not care much about the laws that attempt to control it. In a sense, one take home message is that having a conscience can get you killed, since that's what happens to Yuri's brother.

So yes, it makes the list of stupid movies, but I don't think it's criminally stupid by any stretch.

You gotta get past the NRA snivel-fest to see what the movie was really about. It wasn't some anti-gun tirade, or a liberal conspiracy to disarm American. It was about war. It was about how the Arms Race is an international phenomenom that recognizes no borders, political parties, or genuine loyalty.

But, yeah, I guess from an OP-ED point of view written by someone whose intent is to "teach a philosophical approach to conservatism," I guess it's seen as just another attack on the 2nd Amendment. But since the movie was partially based on actual true events in recent international history, perhaps it will make people wonder why our enemies are shooting at us with American made M16's, M4's, and M249's.

Thread drift - -

Harley,

I have wondered why American made arms can end up in other countries. Doesn't the DOD issue contracts to American manufacturers, whether it's small arms or fighter jets, to R & D weapons with desired characteristics? Then the military purchases however many guns, missles, and jets they need and or are authorized. And since capitalism is good, the manufacturers make more guns, missles, and jets and sell them to any country on the U.S. gov't's "approved" list at that time?

Not that U.S. made weapons are always the best, but they're probably the best we have. So why would we want anyone who might end up turning them against us to also have them? Unless it was simply because it was a good short term business deal.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

I certainly don't recall any solutions offered by the movie, I think it was just intended to get people to think about the supply lines to 3rd world countries coming from the US and illustrated that with a pretty normal guy who couldn't break away from the routine and the big $$'s, even when his life and his marriage were threatened.

I thought the 'Arms Race' was a title given to the competition 'twixt the USSR and the USA in their efforts to make MAD a reality.
Don't go bad-mouthing the NRA. Their support for the Second Amendment is what keep the First in place and helps permit our blubberings to be acceptable behaviour rather than violations of the state ban on critisism of the State. Now what 90 mile away Sovereignity does that bring to mind.

All right Salmo g. I'll drop the adjective criminal. I was incensed. We use that same adjective to describe our justice system and that makes the description accurate.

I saw the movie as well, I didn't get the same message as the op ed couple did, nor did I get that Americans are stockpiling the worldwith arms, (I'm just using the way he was exporting the Russian weapons all over after the fall of the Soviet Union). The message was pretty simple...war is lucrative, and international. If you've got a gun to sell someone will buy it. I have nothing against guns, have some myself. But, on the other side of that same coin, we are being shot at by weapons we sold Iraq and by weapons we sold Afghanistan, let's not forget the Kalishnikovs the russians dumped on the market, in fact China is buying up a whole mess of Russias surplus including some of the larger things like navy ships, missiles, etc. We're in a perpetual war, always have been since Cane and Abel, war is happening somewhere all the time. I think the movie was little more directed at war profiteering, as what the main character did was illegal, and at the same time the major arms manufacturers were ticked at how he was taking their business. Not a great movie, but what Nocholas Cage movie is? (besides raising arizona of course).

Gotta agree on the thespian talent of Nicholas Cage. I have read a bit about the Navajo talkers and the movie they made about them didn't begin to do 'em justice.
I think the Lord of War was designed to help pave the way for the UN's efforts to disarm private citizens, here, there and everywhere. Perhaps I'm just being paranoid but I don't think so. the collection of 50 nations that are now now now working at the UN to make this happen is not just a bad dream, it's real.

I lived in the four corners region for awhile when I was younger, I had a chance to meet a code talker at school one year, around veterans day I think. He never spoke directly about the war, but did speak to how proud he was to serve his country with such a speacial gift. Couldn't vote, own land and still enlisted to serve, can't be all bad, huh??

"I think the Lord of War was designed to help pave the way for the UN's efforts to disarm private citizens"

I'm not sure I agree with the movie propaganda part, more like Hollywood trying out a subject it can't really grasp. When the UN comes after my guns is when they get to meet the mean end of my sported M1917 enfield 30-06. I take my freedom seriously enough to know that I'm not giving up my guns for a body that wants to imperialize the world under the guise of allied efforts.

Salmo,

Take Salmosalar's example above. At one time we had an interest in arming Iraq. Then they became our enemy. Now we're arming them again.

Remember Ollie North? Who knows where those weapons are today.

Sard,
The Second Amendment will never go away because of the First Amendment and vice versa. My beef with the NRA is that I believe they're fear mongers and bring much of the heat upon themselves. They don't hesitate to cry and whine when some piece of legislation is debated that will reduce criminal access to weapons, but they are deafeningly mute when it comes to prosecuting some idiot that's killed someone, or just shot them in the face, because of carelessness or stupidity.

Canada has spent millions and many times over the 2 milliion projected by the government to buy back guns. And there is no end in sight to the cash hemorhage. It is working so well that Boston thought they should emulate the Canadian Faux Paux. Stupitidy must be virulently contagious. Gun control is not the answer, self control is.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editori...ot_in_the_dark/

The NRA isn't lying to you Aunty M. You do have those rights. There are places where you will have to fight city hall to enjoy them but the fight needs to be engaged. The NRA has limited funds and they apply them where they believe they will do the most good. I shouldn't say 'they' because in this case 'I' will do. I contribute whenever finances permit. I have a concealed carry permit. Not possible without the NRA's efforts. I don't have the exact number of states that honor each other's carry permits. I do know the number is in excess of 40. Have to check their web site to be sure. I also agree with the premise. If your state has taken your $6o., in this case, and vetted you and issued you a permit. That permit should be honored in all 50 states.
If more citizens joined the NRA and voted their rights the issue would be a non-issue. But as long as voter apathy rules, and as long as there are those people that know how you should live your life better than you do hold sway your rights will be in need of constant defence.
One facet of any politician that may be trying to get my vote is his/her stance on the Second Amendment. I try not to be a one issue voter, but the aforementioned stance carries a lot of weight with me.
There is a misunderstanding that occured earlier when Go Harley mentioned the First and Second amendments. I meant to imply that the First Amendment (and all the others for that matter) stand on the shoulders of the Second.
If this country loses the real meaning of the Second Amendment to the snake oil vendors of the gun grabber groups, includiing the UN. It will be just a matter of 'when' not 'if' that the First takes a hit in the name of "bla blah" or some other BS justification.
Put away soap box.
BTW in both England and Australia the disarming of the populace has created an asymtotic rise in murder, rape and muggings. Easy prey for criminals who don't give a Rat's derriere about the laws of the land.
They just don't get it.

Sard,

Believe Aunty when she says the NRA is lying to us. I lost the link when my hard drive crashed last Dec., but maybe Aunty will repost it. It's about the U.S. Supreme Court decision from around the 1930s that compromised (interpreted) the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. That established the precedent for cities and states to invoke laws more restrictive than what most 2nd Amendment advocates believe.

What do you think about the Constitutional framers intent against there being a permanent army controlled by the Federal government? Hasn't the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment already been lost, given the longstanding presence of the permanent federal army? How would individual citizen/militia defend themselves/ourselves and the Bill of Rights against a Federal tyranny, when the Federal gov't. has a massive permanent army/navy/air force/marines at its disposal?

Fishpolelease,

The UN won't be coming to your home to seize your firearms. If anyone does, it will be your local city police or county sheriff's deputies. And they will have all the necessary legal paperwork allowing them to do so. If you resist, you will be a criminal and subject to the prevailing justice system of your state and federal government. What are you going to do? Shoot at your local cop?

I support the 2nd Amendment. But I also think that other supporters ought to think before they say or write dumb comments.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

I don't want to get into a State's Rights brouhaha. However, the Supreme Court dodges many of these cases on just that basis. In my humble and perhaps imperfect opinion. I suggest that given enough word support and funding the NRA could bring a lawsuit to the level of the Supreme Court that would force the matter of the Second Amendment to be heard. The 2nd is smack on about the caprice of the California gun ban and some others. The term 'Assault Weapon' is typical gun grabber verbiage. My granson's Easton Little League Bat is an Assault Weapon when used in that venue. We can argue this 'til the cows come in for milking and it won't change what needs to be changed. Trying to outlaw something simply because you are afraid of it is foolhardy. And politicians trying to disarm their subjects should be so transparent that the would be outlawer should be ridden out of town on a fence rail. The list is a long one too.