Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Drayno

Anti-Gun propaganda on show 'Glee'

65 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

http://news.yahoo.co...s-politics.html

Source: Yahoo news

Quotation by character played by Jane Lynch.

…the safety net of the public mental health system is gone. Parents with troubled kids are too busy working three jobs to look after them. And the gun yahoos have everyone so worked up about Obama taking away their guns that everybody has a readily available arsenal.

Hail glorious leader Obama, friend of the media.

Just as Biden thanked CNN for their efforts on promoting Gun Control, thank you Fox for not allowing these gun-nuts to tarnish our dear leader's vision. As this episode of Glee is in conjunction with all the other pieces of evidence of the indoctrination of our youth, let is not forget that there is a battle currently being waged over our basic right to self-defense and the mind's of young children every where.

Edited by Eonwe
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd frankly be much more worried if Glee was sponsored by the NRA.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd frankly be much more worried if Glee was sponsored by the NRA.

I rather stick with the lobby that at least gives me the opportunity to defend myself.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, the actual title of the article is more accurate than the one made up by the OP for the title of this thread. I watch Glee, thought it was a good episode. There have been several other TV shows that have depicted school shootings over the years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I rather stick with the lobby that at least gives me the opportunity to defend myself.

I'd rather stay as far away as possible from people who believe that they have to have Guns in order to be able to "defend themselves", thanks. Who are you so afraid of?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Glee is on Fox. Republican central. Bring it up at the next klan meeting.

Edited by jtsmith
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Operation Mockingbird, ring a bell, anyone?

http://en.wikipedia....ion_Mockingbird

Prime example of it happening:

It's all about seeds. That's how you make the majority of people think a certain way. Plant seeds everywhere and let them brainwash themselves. It's actually genius. Trying to tell people what to do doesn't work. Seeds does the exact same thing but works. It's hilarious. That's how you herd the cattle.

I'd rather stay as far away as possible from people who believe that they have to have Guns in order to be able to "defend themselves", thanks. Who are you so afraid of?

The government.

They want their guns to stop tyranny, not defend themselves for burglars etc.

This is what a lot of people outside the US don't get. Or people in the US who aren't educated on the subject.

I see all my British friends on Facebook saying to take the guns but none of them have a clue.

This is why they want their guns and rightly so:

Being British sucks, complete slave system and we can't do anything about it because our freedom was taken a long time ago.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'd rather stay as far away as possible from people who believe that they have to have Guns in order to be able to "defend themselves", thanks. Who are you so afraid of?

  1. Our Government
  2. Foreign infantry
  3. Armed robbers / home invaders
  4. Spree killers

Considering the Japanese did not invade mainland US during World War II as there would be "a gun behind every blade of grass", and the Second Amendment was created as a safeguard against enemies foreign and domestic - a high rate of gun ownership acts as a deterrent in the case the US is ever occupied by enemy troops. Places like Afghanistan, which was occupied by both Soviet forces and US forces within the past 40 years, were able to hold off their occupiers and eventually wear them out through attrition.

The fear of Government is a rational one. If every person killed as a result of Democide (death by Government) in the 20th century had an average height of 5 feet, and you were to lay every person killed from head to toe, the bodies would circle the Earth more than three times. Considering Alexander Hamilton, the First Treasurer of the United States - one of the most influential interpreters of the US Constitution - and one of the authors of the Federalist Papers - wrote that the role of the militia was to fight against despotism in the Federalist Papers No 29 - and the Second Amendment expresses that an armed population is necessary for the continuation of a free country, common sense dictates that our founders set down the legal framework to prevent any form of Government tyranny by allowing the population the ability to choose to exercise their "God-given rights" (rights preexisting for humans by virtue of their existence in the human condition; rights that Government did not give, and thus can not take away - rights that Government merely protect) outlined in the Bill of Rights, such as the responsibility of defending themselves and their communities by being armed.

If they so choose so.

Edited by Eonwe
7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glee is on Fox. Republican central. Bring it up at the next klan meeting.

Don't rewrite history. The klan is a democrat organization.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well if victims families can become lobbyists, instead of allowing reasoned debate but instead force the 'emotional impact' of situations on people like emotional rape, why not television shows?

I'd also like to add any politician saying that the public has forgotten about the tragedies is obviously playing politics. Forgotten? About mass shootings? I can see where you place our intellect, Mr. Obama.

Edited by Hasina
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the end of that episode of Glee. The gun-hate was pretty thick. But, I think it was just for the Drama of teenagers under lockdown in a school who for some reason think they are going to all die. "I love you man", "No, I love you".....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being British sucks, complete slave system and we can't do anything about it because our freedom was taken a long time ago.

Ealdwita snippet alert.......

Ignoring the four Acts passed by James II, the first 'restrictive' firearms laws were passed after the Jacobite Rebellion of 1715, and only applied to Scotland initially. "An act for the more effectual securing the peace of the highlands in Scotland" and came into effect on November 1, 1716 which outlawed anyone in defined parts of Scotland from having "in his or their custody, use, or bear, broad sword or target, poignard, whinger, or durk, side pistol, gun, or other warlike weapon" unless authorised. This was reinforced by another 'Scottish' Act passed in 1725.

The first nationwide controls came within the 'Vagrancy Act' of 1824, ostensibly as a reaction against the large number of people roaming the country with weapons brought back from the Napoleonic Wars. The Act allowed the police to arrest "any person with any gun, pistol, hanger [dagger], cutlass, bludgeon or other offensive weapon ... with intent to commit a felonious act".

The Gun Licence Act 1870 was created to raise revenue. It required a person to obtain a licence to carry a gun outside his own property for any reason. A licence was not required to buy a gun. The licences cost 10 shillings (about £31 in 2005 terms), lasted one year, and could be bought over the counter at Post Offices.

And it was all downhill from there.

The Pistols Act 1903 placed restriction on gun sales.

The Firearms Act 1920 (partly spurred by fears of a possible surge in crime from the large number of firearms available following WWI).

Then another Act (1937) covered shotguns and air weapons.

The 1968 Act brought all firearms in the UK under one statute of Law and existed until the Hungerford massacre when an Amendment was passed effectively prohibiting semi-automatic and pump-action centre-fire rifles, military weapons firing explosive ammunition, short shotguns that had magazines, and both elevated pump-action and self-loading rifles.

1997 brought the Firearms Act Amendment No2), banning private possession of handguns almost completely.

Now in the UK, only robbers, murderers and 'gangstahs' have self-defensive-type firearms, and the British Public have neither the right of self-defence nor proper redress against criminals!

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I watched the end of that episode of Glee. The gun-hate was pretty thick. But, I think it was just for the Drama of teenagers under lockdown in a school who for some reason think they are going to all die. "I love you man", "No, I love you".....

Having sat (unwillingly) through most of an epsode of 'Glee' in the past, my sympathies are entirely with the gunman!

Edited by ealdwita
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  1. Our Government
  2. Foreign infantry
  3. Armed robbers / home invaders
  4. Spree killers

[1] Pure paranoia

[2] Who's that, then? North korea? Or are we talking about the UN?

[3] & [4]: perhaps the reason that one needs [so one says] to have Guns to protect oneself from Spree killers is that Guns are so easy to have that any Spree killer or even just someone robbing one's home that one might encounter might well be likely to have one themselves. Self-perpetuating cycle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now in the UK, only robbers, murderers and 'gangstahs' have self-defensive-type firearms, and the British Public have neither the right of self-defence nor proper redress against criminals!

And the likelihood of any member of the Public who's not a member of a Gang ever encountering anyone who's got any kind of criminal intent who might be packing a piece is, what...? Somewhat less than negligible? Even in inner city urban areas, when the likelihood of carrying a knife is immeasurably more likely. And how often does one encounter a Murderer while out shopping?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd much rather carry a gun and not need it than the other way around!

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ealdwita snippet alert.......

Ignoring the four Acts passed by James II, the first 'restrictive' firearms laws were passed after the Jacobite Rebellion of 1715, and only applied to Scotland initially. "An act for the more effectual securing the peace of the highlands in Scotland" and came into effect on November 1, 1716 which outlawed anyone in defined parts of Scotland from having "in his or their custody, use, or bear, broad sword or target, poignard, whinger, or durk, side pistol, gun, or other warlike weapon" unless authorised. This was reinforced by another 'Scottish' Act passed in 1725.

The first nationwide controls came within the 'Vagrancy Act' of 1824, ostensibly as a reaction against the large number of people roaming the country with weapons brought back from the Napoleonic Wars. The Act allowed the police to arrest "any person with any gun, pistol, hanger [dagger], cutlass, bludgeon or other offensive weapon ... with intent to commit a felonious act".

The Gun Licence Act 1870 was created to raise revenue. It required a person to obtain a licence to carry a gun outside his own property for any reason. A licence was not required to buy a gun. The licences cost 10 shillings (about £31 in 2005 terms), lasted one year, and could be bought over the counter at Post Offices.

And it was all downhill from there.

The Pistols Act 1903 placed restriction on gun sales.

The Firearms Act 1920 (partly spurred by fears of a possible surge in crime from the large number of firearms available following WWI).

Then another Act (1937) covered shotguns and air weapons.

The 1968 Act brought all firearms in the UK under one statute of Law and existed until the Hungerford massacre when an Amendment was passed effectively prohibiting semi-automatic and pump-action centre-fire rifles, military weapons firing explosive ammunition, short shotguns that had magazines, and both elevated pump-action and self-loading rifles.

1997 brought the Firearms Act Amendment No2), banning private possession of handguns almost completely.

Now in the UK, only robbers, murderers and 'gangstahs' have self-defensive-type firearms, and the British Public have neither the right of self-defence nor proper redress against criminals!

Brilliant post Ealdwita. :tu:

Never actually knew most of that. Just vague bits of it. Glad you posted it saves me doing my homework. Haha

The first part makes it so obvious what gun/weapon control is about. I used to read about about how the government/Royals at the time time tried to control Scotland with some outrageous laws making the Scottish out to be second class to English. It's jsut a shame that the Rich and powerful in Scotland sold out to the Rich and powerful in England. Ended the chnace of the Scottish being able to liberate the English. Would have been a great moment in History if the people of Scotland, Wales, Ireland and England completely took down the government/Royals.

I'd much rather carry a gun and not need it than the other way around!

I have a crossbow, but I've not tried carrying it in public. Haha

And the likelihood of any member of the Public who's not a member of a Gang ever encountering anyone who's got any kind of criminal intent who might be packing a piece is, what...? Somewhat less than negligible? Even in inner city urban areas, when the likelihood of carrying a knife is immeasurably more likely. And how often does one encounter a Murderer while out shopping?

Depends on the area.

I know people who have rooms full of firearms and higher grade military stuff, like grenade launchers. lol

[1] Pure paranoia

[2] Who's that, then? North korea? Or are we talking about the UN?

[3] & [4]: perhaps the reason that one needs [so one says] to have Guns to protect oneself from Spree killers is that Guns are so easy to have that any Spree killer or even just someone robbing one's home that one might encounter might well be likely to have one themselves. Self-perpetuating cycle?

[1] It's not paranoia if it's justified. That's the exact rubbish the Government tried to sue to devalue people. Do you work for a government agency or something? lol

[2] The UN might be signing an agreement to allow foreign troops to be used to patrol countries in the UN, it's a way around proper martial law.

[3]&[4] If that is the case then it's still better that the innocent have their rights and freedom than the innocent suffer because of the criminals. That is like saying we should all be chipped and tagged like cattle because not all of us cna be trusted to behave. Let me guess you back the ID chip idea?

Edited by Coffey
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd much rather carry a gun and not need it than the other way around!

If someone has a gun, then there's always the possibility that it might be used, and if that person is just an average person not trained in the use of firearms, the results are quite likely to be significantly more dangerous than if they didn't have one in the first place. In what circumstances would you envisage possibly needing a gun from day to day? Whenever a person saw anyone who they thought looked at them in a funny way? Would their use be strictly limited to only if someone pulled a Gun on them? or would people be free to blast away at anyone at all if they felt remotely threatened?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[1] It's not paranoia if it's justified. That's the exact rubbish the Government tried to sue to devalue people. Do you work for a government agency or something? lol

[2] The UN might be signing an agreement to allow foreign troops to be used to patrol countries in the UN, it's a way around proper martial law.

[3]&[4] If that is the case then it's still better that the innocent have their rights and freedom than the innocent suffer because of the criminals. That is like saying we should all be chipped and tagged like cattle because not all of us cna be trusted to behave. Let me guess you back the ID chip idea?

[1] what? I'm not sure i understand that. lol

[2] of course they might, yes; this is the same all-powerful secret international organisation that couldn't do a blind thing to stop G.W. Bush invading whoever he liked. lol.

[3] & [4]; again, sorry? What on earth do ID chips have to do with anything? lol.

[5] lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[1] Pure paranoia

[2] Who's that, then? North korea? Or are we talking about the UN?

[3] & [4]: perhaps the reason that one needs [so one says] to have Guns to protect oneself from Spree killers is that Guns are so easy to have that any Spree killer or even just someone robbing one's home that one might encounter might well be likely to have one themselves. Self-perpetuating cycle?

It is a perpetuating cycle. Guns are here. And unless everybody in the world throws theirs into a volcano all at the same time they will always be here. You want them taken from good people knowing well that bad guys and oppressive governments will always have them. But...

And the likelihood of any member of the Public who's not a member of a Gang ever encountering anyone who's got any kind of criminal intent who might be packing a piece is, what...? Somewhat less than negligible? Even in inner city urban areas, when the likelihood of carrying a knife is immeasurably more likely. And how often does one encounter a Murderer while out shopping?

...If it's such an unlikely occurrence then why get rid of them?

Gangs are an issue, they don't just shoot each other and they hardly own the criminal market. Criminal intent and activity span the human spectrum.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, even if people got rid of all their guns, simple guns can be made out of piping and various household items, it has and can be done so that is no solution. Its only paranoia if you choose to ignore pretty much the whole of human history... Im sure people in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia said the same thing, "youre just being paranoid, as if the government would ever harm us". In fact, I read a book by Elie Wiesel and he said during the Holocaust, Jews who were fleeing western europe were passed off as paranoid or insane when they tryed telling other communities of the horrors they witnessed. It is just endlessy naive to think it will never happen again, especially when our governments are rubbing their recent power grabs in our faces. And I still can't wrap my head around these people who keep saying gun to defend your property/family is unneccesary... Criminals would have a hayday if they knew most houses were unarmed. Then again, these people who advocate for less guns and more control, are usually the ones advocating for the human rights of a murderer or rapist over their victims.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

[1] what? I'm not sure i understand that. lol

[2] of course they might, yes; this is the same all-powerful secret international organisation that couldn't do a blind thing to stop G.W. Bush invading whoever he liked. lol.

[3] & [4]; again, sorry? What on earth do ID chips have to do with anything? lol.

[5] lol.

[1]How can you not understand that it's simple. If someones worry is justified, like the fact the government is taking peoples freedom. Then it's not paranoia. Paranoia is people worrying about things that won't happen and it's a mental state. Not the same as justified worry.

[2] HAHAHAHAHA you honestly think that monkey Bush was behind making wars? He couldn't even remember what he was supposed to eb saying half the time. lol

[3] Everything to do with it. You are saying innocent people shouldn't own firearms because criminals and nutjobs can get them easier. That's exactly the same as saying everyone should have ID chips because anyone could be a criminal. It's absurd and taking freedom from those who are innocent. What happened happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Edited by Coffey
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[

[3] & [4]: perhaps the reason that one needs [so one says] to have Guns to protect oneself from Spree killers is that Guns are so easy to have that any Spree killer or even just someone robbing one's home that one might encounter might well be likely to have one themselves. Self-perpetuating cycle?

That may certainly be a self-perpetuating cycle, but are law abiding citizens just supposed to give up our guns, in hopes that the spree killing criminals will as well?

Until I can be guaranteed that no bad guys have guns, I'll hold onto mine.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://news.yahoo.co...s-politics.html

Source: Yahoo news

Quotation by character played by Jane Lynch.

Hail glorious leader Obama, friend of the media.

Just as Biden thanked CNN for their efforts on promoting Gun Control, thank you Fox for not allowing these gun-nuts to tarnish our dear leader's vision. As this episode of Glee is in conjunction with all the other pieces of evidence of the indoctrination of our youth, let is not forget that there is a battle currently being waged over our basic right to self-defense and the mind's of young children every where.

Seems a cop out to blame the media all the time. They get to exercise their freedom of speech as well. If we only had 1 television station, or 1 source of information, then maybe, but if kids are indoctrinated by the media, it's only the parents fault for allowing it. There are plenty of opposing viewpoints out there, and quite frankly that Freedom of Speech amendment is just as important as that Right to Bear arms one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.