Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/17/2005 1:48:45 PM EDT
Basic Plot:

LORD OF WAR is an action/adventure story set in the world of international arms dealing. The main character, Yuri Orlov (played by Nicolas Cage) is a Russian immigrant who lives in New York. The movie starts out in 1982 and continues up to 2001. Yuri works his way up from a small-time peddler of fireams with the help of his brother (played by Jared Leto) to become an international arms dealer to many third world countries. He meets and weds a famous model (played by Bridget Moynahan). They have a son together and he sets them up with a wealthy lifestyle, while all the while maintaining secrecy as to his real source of cash. He uses about every trick in the book to stay one step ahead of a relentless Interpol agent (Ethan Hawk), while selling his goods to dictators worldwide. Supposedly the film is based on a true story.

My wife and I saw the film today. It was about as blatantly anti-gun as could be, but all the machinegun action more than made up for it. AK-47's dominated the firearms action, with brief showings by M16's, an M60, and a couple of Uzi's. If you are a connoisseur of Kalashnikov rifles, then this movie is a must see. The movie makes it appear that all the world's problems are caused by a proliferation of small arms. In fact, subtitles at the end of the film state that the biggest troublemakers in the world as far as small arms trafficking is concerned were five countries holding permanent positions in the U.N.

I recommend going and seeing it for the gun play, but be sure to discard the anti-gun notions like you would the popcorn bucket in the waste basket on the way out.

Link Posted: 9/17/2005 2:30:20 PM EDT
I saw the movie last night.

You are right about the anti gun propoganda in the film. There is a scene where Nick Cage sells a UZI to a Muslim tribe in Africa. He talks about how he will sell Israeli made weapon to Muslims. The scene shows the Muslim unloading a 25 round mag into a cardboard cut out of President Ronald Reagan.

This liberal Asshole behind me starting clapping and cheering "YES". So the Libs will love this flick.

Oh yeah and movie blames America for all of the gun problems, and dictators in the world.
Link Posted: 9/17/2005 3:25:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By UZI4you:
................. The scene shows the Muslim unloading a 25 round mag into a cardboard cut out of President Ronald Reagan.

This liberal Asshole behind me starting clapping and cheering "YES". So the Libs will love this flick.



That may have been my breaking point.


Link Posted: 9/17/2005 3:39:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By redfisher:

Originally Posted By UZI4you:
................. The scene shows the Muslim unloading a 25 round mag into a cardboard cut out of President Ronald Reagan.

This liberal Asshole behind me starting clapping and cheering "YES". So the Libs will love this flick.



That may have been my breaking point.






i would have turned around and took a picture of him and told him i was going to need it for target practice
Link Posted: 9/17/2005 11:05:52 PM EDT
Well, the movie was anti gun but i don't think it was anti-gun in the sense that we know it. We probably don't need african tribes getting guns tossed their way, that place is a big mess for a reason and guns all over the place (instead of condoms, haha) are probably part of the problem. Afterall, law abiding citizens NEED guns because of illegal guns getting into the hands of criminals and such.

Overall, i thought the movie was pretty good, and that it definitely made me want a Kalashnikov really bad, haha

One thing that really caught my attention, IS IT TRUE?! that the military just dumps it's weapons when they leave an area because it's cheaper to just buy new guns instead of shipping them back home? DAYUM!
Link Posted: 9/17/2005 11:14:04 PM EDT
it wasn't blatantly anti gun at all, and it was a damn good movie.

Link Posted: 9/17/2005 11:54:56 PM EDT
It was exactly what I expect from Hollywood. A lot of preaching about how evil we are blah, blah, blah...and I throw $18.50 to the libtards. One day I'll learn.
Link Posted: 9/18/2005 6:34:09 AM EDT
More like a U.N. sponsored ethics lesson about gun dealing and firearms possession ( or the nature of those who possess weapons or deal in them) disguised as entertainment. Was hoping for a dark comedy type film as was portrayed in the advertisements but was disappointed severely. Had a few moments and a few good lines but overall it sucked. If you got to see it wait for the rental. If you don't mind the liberal mindset drivel preaching have at it.
Link Posted: 9/18/2005 7:32:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MDC85:
it wasn't blatantly anti gun at all, and it was a damn good movie.




+ 1/2 I didn't think it was blatanly anti-gun. I thought it was only moderatly good though. I think it was trying to bring to light some bigger political issues mainly the hypocricy (sp) of our government, and others. Sadly they used firearms as a vehicle to deliver this message. It will mostly be taken as anti gun but that's not at all the message they are throwing out IMHO.
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 7:11:29 AM EDT

It will mostly be taken as anti gun but that's not at all the message they are throwing out IMHO.



HOLLYWOOD - The dangers of guns is the subject of two new movies. "Lord of War," directed by the New Zealander Andrew Niccol, opens Friday. "Dear Wendy," directed by the Dane Thomas Vinterberg, opens Sept. 23.

...

"Some people think 'Lord of War' is a political film," Niccol says. "I think it's a truthful film, and the truth is political. The U.S. is by far the biggest exporter of arms in the world. It was true during the Clinton administration, and it's true during the Bush administration. It's bipartisan."

...

"The Wild West mentality is still strong in America," Niccol says, "especially if you go to a place like Texas, where it's alive and well, or maybe unwell: 'No one's taking away our guns.' In New Zealand, no one has a handgun, and they aren't saying, 'Gee, I wish I had one.' I hope the United States takes note that the murder rate is lower where gun availability is lower. It seems obvious to me."



NY Daily News
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 11:21:37 AM EDT
There are two types of gun owners, those who got them legally, and those who did not.

I take this movie as an attack against illegal gun runners and the problems they cause. This movie CLEARLY identifies the fact that there are millions of illegal guns in circulation.

As a law abiding citizen, I have a right to protect myself against all these criminals with illegal guns, with guns of my own

That's my response to any anti-gun person who says this movie is "anti-gun" in the traditional American sense. I do find it disturbing that there are millions of AKs floating around in shit hole Africa, but that place is way down the shit hole... Gonna be a while before that continent becomes a tourist paradise, har har!
Link Posted: 9/19/2005 3:38:21 PM EDT
The whole anti-gun thing almost makes me not want to see it... odds are if they're preaching it that hard then some of the money they make is probably be "donated" to some fvcked up anti-gun group like Brady or something.

But I'll probably go see it anyway.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 3:13:22 AM EDT

any anti-gun person who says this movie is "anti-gun" in the traditional American sense


Why would an anti-gun person (who will refer to themselves as pro-gun control) use a negative connotation such as the term "anti-gun" to describe a movie that they would possibly see as a positive model for their philosophy?

As far as the terms of legal vs. illegal ownership, in many of these places there are no 'laws' that define personal firearms ownership, rights to self-defense/self-preservation and I doubt many in power susbscribe to the idea of a inherent or god-given right to self-defense. That decision is based solely on the discretion of whoever is in control at the moment. Refer to the situation with Mugabe/Zimbabwe and ANC/SA. The matter is determined by who is on friendly terms with those who are in power and those who are not (the movie got that right). Otherwise there is no universal, all powerful right/wrong determinant for worldwide firearms ownership/ possession other than the one desire of a failed international (term used loosely) world body that feels a need to control everything thing under the sun but barely has the capacity to wipe it's own ass.

We as US citizens are in a very unique postion with concern to the 'right' to protect ourselves with firearms and a much greater part of the world doesn't share in this legacy. 'Legality' of firearms ownership/ possession or anything for that matter, is defined by many in power simply by the whim of the moment or in the much more likely deliberation, by the sober and ruthless calculation of despotism to remain in power.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 7:48:18 AM EDT
Me and a few of my rook buddies went to see it last night. I loved the intro with the life span of a 7.62x39 round. I think it was well done, and the underlying political overtones were easily tuned out. I think it did identify a legitimate problem in the world today, that of illegal small arms proliferation. Anyone who doesn't think it's a problem for drugged out African tribes to have shitloads of AK's who go on genocidal rampages becuase it's a form of gun control needs to take a layer of tin foil off. This was not an attack against legitimate gun owners, even if it was meant to be, it was an attack on the US government and raising awareness of small arms proliferation in the world today.

Does anyone know where they filmed it? Those rows of T-72's and BMP-1's and those HIND A's were pretty damn cool.

Oh, and yeah, now i really want an AK


Steve
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 7:54:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/20/2005 7:55:27 AM EDT by cobra-ak]
Whoa! anti-gun, huh! and the director wants to sell the tanks to Libya? Well at least we don't have the weapons....
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 8:14:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NUcadet07:
Does anyone know where they filmed it? Those rows of T-72's and BMP-1's and those HIND A's were pretty damn cool.




According to Andrew Niccol, the filmmakers worked with actual gunrunners in the making of the film. The tanks lined up for sale were owned by a gunrunner who had to have them back to sell to another country. They used a real stockpile of over 3,000 AK-47s because it was cheaper than getting prop guns. The gunrunners were more cooperative and efficient than the studio or the crew.



Filming Locations for
Lord of War (2005)
Czech Republic
New York City, New York, USA
South Africa
Wendover, Utah, USA
(airfield)

Link Posted: 9/20/2005 12:33:35 PM EDT
Thats badass! lol, I wonder who is getting those tanks

Steve
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 1:09:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/22/2005 2:27:15 AM EDT by Kihn]
First you say:


I think it did identify a legitimate problem in the world today, that of illegal small arms proliferation. Anyone who doesn't think it's a problem for drugged out African tribes to have shitloads of AK's who go on genocidal rampages becuase it's a form of gun control needs to take a layer of tin foil off. This was not an attack against legitimate gun owners, even if it was meant to be, it was an attack on the US government and raising awareness of small arms proliferation in the world today.



Then you say:


Does anyone know where they filmed it? Those rows of T-72's and BMP-1's and those HIND A's were pretty damn cool.




Thats badass! lol, I wonder who is getting those tanks




Consistency is not a strong suit with you is it?

It is a leftist agenda of international control of small arms. Are you aware of the United Nations "Report of the Group of Governmental Experts on Small Arms"?Were you awake during the 90's? Do you know that approx. 2/5's of the world's small arms are in the Continental United States? Are you aware that there are countries who are members of the U.N. who actively trying to restrict your rights to legally possess 'small arms' thru the International Courts and all that it would take for that to be possible is a leftist leaning congress to vote to ratify certain accords proposed by the U.N. that would give a World Court a right to supercede your rights as a U.S. citizen? You do not know of what you are speaking of.

Oh yeah the slightly used AK's were sold back to the gun runner at a discount because of being slightly used and all of the really serious hardware is going to Libya (known sponsor of world wide terrorism). Not like the director was a hypocrite or anything in delivering his message.

Edited cause got confused with the UN organizations n sech.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 2:02:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kihn:
It is a leftist agenda of international control of small arms. Are you aware of the Kyoto Accords? Do you know that approx. 2/5's of the world's small arms are in the Continental United States? Are you aware that there are countries who are members of the U.N. who actively trying to restrict your rights to legally possess 'small arms' thru the International Courts and all that it would take for that to be possible is a leftist leaning congress to vote to ratify certain accords proposed by the U.N. that would give a World Court a right to supercede your rights as a U.S. citizen?



Exactly. The whole point of the movie was to raise awareness to the worldwide small arms issue, thus making it easier to pressure nations into signing this so-called small arms treaty:

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/images/ul/_/_user_My_Documents_Amnesty_Work_control_arms_FrameworkConvention.pdf (purposely not hot-linked to Arfcom.)

Pay special attention to the wording under the "notes" section. It flat out says that the treaty is just the beginning of what the anti-gunners want to achieve.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 4:18:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NUcadet07:
Thats badass! lol, I wonder who is getting those tanks

Steve



I saw some making of thing where the director talks about how they would normally have had to digitally add a whole bunch of tanks in that one scene to make it look like there was a whole long row of them. But they're ALL REAL.
Link Posted: 9/20/2005 8:14:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By redfisher:

Originally Posted By UZI4you:
................. The scene shows the Muslim unloading a 25 round mag into a cardboard cut out of President Ronald Reagan.

This liberal Asshole behind me starting clapping and cheering "YES". So the Libs will love this flick.



That may have been my breaking point.





I would have dropkicked that tofu-fartin fairy, and then the 99.9% of other people in the theater who actually respect Reagan will start clapping and cheering "YES".
Link Posted: 9/21/2005 11:12:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kihn:


Consistency is not a strong suit with you is it?




Take off the tin foil hat! I guess someone here was wrong to assume everyone could reason logically and not lump everything into one big generalization. I guess American, and other western nation citizens having to bear arms is the same as companies and people having the right to make millions dumping small arms into shithole africa and make things worse. meh. If you support the right to bear arms, you should also support criminals not getting their hands on guns. Violence is a real issue in our society, and most of us normal gun owners bought guns for the hobby factor and self protection factor... to combat violence against our society, you need both a defensive (citizen's rights to bear arms) and offensive, which would be to stop criminals from getting their hands on guns in the first place. Whether or not that will happen, or even feasible is another issue... hence, i'm gonna build me an AK before the ATF ban moves in.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/16/movies/16lord.html?ex=1158379200&en=3d81e5bb403efb8b&ei=5083&partner=Rotten%20Tomatoes

I agree with this author's take on the movie... Basically, the producer/writer's movie says all the empty moral things like "guns are bad, mmmkay" but everything else about the movie TOTALLY glorifies guns. I'll repeat, I really want a AK right now thanks to that movie...

Link Posted: 9/21/2005 11:22:00 PM EDT
I thought it was an entertaining flick. The political side of it would have been bothersome, but they are on to something. Some people should not be armed. The dictators, "freedom fighters" and other forces of evil in Africa, for instance.
Link Posted: 9/22/2005 2:37:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/22/2005 2:44:48 AM EDT by Kihn]

Originally posted by Gordon_Freeman:

Take off the tin foil hat! I guess someone here was wrong to assume everyone could reason logically and not lump everything into one big generalization. I guess American, and other western nation citizens having to bear arms is the same as companies and people having the right to make millions dumping small arms into shithole africa and make things worse. meh. If you support the right to bear arms, you should also support criminals not getting their hands on guns. Violence is a real issue in our society, and most of us normal gun owners bought guns for the hobby factor and self protection factor... to combat violence against our society, you need both a defensive (citizen's rights to bear arms) and offensive, which would be to stop criminals from getting their hands on guns in the first place. Whether or not that will happen, or even feasible is another issue... hence, i'm gonna build me an AK before the ATF ban moves in.




You are lumping separate issues ( of which you seem to not have any comprehension of) together and making generalizations about 'current events' based on your own personal feelings and I'm sure the left would applaud you for it. Congratulations you have accepted the liberal premise as truth. Somehow you managed to combine these separate issues into some kind of strange hodgepodge of incoherent thought and then choose to defend it as some bizarre 'common knowledge, common sense' cognition and present it as a viable argument.

Are you aware that there was a concerted effort by a certain administration with very liberal/ socialist tendencies to surrender our sovereignty with regard to citizen's rights to a cetain (cough, cough) governing world body ( which has egg on it's face from a certain Food-for-Oil debacle). You are a shill for the left.

Perhaps you would like to be more specific as to how your opinion/ reason is logical. What broad generalization was made that you find lacking in effort or thought?

I guess American, and other western nation citizens having to bear arms is the same as companies and people having the right to make millions dumping small arms into shithole africa and make things worse.

WTF? Where did you come up with this brilliant deduction? Our rights as citizens of the U.S. have nothing to do with the efforts of other entities (whether governmental/ free enterprize/ criminal) choosing to arm inhabitants of another continent(legally or illegally- what ever that means) even given the inferences of the U.N. to the contrary. They are mutually exclusive issues that are convieniently and tenuously linked to create a nonissue with personal firearms ownership and provide the excuse needed by those with socialist leanings to restrict the rights of those beyond the bounds of their immediate influence. If you look closely you will see that the message is the same- possession of small arms is the problem. Only 'benevolent' governments should have the right to firearms and the distribution thereof. The arena has changed, not the message.

There are two types of gun owners, those who got them legally, and those who did not.

This movie CLEARLY identifies the fact that there are millions of illegal guns in circulation.

While the topic of legal/ illegal was mentioned I would like to ask you how this is determined. Do you feel that the U.s. code for firarms ownership applies beyond it's boundaries? How are you able to determine whether a gun in another part of the world is legal or not? Who is the holy arbitor of right and wrong for gun ownership in the world arena? The then legal government of the Former Soviet Republic handed out AK's like candy to all who would chant Karl Marx three times. China, U.S., Russia, Brazil, N. Korea, Singapore, Israel,Argentina, France, Germany, South Africa, ect... export firearms- which are good guns and which are bad? Legal? illegal?

As a law abiding citizen, I have a right to protect myself against all these criminals with illegal guns, with guns of my own

I do find it disturbing that there are millions of AKs floating around in shit hole Africa

Talk about tin-foil wearing... so you feel that criminals from overseas are a threat to you? I mean isn't the issue with you about 'illegal arms' being exported all over the world and the evil corporations and individuals who supply them? Do you feel that all those millions of AK's floating around Africa will find their way over here?



If you support the right to bear arms, you should also support criminals not getting their hands on guns. Violence is a real issue in our society, and most of us normal gun owners bought guns for the hobby factor and self protection factor... to combat violence against our society, you need both a defensive (citizen's rights to bear arms) and offensive, which would be to stop criminals from getting their hands on guns in the first place.

Well heck yeah I'm totally against criminals using firearms for nefarious means in our society and there is a segment that is violent but where is the link to illegal gun running in other parts of the world and what goes on here? Is there a problem with illegal gun running in the U.S. on the scale portrayed in the movie here too?. I mean there was that Norinco freight shipment of AK's into San Diego(?) but then China is a legitimate, friendly government because the Clinton Administration said so so they must be good guns (and they supported the United Nations "Report of the Group of Governmental Experts on Small Arms" so they must be good because they are against illegal/legal small arms in the hands of nongovenment entities). And talk about massive undertakings- preventing criminals worldwide from aquiring 'illegal guns'. I fear you have bought the liberal BS about small arms. In their eyes all are illegal except the ones they control.

As to the "shithole of Africa" they are engaged in these genocidal tendencies as the result of other factors separate from our 'right to bear arms' in the U.S.. It's bad and we ain't making it worse or better it just is and has been for a very long time and will continue to be. You'll find that this bizzarre thought that you have voiced is exactly the point provided by supporters of the U.N. initiatives to control firearms. Their opinion being the mere sight, let alone possession of a weapon is able to convert the meek into insatiable killers and as a result all 'small arms should be banned because they are evil'. The problem apparently, from the message you got from the movie, if I understand you correctly, is that mere possession of a inanimate object with no conscious or forethought is responsible for the misery and mayhem in the world (and esp. Africa) today.

Again, what do you believe the message of the movie was? I'm a bit confused with what the issue is with you- tinfoil must be on too tight.



Link Posted: 9/22/2005 3:40:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/22/2005 3:42:18 PM EDT by NonConformist]
Guns HAVE NOTHING to do with the shithole Africa, its the animal like behaviour of its inhabitants. If they didnt have AK's they would just use machetes(they still do). For you to blame small arms shows yor ignorance of the issue, ITS NOT THE GUN it the person.

You sound like the UN when you blame inanimate object as the root of evil

BTW I liked the movie, politics aside. I thought it was pretty good I give it a 7-8, coulda been some more gun play though
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 3:07:44 PM EDT
Saw it today with Mrs. PF.

Both liked it. Didn't really get any kind of anti-gun vibe from it at all. If anything it kind of condemned anyone who deals in illegal transactions from the common street scum, to the unlawful gunshop owner all the way up to the 3rd world "army" weapons supplier.

It was a bit predictable... as characters were introduced I had a good idea what their fate would end up being... just wasn't sure exactly how.

I love the scene where they change the name of the boat... and put the French flag on sideways for Norway.
Link Posted: 9/23/2005 3:21:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/23/2005 3:22:52 PM EDT by M4Madness]

...for Norway.


Don't you mean Netherlands?
Link Posted: 9/24/2005 6:28:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/24/2005 7:03:56 AM EDT by Kihn]

Didn't really get any kind of anti-gun vibe from it at all. If anything it kind of condemned anyone who deals in illegal transactions from the common street scum, to the unlawful gunshop owner all the way up to the 3rd world "army" weapons supplier.



Yeap. Couldn't that be the intent of the producers/ director of the film to follow in the footsteps of the likes of Fienstien, Metzenbaum, Bradys, ect... . Find the back door wedge issue and then press home that the issue doesn't really concern the average gunowner (who willingly sides with the obvious message that the issue is indid awful- worldwide illegal gunownership is bad) and who willingly concedes/ sides on an obviously mindless issue and will voice their approval to the no-brainer strawman argument .

This is the strategy that brought you the Machine Gun ban of 1986. Who in their right mind would oppose the ban of such an obviously dangerous weapon? Even if decades old stats prove that the truth of the message is otherwise. Public opinion prevails and the masses happily bleat in chorus.
This is the strategy of 1994 that brought you the Assault Weapon ban. Who in their right mind would oppose the ban of such an obviously dangerous weapon? Again stats prove that the message is contrary to any prevalent data available to the bleating masses.

It is propaganda disguised as entertainment. The intent of the film is to influence public opinion ( note the quasi-factual notes at end of film). As someone stated previously in another post not just a few gain knowledge or their opinion from the entertainment industry.

Obviously the message of 'Lord of War' strikes home-
* Firearms kill people.
* Innocent unarmed people are killed by vile illegally armed savages.
* Psychotic killers have access to illegal arms from the illegal firearms market.
* Ruthless tyrants have relatives who are psychotic killers.
* Ruthless tyrants have access to illegal arms.
* Firearms ownership can turn you into a ruthess psychotic killer.
* Israelis kill innocent disarmed pre-pubescent PLA supporters.
* If you are sane and have a conscience, the the immorality of illegal firearms ownership will get you committed to a mental institution because it is so immoral and overwhelming to anyone with a conscience.
* The U.S.A. obviously doesn't have a conscience since its citizens own so many firearms ( which in a moral and/ or ethical sense are illegal).
* The U.S.A. fixes it's election process with a kangaroo U.S. Supreme Court.
* Innocent people die from firearms (legal and/or illegal).
* Legal gun dealers are just as unconscionable as illegal gun dealers are.
* The U.S. is unconscienable because it is a 'legal' dealer in arms.
* Anyone who has a desire to own a firearm is very possibly psychotic and / or has connections to the lawless segments of the society they are aligned to.
* Guns are evil.

So what do you want to bet that a possible solution to all this worldwide mayhem is just over the horizon in the form of "small arms" control? It's about feelings folks and the masses happily bleat along.
Link Posted: 9/24/2005 6:58:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By M4Madness:

...for Norway.

Don't you mean Netherlands?



Aren't they the same thing?


Originally Posted By Kihn:
Yeap. Couldn't that be the intent of the producers/ director of the film to follow in the footsteps of the likes of Fienstien, Metzenbaum, Bradys, ect... .



Dude... you must get up pretty early to drink a case of Red Bull and start applying that roll of tin foil to your entire body. It's a movie... and the way I see it every movie ever made pretty much depicts guns in a negative light with a very few exceptions. It's Hollyweird. Land of the Fantasy Lan Liberals.
Link Posted: 9/24/2005 7:07:57 AM EDT
Yeah it's not like Hollywood liberal mindset the likes of Striesand, O'Donnell, and Baldwin have an agenda or anything (with attendant influence and cash flow).

Hey, you want to drink the koolaid it's ok with me. Excuse me while I go buy another case of Tin-foil.

Bleater.
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 6:49:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kihn:
Yeah it's not like Hollywood liberal mindset the likes of Striesand, O'Donnell, and Baldwin have an agenda or anything (with attendant influence and cash flow).

Hey, you want to drink the koolaid it's ok with me. Excuse me while I go buy another case of Tin-foil.

Bleater.



You are SOOo wrong. That show about a female US president that started tonight had NOTHING to do with a certain thick ankled Senator. So what if one it's main writers just happened to be on her staff at one time. Pure coincidence. Jeez...
Link Posted: 9/28/2005 9:20:41 AM EDT
Well Excuse Meeeee!!! I forget the disclaimer smilees too (bleater was a friendly nudge kiddin' thingy)! All was said in jest! I like thick ankled womenz!!! Even democratic ones!!! Obviously the film was an unbiased documentry about the sad state of affairs in our world! My head hurts! Too much microwaves being aimed my way! Where's my tin-foil? Anybody else notice the price of this stuff is going up?



I must now go hide in my lead lined closet.

Hillery in 2008.

Why can't we all just get along.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 2:35:22 PM EDT
How was Lord of War anti-gun? Let me count the ways:

"There are more gun shops in America than there are McDonalds."
"Glocks can go through metal detectors at airports."
"You could shoot me with 25 rounds from an Uzi and the guy in the next room wouldn't hear it."
Cage: "None of what I do is illegal." Wife's tearful response: "I don't care if it's legal, it's wrong."

Any of you who missed this points need to pay more attention.


Link Posted: 10/4/2005 2:41:52 PM EDT
I thought dawn of the dead was more progun then this movie. I guess that the liberals in that movie went hug the zombies back into the real world and found out that didn't work.

Lord of War was very anti gun and it even had no final shoot out scene. I didn't understand why the junkie brother thought it was better to have the people hacked with machettes instead of them being shot. And he died for that cause too. What the hell? Dumb ass deserved to died I guess.

I would buy buy M-16's buy the pound if I could. That was so sweet.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 2:45:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Silesius:
How was Lord of War anti-gun? Let me count the ways:

"There are more gun shops in America than there are McDonalds."
"Glocks can go through metal detectors at airports."
"You could shoot me with 25 rounds from an Uzi and the guy in the next room wouldn't hear it."
Cage: "None of what I do is illegal." Wife's tearful response: "I don't care if it's legal, it's wrong."

Any of you who missed this points need to pay more attention.





Don't forget that while she was shooting robots in I robot in this movie she failed as an actress, model and a artist. She didn't want to fail as a person by letting the criminals chop each other up instead of shooting each other. Well history should have told her that she is a failure at everything. I will shed a tear later for your camio roll in Micheal Moores next film.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 3:05:38 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 3:06:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/4/2005 3:09:53 PM EDT by XD_Fan]

Originally Posted By gordon_freeman:
Well, the movie was anti gun but i don't think it was anti-gun in the sense that we know it. We probably don't need african tribes getting guns tossed their way, that place is a big mess for a reason and guns all over the place (instead of condoms, haha) are probably part of the problem. Afterall, law abiding citizens NEED guns because of illegal guns getting into the hands of criminals and such.

Overall, i thought the movie was pretty good, and that it definitely made me want a Kalashnikov really bad, haha

One thing that really caught my attention, IS IT TRUE?! that the military just dumps it's weapons when they leave an area because it's cheaper to just buy new guns instead of shipping them back home? DAYUM!



The military may dump a lot of perfectly good equipment when they leave an area but they don't leave weapons behind. Those piles of M16s in the movie were probably a quarter of all the M16s ever built.

All in all I'm really sorry I wasted my money on it. Although the guy in front of me smacked his kid up side the head when he sorta cheered over the mag dump on the Reagan poster.

ETA: Everybody seems to forget the weapon of choice in modern day African genocide is the panga or rusty ass 10 cents a piece machete.
Top Top