I think it’s quite effective.
It made me chuckle in a black humor sort of way.
Thing is, I don’t think it will change any minds. The gun-rights crowd has heard this argument before and dismissed it. The gun-control crowd already wants gun control. The fence-sitters are still sitting on the fence despite the recently publicized mass shootings.
Being that subject material is debatable, I’m moving this to Great Debates.
Didn’t get the memo from your own side?
It’s no longer “gun control.” It’s “gun violence.”
See, everyone should be against violence.
But Americans like freedom, so they don’t support “control.”
Nice find. I might not agree with it, but it’s still a good ad.
Cute. Too little too late. The Senate voted yesterday and the AWB went down in flames, as expected.
I’ll give the typical retort though, just for fun:
The Founding Fathers couldn’t have possibly conceived of the power that radio / TV / the Internet gives to individual voices to reach millions of people instantly. Given that the tools we use for free speech are so much more powerful today, shouldn’t we set aside the First Amendment protections and put reasonable limits on our constitutional rights.
We could ban high-capacity word processors, pop-up advertisements, and military-style “assault” commercials, require a background check and registration before people are allowed to own blog sites, etc. … or we could accept that the Constitution intended to cover the common tools of the day.
Effective at what? Dramatizing a specious argument? Maybe. Reassuring those who buy into that argument? Probably. Making a point that will persuade people to change their views? Hardly.
Should our laws reflect that the right to a free press applies only to hand operated movable type presses such as they had in revolutionary times, and does not apply to modern printing machinery, much less to advanced technology like radio, television, and the internet? I don’t think so. The Constitution is often praised for its adaptability to changing times, and to a large degree that is due to intentionally broad language. Hence the right to bear arms, whatever they may be, and not just the right to bear muzzle-loading muskets. Commercials such as this really don’t add anything useful to the discussion of the topic.
On preview, what HurricaneDitka said.
Much of our political discourse just solidifies my view of confirmation bias.
I agree. The harm I received from reading this analogy was similar to being shot.
Don’t forget to add “common sense”, too.
The video is stupid. Our gun laws have changed. I would be interested in knowing which particular additional changes those folks are advocating.
Practical skills test before a writing permit is issued by the chief law enforcement officer in your area?
Excellent point.
Don’t you get it. The second amendment is special, the founding fathers didn’t really mean it. If they could have, they would have replaced the second amendment right to keep and bear arms with a second amendment right to have an abortion, but… you know… technology.
We do. I can’t go around committing fraud or issuing death threats and say “Hey, First Amendment” to avoid prosecution.
Did you read John Mace’s post? We’ve also proscribed some limits on the right to keep and bear arms already. See, done, all taken care of. You can go home happy now and sleep easy. Gun control has happened in our country. Congrats. You guys won (way back in '34 too). Wow, very impressive. Shall we call it a day then?
I bet that Trevor and Mildred Horn might rebuke you, if they could speak from the grave.
I’m always suspicious of these types of political ads. We must “change” something, but they don’t tell us what specific changes they are advocating. Why? Are they afraid that if they tell us what they actually want that it will have the opposite effect that was intended?
Do they even know what changes they want?
How are we to know what the hell they are thinking?
Which you couldn’t do in 1787 either.
No. American “gun control” is a joke. The pro-gun people don’t care of course because they are tools of the gun industry and fanatic borderline psychopaths with no concern for human life. If it comes down to a choice between guns and their friends and family, they’ll cheerfully sacrifice the lives of their children for the only thing that matters in the entire universe: guns.
Cheerfully? As in, they would cheer with glee as they watched their children die?
You really think that? Scouts honor?