DIY Electric Car Forums banner

Atlas Shrugged Part III

57K views 516 replies 14 participants last post by  david85 
#1 ·
For those who read the 1250 ponderous pages of the original novel, you would be surprised they managed to cut the John Galt speech to about a paragraph - and that paragraph said it better than the 67-page long original speech. Overall they did a pretty good job of staying true to the vision of the novel; however, painting a full collapse will clearly be viewed as over-dramatic by the left ("see, it's not completely collapsing so she's completely wrong!!!") while in reality things will merely continue to mire down into the endless doldrums of a European-style Plutocracy.

Upon reflection, I think it was actually good that they changed the cast for every movie. You'll see a lot of familiar faces in this final installment, and surprisingly they managed to turn Rand's Russian cynicism into an uplifting ending. Of the three, this movie is (IMHO) the best and gets across her philosophy without being harsh nor critical - it simply recognizes and highlights the truth about big government.

Libs, you should go watch it even if it is just a way to get to know your enemy.... :D
 
#472 ·
I feel canada has a pretty good balance, actually. Especially now that the long gun registry was killed by the harper government (one of the rarest cases of any canadian government keeping an election promise). I know a few guys that own quite the arsenal, including semi-automatic SKS rifles. All legal in canada.

But even still, banning something that is in demand does create an economic feedback from the black market. If someone wants to get a gun, they can. Its just a question of how much they are willing to pay.

I don't have an issue with castle doctrine either.

At any rate, so far I don't see a vote for banning of firearms all together.
 
#473 · (Edited)
I agree that firearms should be regulated and licensed, with a requirement for background checks, waiting periods, training, taxation, and licensing. Perhaps only minimal restrictions on black powder weapons and similar firearms, such as no sales to minors (or conservative extremists :p). For handguns and assault rifles and such, greater restrictions and perhaps liability insurance should be required. The owner of a handgun should be held criminally responsible for injury or death from the use of the firearm, unless it has been stolen and the theft is reported to the police. Thus a parent would be held at least partially responsible if their child had access to the weapon AND used it to commit a crime. But I believe in the castle doctrine as well as "stand your ground". And anyone who is injured or killed in the commission of a violent or invasive crime should understand that it comes with high risk, and cannot sue the owner or user of the weapon used for protection of life and/or property.

Decriminalizing drugs (and perhaps prostitution) would essentially make it difficult for gang-bangers and drug dealers to purchase guns, legally or illegally, and would go far to reduce the homicide rate and the culture of violence and crime in the inner cities. Follow the money..
 
#476 ·
gun ownership is up and crime is down.

Both true - and a good example of a correlation that does not prove causation,
crime is also down everywhere else - even places with no guns!
The reduction in crime (especially violent crime) tracks the removal of lead from petrol - those places that acted first saw the reduction first
(Plus a general reduction that has been going on for thousands of years)

More guns does not equate to more violence,

Also true
There are countries with lots of guns and very low violence
BUT those countries actually control their guns quite well

There is a good correlation between lots of guns and weak control and violence(The USA, Somalia,....)
 
#478 ·
gun ownership is up and crime is down.

Both true - and a good example of a correlation that does not prove causation,
crime is also down everywhere else - even places with no guns!
True, but in places previously having anti-gun laws which embraced laws (i.e. passed laws requiring everyone to own a gun) crime dropped to almost zero. So, in that sense I agree with gun controls - all upstanding citizens should own some!

The reduction in crime (especially violent crime) tracks the removal of lead from petrol - those places that acted first saw the reduction first
(Plus a general reduction that has been going on for thousands of years)
Yes, and ice cream sales correlate to drowning deaths. After accusing me of that shenanigans you should know better...
More guns does not equate to more violence,

Also true
There are countries with lots of guns and very low violence
BUT those countries actually control their guns quite well

There is a good correlation between lots of guns and weak control and violence(The USA, Somalia,....)
Same argument as above - fail. The largest increases in crime come in the wake of gun confiscations. The largest decreases in crime correlate to laws requiring citizens be armed. That is a direct cause-and-effect observation, unlike any other valid evidence you can dig up.
 
#477 ·
One person firing at people from a belfry is a nut job. One million people marching on Washington with weapons is an eviction notice.

Absolutely true - and that is Dr Brin's justification for the "Jefferson Rifle"
A million people with those rifles would be a powerful force - and could not be ignored
however you would need a decent number of people (less than a million)
If individuals had tanks (nuclear weapons???) a single person or small band of nuts could kill thousands before they were eliminated

The Jefferson rifle would fulfill the "keep government under control" without adding thousands of innocent corpses
 
#480 ·
One person firing at people from a belfry is a nut job. One million people marching on Washington with weapons is an eviction notice.

Absolutely true - and that is Dr Brin's justification for the "Jefferson Rifle"
The "Jefferson Rifle" was whatever people (the Militia) could afford. Brinn's "Jefferson Rifle" is a pea-shooter compared to the government tanks and other weapons of mass crowd destruction.

A million people with those rifles would be a powerful force - and could not be ignored
But they could be put down. A million men with tanks and APCs and air defense weapons? Not so much.

however you would need a decent number of people (less than a million)
If individuals had tanks (nuclear weapons???) a single person or small band of nuts could kill thousands before they were eliminated
Same argument works against that one - again I have agreed that for a category of weapon the same mental stability checks run by the military could and should apply. One person running amok with his toys can be stopped by a community with the same toys.

The Jefferson rifle would fulfill the "keep government under control" without adding thousands of innocent corpses
That is a BS argument and you know it. There is no rational argument which can conclude that somehow "the government is qualified to be armed with weapon X" and at the same time suggest that "We the People cannot be trusted with weapon X." That pretty much means, by the way, that the government cannot be trusted with Weapons of Mass Destruction - there was a process in place to prevent it but there is nothing to stop a nutjob President from pushing the button.

That's ok, weapon sales are surging again. Favorites are AK-47 knock-offs and AR-15 knock-offs and .50 cal sniper weapons. Millions of patriotic citizens are voting with their dollars. The Free Market is the most Democratic process possible.
 
#482 ·
Would a boatload of citizens armed to the teeth with firearms storming the White House and the Capitol building be known as "Gunboat Democracy"? I think the "authorities" would have enough advance notice of such a throng that they could mobilize air strikes and serious munitions to decimate the militant conservatives and libertarians, and they would soon lay down their arms and trample their fallen would-be "patriotic" heroes in a mad stampede to "get out of dodge".

"See how they run, like pigs from a gun, see how they fly..."

http://www.metrolyrics.com/i-am-the-walrus-lyrics-beatles.html
 
#483 ·
Who's saying to storm the house. It's meant that it would be a show of force to be reckoned with if it ever happened. Not to actually do that but if needed, YES.

It is what keeps us free. I would die defending my freedom. We are not the ones running like pigs. We are those that stand our ground.
 
#484 ·
Onegreenev is correct here,
You don't need to be able to defeat the US army
(if you could then a lot of generals should be shot)
You need "show of force to be reckoned with" - once you have that the army (which is made of Americans) could not be used to stop you

Which again is where the Jefferson rifle comes in

You don't need the Phantom's fantasy of tanks and attack helicopters
 
#485 · (Edited)
I would prefer more than the Jefferson Rifle but if your good a single shot bolt action can reign supreme. I won't need a tank. One for close quarters and one for long distance. The AR series guns are only intimidating because of the way they are made. As for practical use it does not matter how it looks. A solid hunting rifle is just as good or better than an AR. But an AR is for close proximity and is considered a small arm and nothing more.
 
#486 ·
I would prefer more than the Jefferson Rifle
And a lot of people would prefer less (as in none)
That is called equality of dissatisfaction!

Under Dr Brin's proposal the Jefferson Rifle would be baked into the constitution
In return for licensing the others

The idea that the present 2nd Amendment applies to individuals is actually very recent,

It is not to hard to imagine a future Supreme Court deciding that you need to be a member of a "Well Regulated" Militia if you want to own a gun at all:D
 
#487 ·
Remember Kent State. In those times, the Army (and National Guard) were the conservatives, and they opened fire on the "liberals" who were protesting the Vietnam War and other such evils perpetuated by the right-leaning government. Now things have changed, and many in the government and the armed forces are "liberals", and it is the minority of conservatives that are talking about marching on the government for their "freedom", although they are really the minions of rich capitalists upon whom they depend. So I would not be so sure that the Army, comprised of many minorities and disadvantaged people who have been "dismissed" by wealthy members of the privileged class like Mitt Romney, would not fire on those who have been causing them pain and misery.
 
#489 ·
Who is proposing marching on the government? I see some more serious hostility towards those of us who propose we KEEP and BEAR arms. Im not so quick to hand over my freedom. I remember Kent State quite well. And you might well read up on it again. It was a mistake but not entirely an innocent protest. Almost like Ferguson. There was a whole lot of vandalism days prior to that dreadful day. Mob mentality really reigned supreme leading up to the day of the shooting. Im jot justifying the shooting but I'm also not surprised it happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

You are fully welcome to relinquish your rights. I hope you never need the police when seconds count.
 
#490 ·
Trouble exploded in town around midnight, when people left a bar and began throwing beer bottles at police cars and breaking downtown storefronts. In the process they broke a bank window, setting off an alarm. The news spread quickly and it resulted in several bars closing early to avoid trouble. Before long, more people had joined the vandalism.

By the time police arrived, a crowd of 120 had already gathered. Some people from the crowd had already lit a small bonfire in the street. The crowd appeared to be a mix of bikers, students, and transient people. A few members of the crowd began to throw beer bottles at the police, and then started yelling obscenities at them.
Conservative, maybe. But if we go by your knowledge then the above vandals are liberals. Most of the protesters were not even college students. Its mob mentality at work. No different than the Watts Riots.
 
#491 ·
Most civilized countries give the state a monopoly on violence. It seems to work out for them reasonably well. The US was formed by the means of an armed insurrection so it is logical that its founders would not want the state to have the power to prevent this from happening again in the future if the current government went off the rails. Most nations weren't founded this way and see armed insurrection as contrary to democracy- it can be a means by which a gang of organized armed thugs can take power FROM the people.

Regrettably, the current gang of thugs are smarter than that. They don't waste their time organizing large numbers of people with weapons. They simply use their financial power to manipulate the institutions of democracy in their own financial interest. Regrettably, the majority sit back and allow this in the (vain) hope that they too can join the ranks of the de-facto ruling class.
 
#495 ·
Most civilized countries give the state a monopoly on violence. It seems to work out for them reasonably well. The US was formed by the means of an armed insurrection so it is logical that its founders would not want the state to have the power to prevent this from happening again in the future if the current government went off the rails. Most nations weren't founded this way and see armed insurrection as contrary to democracy- it can be a means by which a gang of organized armed thugs can take power FROM the people.
Yes, the Eurasian continent has never known a generation free from the 10,000 years of rulers. When you grow up knowing nothing else, you imagine it to be "normal." Just like kids growing up in abusive homes. The Left points to Europe and calls it "progressive." So, here we are "progressing" right back towards the same kind of totalitarian rule mankind has been subject to for most of his history.

Regrettably, the current gang of thugs are smarter than that. They don't waste their time organizing large numbers of people with weapons. They simply use their financial power to manipulate the institutions of democracy in their own financial interest. Regrettably, the majority sit back and allow this in the (vain) hope that they too can join the ranks of the de-facto ruling class.
You might be surprised to understand that this nation's Founders would consider that fine. Those able to become financially successful have generally demonstrated leadership and business acumen - a kind of a "test of fitness" to have an opinion. They never intended full Democracy; certainly not for those who lacked the wits to save and earn themselves a small piece of land an run it profitably.

In other words, they intended a sort of meritocracy. As for the typical human skullduggery escalating into tyranny, they counted on the simple fact that no two people can typically agree on the same agenda to prevent any one group from ever becoming too powerful. And, until the Left got the vote for every person able to drool their spittle on a piece of paper, and then organized Unions to intimidate the low-end workers into voting for their party, the system worked pretty well.
 
#497 ·
right, because it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the millions of Californian's that moved here over the last 20 yeras, (like myself). And the large urban growth Colorado withstands that results in a move to the left in many states with growing metro areas. We now look and feel a little like LA. It's just too simple, why not blame EVERYTHING on secret conspiracy!
 
#499 ·
I am just sitting back, waiting to see how the lefties here dodge, redefine, avoid, or otherwise dismantle this. My assumption is that the lefties will not have the same reaction to these billionaires as they do to righty billionaires. Let's see...
 
#505 ·
Note that the root cause of the revolution was taxation without representation.

Nonsense
The root cause of the revolution was the rulers in America being told they had to stop stealing the Indian land :D
(Washington for instance ended up with thousands of acres of "Indian Land")

The Taxation thing was an excuse to rebel against Parliament (King George was a figurehead) :D
 
#506 ·
Lets have a little background we can go visit. Apparently you have links available to go look. Post them please. My links have shown no such thing. Mostly and what I have known and read from the time I was young up to today that the causes are many and there is NO ROOT cause. If this indian land thing is part of the equation it is mighty small.
 
#509 ·
Our country needs immigrants. That said, our Congress (both parties) have conspired to prevent creating a workable system for legal immigration for decades.

What kind of sense does it make to allow every illiterate criminal bent on causing mayhem to sneak across the border while simultaneously denying entry to millions of educated, hard working folks who dream of coming here?
 
#510 ·
Well, its been a while but I finally watched parts 2 and 3.

It was painful. I don't vehemently disagree with the basic premise of the story, but it seems like it was just laid on a little too thick.

I'm not sure how the uninitiated would react to Rand's world but my reaction was slightly similar to watching "who killed the electric car". Meaning, it was mostly a review of things I already heard before hand from various other sources. It just didn't move me one way or another (although in the case of the former, it probably hastened my move to build my own EV).

Overall, I preferred the second movie due to better acting and guest appearances by various EVs and hybrids. It also fit better with the story based on supposed skyrocketing fuel costs. I tend to be a stickler for details like that though.

At this point, I'm still curious if the plot flows any better than these 3 movies did. Its never possible to transcribe everything from a book to the screen, but the third one seemed to be a bunch of philosophical chats behind closed doors or cocktail parties. The ideas discussed are worth talking about (such as home schooling vs state education), but sheesh, the delivery was bad.

Oh well, I'm not gonna lie. It was a disappointment.
 
#511 ·
Oh well, I'm not gonna lie. It was a disappointment.
If you felt that the movie hammered its point and want to know whether the book was different, here is a comparison.

Movie = 3 ounce mineral sample hammer
Book = 5 pound sledgehammer

That was why people panned her literary skills.

That said, I thought the movies did a pretty good job not so much with the main characters who were rather wooden in their delivery, but like the original Star Trek it was the tiny cut scenes which were artfully done. I especially liked how they would have mini-vignettes with Hannity then Maddow and other currently well-known figures highlighting exactly how the leftists spend so much energy trying to make tyranny seem like a good thing. Background news stories lasting 15 seconds clamoring for "Fairness Laws" replaced practically whole chapters in the book and conveyed the idea better. Naturally, a Liberal would watch those scenes and see nothing at all wrong with them, but for anyone who really knows what living under an oppressive government is like they were chilling. Most people who have not lived through it simply do not comprehend how quickly a government can "turn," or that once they accomplish what they think they wanted it is never what they hoped for but much darker.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top