Bowling For Columbine (Guncontrol)

[obscurus]

I think there's still some truth in saying that people owning guns makes it more difficult for the gov't to oppress the population. Suppose ruling party A wants to "silence" opposition party member B (which of course would never happen in the US ). If B has a gun, it makes it more complicated for security forces to just break in and whisk him away in the middle of the night. If they try to force their way into B's home without identifying themselves, B may fire off some shots. Neighbors will hear the shots, maybe even look outside, and know something is going on. To take someone away without a gunfight, security forces have to properly identify themselves before entering B's home, and this also makes a scene. At least neighbors will know that a group identifying themselves as security forces was knocking at B's door the night he disappeared.

 

If citizens were forbidden to own guns, it would be a lot easier for the gov't to disappear people without leaving behind any information about the event.

 

 

The ironic thing in the US is, that the military is geared up and trained for one type of conflict only: bombing the enemy into oblivion. If the US was in a situation where there was a large, armed rebel uprising, their usual tactic of bombing the shit out of them would be pretty pointless, especially if the rebels were widely dispersed througout the normal population (eg, Hezbollah in Lebanon).

 

And the US has a truly woeful record at fighing guerilla wars (where guns are less useful than knives and blunt objects in many cases). Just look at Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan - the US military has some well trained Marines and Army Rangers, but they are more for show, they never use them effectively, and the normal tactic of using lots of big bombs, tanks and general infantry would fail miserably in the face of a civil war (especially since you wouldn't be able to trust a large proportion of your troops to be on your side anymore). And the normal US troops tend to kill a ridiculous number of their own in friendly fire. The British had a running joke about the US forces in Iraq during the Gulf war - ignore the Iraqis, just watch out for the Yanks.

 

If anyone in the US wants to start a civil war, now would be the time to do it, because the government would be pretty helpless to contain it. They might prevail in the end, but the cost would be horrendous, and given the current downward spiral of the US economy, things would be pretty grim if that were to happen.

[sparhawk]

Neighbors will hear the shots, maybe even look outside, and know something is going on.

 

And what will they see? Well, they see a bunch of officials breaking into the house. So they will assume some kind of police activity, because these forces usually work together with them. Next day in the news they hear about a terrorist in their neighbourhood, who was successfully arrested (or not), and they will be shocked. "He was always such a nice neighbour and he even helped my grandmom over the street, I would never have suspected this from him."

 

To take someone away without a gunfight, security forces have to properly identify themselves before entering B's home, and this also makes a scene. At least neighbors will know that a group identifying themselves as security forces was knocking at B's door the night he disappeared.

 

Yes, but they don't know what it really is about, so they will believe what is told in the news.

 

If citizens were forbidden to own guns, it would be a lot easier for the gov't to disappear people without leaving behind any information about the event.

 

I take it you don't really mean that serious.

[Ishtvan]

I mean exactly what I said. If these hypothetical security forces could be fairly certain that the person doesn't have a gun, they could disappear them with less fuss and less information would be known about the disappearance. At least the gov't in this case has to claim that he was a terrorist to justify their actions, and that will raise questions among thinking people when too many "terrorists" start to go away. Maybe the majority of people will believe what they hear in the news, but my point is that it might not even have to be explained in the news if there's less disturbance during the abduction. If they could whisk him away absolutely silently, they don't have to claim anything, he'd just disappear.

 

Of course the better solution for oppressive gov'ts is probably just to nab people on the road, away from their house.

[obscurus]

I mean exactly what I said. If these hypothetical security forces could be fairly certain that the person doesn't have a gun, they could disappear them with less fuss and less information would be known about the disappearance. At least the gov't in this case has to claim that he was a terrorist to justify their actions, and that will raise questions among thinking people when too many "terrorists" start to go away. Maybe the majority of people will believe what they hear in the news, but my point is that it might not even have to be explained in the news if there's less disturbance during the abduction. If they could whisk him away absolutely silently, they don't have to claim anything, he'd just disappear.

 

Of course the better solution for oppressive gov'ts is probably just to nab people on the road, away from their house.

 

 

Even if they had guns, the government in this scenario could just use that to bolster their claim that they were terrorists - "look, they were armed to the teeth, we had to shoot them". Realisticly, you could only make so many people "disappear" before suspicions would be aroused, and society would become increasingly destabilised. People who have neighbors, friends and family will be noticed if they are missing, and sooner or later the government making people disappear would slip up and get caught in the act.

 

If the security forces go in expecting someone without a gun, that doesn't mean it will go down silently, as a person who notices someone unusual approaching their house might take action that would at least make the security force's job more difficult, and a fair bit noisier.

 

Oppressive governments that employ these tactics rarely last very long, becasue they simply undermine their own power base in the end (they essentially start biting the hand that feeds them). It is gernally not in the interests of a ruling power to be too covert about things, as it creates a nervous, unproductive population that is more succeptible to chaos and anarchy if a few things go wrong.

 

This is not to say it couldn't happen in the US - US citizens have had their freedoms so eroded over the last few years in the name of "security" that the US Government could disappear several hundred thousand US citizens before anyone caught on to them, and US citizens have a general culture of selfishness that makes it easier for people to ignore what is happening to their neighbour.

[Ishtvan]

@Obscurus: I'm not disputing your other arguments, but what evidence is this based on?

 

... US citizens have a general culture of selfishness that makes it easier for people to ignore what is happening to their neighbour.

Sure, there was one case 15 years ago or so where several people watched from their apartments while someone got stabbed to death, but there was also a case about 5 years ago, in a city I was living in, where someone hit and killed a person with their car, then tried to drive away only to have the neighbors of that person drag them out of their car and beat them to death. So I'd be careful about making broad generalizations like that.

[Darkness_Falls]

Ishtvan wrote: @Obscurus: I'm not disputing your other arguments, but what evidence is this based on?I'm not disputing your other arguments, but what evidence is this based on?

Probably sensationalized media, like how everyone else in America and the world seems to get factoids of information I think Ireland is a beautiful green fantasy-land with White Cliffs of Dover looming about. Scotland is a beautiful windy country with lots of fields of tall grass. The UK has lots of fog, but is rich with with British culture and monarchy. Honestly, that's pretty much what I've heard/seen on TV/movies or general marketing...

[sparhawk]

At least the gov't in this case has to claim that he was a terrorist to justify their actions, and that will raise questions among thinking people when too many "terrorists" start to go away. Maybe the majority of people will believe what they hear in the news, but my point is that it might not even have to be explained in the news if there's less disturbance during the abduction. If they could whisk him away absolutely silently, they don't have to claim anything, he'd just disappear.

 

That's not likely going to happen, because even if they are pretty silent about it, there is somebody bound to notice it and call the press. And police always wants to bolster their statistic and justify themselve, so they will most certainly give an explanation anyway. I have personell proof of several incidents where the police gave wrong information to the press. And the information was NOT to make fasle trails, it was simply to make them look better.

In one case a friend of mine got arrested, because he was working for some guy who nicked money and cheated the insurance. His company car was put out for arresting because of this. He payed the bills but the police there didn't have the information yet, so when they found his car in front of a pub he got arrested because they thought it was the other guy first. He had some marihuana in his trunk (a small dose which was legal) and he had a fake gun as well. Next day in the news it was written that "A drug dealer and weapon smuggler" has been arrested because the police was making such a good job. In truth they did a bad job, because the car was not even on the list anymore at the time he got arrested for it. And I know of other such cases as well.

[obscurus]

@Obscurus: I'm not disputing your other arguments, but what evidence is this based on?

Sure, there was one case 15 years ago or so where several people watched from their apartments while someone got stabbed to death, but there was also a case about 5 years ago, in a city I was living in, where someone hit and killed a person with their car, then tried to drive away only to have the neighbors of that person drag them out of their car and beat them to death. So I'd be careful about making broad generalizations like that.

 

 

I meant it as a general tendency of Americans (and indeed any society that worships at the altar of consumerism) to be swept up in their own self interest to a greater degree than is perhaps healthy for the society as a whole, not that people in the US won't help each other out in a crisis. Probably in smaller communites, people still look out for their neighbours as much as ever, but in big cities in the US, people can often turn a blind eye to various crimes and human suffering.

 

And I wouldn't cite an example of an angry mob beating someone to death as an example of good neighbourly behaviour - the US is supposed to be a society where the rule of law applies, not primitive mob violence. The offending motorist should have been apprehended and charged by the police, not beaten to death by vigilantes. That is really what I'm getting at - the US is a society of extremes, where people will either ignore violent crime or participate in it as part of a vigilante mob, there is not enough middle ground, and this is the sort of behaviour that can propel a prosperous society along a shaky path towards anarchy and civil war.

[SneaksieDave]

I love generalizations. Don't you?

 

I'm sure those in the UK give a damn about Zimbabwe, and those in Germany care oodles for Kiwis, and Aussies can't sleep at night if anyone in Turkey is unhappy. But if you'll excuse me, my fast rich life keeps me busy; I'm going to go out and beat someone to death while ignoring old people being mugged. As long as I have a hot dog and a good monster truck pull, I'm happy.

 

Where's my gun?!

[Ishtvan]

I've seen people make citizen's arrests, too. I think it's going out on a limb to generalize from two extreme examples that the US is a society of extremes. There are countless examples of other people putting themselves at risk to save people from disasters (I guess that means the US is a society of idiots now for risking our own lives to save others?).

 

I'm not trying to say that I would trust the people around me to help me out in a dangerous situation; I would not, no matter what country I was in. However, I would caution about making sweeping generalizations, and then pinning it on the culture of a single country.

 

I heard some people ascending Mt Everest encountered someone who was dying halfway up and could have been helped if they'd turned back, but they decided to ignore the dying person and continue their climb. I don't know what country they were from, but whatever one it was, all the people there suck!

[obscurus]

I've seen people make citizen's arrests, too. I think it's going out on a limb to generalize from two extreme examples that the US is a society of extremes. There are countless examples of other people putting themselves at risk to save people from disasters (I guess that means the US is a society of idiots now for risking our own lives to save others?).

 

I'm not trying to say that I would trust the people around me to help me out in a dangerous situation; I would not, no matter what country I was in. However, I would caution about making sweeping generalizations, and then pinning it on the culture of a single country.

 

I heard some people ascending Mt Everest encountered someone who was dying halfway up and could have been helped if they'd turned back, but they decided to ignore the dying person and continue their climb. I don't know what country they were from, but whatever one it was, all the people there suck!

 

Well, the purpose of making a generalised statement is to uhm, ah, well, arrive at a general pattern of behaviour. Specific examples that are contrary to the generality are largely irrelevant. If you go to a big city like NY or London, or even Sydney, people there are much more likely to be so engrossed in their own little world that they will be quite willing to ignore things that people living at a more considered pace would notice and act on. Sure there are people in the US that will go out of their way to help others, but you only have to look at the social welfare policy of the US (compared to say, Sweden, which probably goes too far in the other direction) to see that the majority of people don't care enough about their fellow man to take action that will help them, even at minor inconvenience to themselves, nor do they attempt to wrest control of the political process away form special interest groups, which can only happen when a majority of people start to give a fuck. If, say, 38% of Americans gave a fuck, and the other 62% didn't, I am quite justified in saying that Americans generally don't give a fuck.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not pinning this all on the US, but the US is probably one of the worst offenders as a whole.

 

Sweeping generalisations can be highly useful when looking at things from a broad perspective. Generalisations are appropriate when discussing something in a general context, which is what I was doing.

[sparhawk]

(I guess that means the US is a society of idiots now for risking our own lives to save others?).

 

Are you refering to Afghanistan or Iran here?

 

I'm not trying to say that I would trust the people around me to help me out in a dangerous situation; I would not, no matter what country I was in.

 

As well you shold not. There was an article in Scientific American a few years ago, about helping behaviour. The bottom line was, that you always should actively tell people to help you and the decision is made in the first tents of seconds. They conducted some experiements and usually people didn't help on their own. Only if the victim adressed somebody specifically the rate would increase.

 

I heard some people ascending Mt Everest encountered someone who was dying halfway up and could have been helped if they'd turned back, but they decided to ignore the dying person and continue their climb. I don't know what country they were from, but whatever one it was, all the people there suck!

 

You can hear all kind of stories. The question is how much credit there is to it.

[OrbWeaver]

Sure, there was one case 15 years ago or so where several people watched from their apartments while someone got stabbed to death

 

The so-called "Bystander effect" is not necessarily caused by people being self-absorbed. It tends to happen because (1) people assume that somebody else will help -- this is why often on conference calls you can ask a question and nobody answers, because they are all assuming somebody else will, and (2) people fear that they will embarass themselves by attempting to help when their assistance is either not needed or incorrect.

[oDDity]

Also, the reason for helping is not always altruistic. Some peiple are glad for any excuse to kick the shit out of someone. Getting your hands on a criminal is the perfect excuse.

[Maximius]

Just a few points:

 

Anyone who thinks the small personal arms of the average American citizen would be a ward against state repression is mistaken. For one thing, its not simply a matter of weaponry, its a matter of organization, and the U.S. cannot even get a proper anti-war movement going, let alone an armed rebellion. Those goofball militias you hear about in Bowling for Columbine are real, but they are small, without real power, and oftentimes exist more to stroke the egos of a few oddball, tinhorn wanna be's than to actually try to secede or something.

 

Then there is the massive police/military complex to deal with, which has only grown more cohesive under the Patriot Act. Sure, you hear stories, as here in Philly, of the gangs having better guns than the cops and thats true sometimes. But onlyin isolated cases, and it wouldnt take a whole lot for the cops to get better guns. Or to get backup from local National guardsmen. In fact, the governer of Pennsylvania has been talking about soliders on Philly's southern streets to try to settle the violence.

 

The notion that personal arms could defend against the power of the state died with industrialization of weapons manufacturing, if it really ever existed. With the mass production of weaponry and the constant push for newer technologies, the power of the state grew exponentially. One armored platoon, say of tanks, has the equivalent firepower of ALL of the artillery of in the Union armory during the Civil War. States are constantly seeking new forms of weaponry, now non-lethal weaponry is the buzz word. They have foam cannons that can literally freeze a mob into place until the cops can bundle them all up. They have ultra-sound cannons that can make a crowd of people nauseous at the flick of a switch. Direct action against the state without a network of support and the backing of the locals is suicidal. The insurgency in Iraq is winning only because a. they dont have to win, only not lose b. they are on their home turf, an invaluable advantage in war, and c. they are being supported by outside agents with information and weaponry, and d. the U.S. is bungling the whole affair from the start, alienating the common folk and putting criminals in to power as our local representatives whom the Iraqis hate and fear.

 

At the same time the method of passive resistance has its limits as well. True, individual leaders and governments can be shamed out of power by public displays and marches but they are only the figureheads of a rotten, evil system. Take Blair at the moment, his unpopularity is pushing his party to push him out the door, but the same bastards with blood on their hands and dollar signs in their hearts are calling the shots. Different face, same beast. Passive resistance is exactly that, passive, and while it can swing attitudes and win moral arguments, it ultimately takes organized political and even violent resistance to achieve the goal of cracking the power of an incumbent system. The protests against the Vietnam war here in the late 60s are a case in point. At its most powerful, the anti-war movement never really threatened the U.S. elites goals in Southeast Asia. While many were turned on by the message of peace, many others were turned off and many more others than either of those groups changed not a whit. It was not until economic factors, namely the collapse of LBJs "Great Society" due to the cost of the war, as well as as international pressure, namely the US loosing diplomatic authority as tales of atrocities and war crimes came out of 'Nam, combined with public pressure to push Nixon to get out with honor. And then he kept up the illegal, secret bombings in Laos and Cambodia for a bit longer. These were utter war crimes, for which H. Kissinger was charged I believe in the world court.

 

Michael Moore's movies are thin on analysis and heavy on the insinuation, but I believe they are helpful nonetheless. You have to understand that many Americans view their country from a religious point of view, they see it as "chosen by God to lead the world", the "city on the Hill" as one of the early Puritan colonists put it. Many really believe this place was chosen for a special mission in the world. Some folks really believe we went into Iraq for altruistic reasons, that we are spreading democracy around like candy at a fair, that our "boys and girls" in uniform would never take part in things like rape, torture, or the murder of civilians. Moore's movies are an important challenge to those fantasies. They should be criticized, heavily, but I give them this bit of credit: they are saying things that NOONE else in the mainstream American media is saying. Dear god, its so bad that FOX news has STILL been telling its viewers that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. even after the fucking White House said that none were found, FOX continued to discuss the WMD as if they were a fact. A poll conducted recently found that FOX viewers were twice as likely to still believe that weapons were found in Iraq, justifiying the war. With that sort of straight out lying going on, M. Moore is an imperfect but welcome change.

[sparhawk]

I hope you don't think that I take all these movies and bots of information at face value. I see Moores movies just like you said. As a valuable information about things that are otherwise suppressed in the mainstream media, but I'm still aware that Moore has still his own agenday, even if it is a good one. And it's only one opinion among many.

As to the Iraq war, I always thought that people believed it because they wanted to believe it. That was suich an obvious lie and cheap excuse to start a war, it couldn't really get more obvious. And to these people it doesn't really matter if you tell them the truth, because they simply will deny it. It's the same clientel that is reading mags like "Sunday news" and other boulevard press, and believe what they get served there.

What I find much more disturibing though is, that the "civilized world" went along with this lie even though they knew it was one. Diplomatism is only a VERY thin layer that is not really more civilized than street thugs, only on a different level. They smile at your face and only give you the knife when your back is turned calling that "educated" and "civilized".

[Maximius]

I hope you don't think that I take all these movies and bots of information at face value. I see Moores movies just like you said. As a valuable information about things that are otherwise suppressed in the mainstream media, but I'm still aware that Moore has still his own agenday, even if it is a good one. And it's only one opinion among many.

 

 

No I didnt think that, hawk. And Moore definitely has an agenda, namely that of getting Democrats into office. Farenheit 9/11 demonstrated that with all of the Democratic party cameos and such. The policy decisions of Democrats can be every bit as evil as that of the Repubs, they just smile while they piss down your leg instead of growl like Republicans. Case in point, more innocent Iraqis have died under the reign of Bill Clinton than under either of the Bushes, due mostly to the inhumane sanctions against the civilians of Iraq. Unfortunately this is what passes for the "Left" in the U.S., a slightly less vile Democrat over a Republican.

 

 

spar:As to the Iraq war, I always thought that people believed it because they wanted to believe it. That was suich an obvious lie and cheap excuse to start a war, it couldn't really get more obvious.

 

Thats true to an extent. People did want to believe it was a good and just fight. But that belief was supported by the deep, religious like attitude of uncritical awe that many in this nation have of their homeland. And just because such things were obvious lies to the likes of you and I does NOT mean it was to other folks. For the reasons you list here:

 

And to these people it doesn't really matter if you tell them the truth, because they simply will deny it. It's the same clientel that is reading mags like "Sunday news" and other boulevard press, and believe what they get served there.

 

Bingo. I got in an argument at my pub a few weeks back. Another regular, a journalist, and I were laughing about the latest idiocies of Bush and Co. A younger guy across the bar chimed in, basically making the arguement that yes, times are bad and yes, things are bad in Iraq, and yes, its looks as if corporate and federal corruption were at all time highs, and yes, the U.S. is engaging in the torture and murder of people around the world, and yes, democracy is all but dead here with 100 million dollar senatorial campaigns and voter fraud ** BUT**, and I quote:

 

"This is still the best country around!"

 

On what evidence? I asked. I offered to bring him two dozen different books on a variety of subjects that would undermine his claims. He wasn't buying it, nothing would convince him otherwise. THis is a highly educated young professional, not some goober from the sticks who thinks the U.S. invented the wheel and the Founding Fathers were all ten feet tall, this is a man with access to books, the Internet, you name it. I offered to provide him with websites, e-books, journals, the whole kit but I could see the hunger to believe burning in his eyes all the same. Its really a form of supersition, patriotism or nationalism, with no concrete basis.

 

 

spar: What I find much more disturibing though is, that the "civilized world" went along with this lie even though they knew it was one.

 

Such was the diplomatic power of the Empire at that time. It used the velvet sheathed fist to get its way. And it usually worked. THen Bush and Co. came along with unilateralism. Now try getting our allies to do a fucking thing for us. Good luck, witness Condi Rice's failure to whip up international support for a taskforce to settle down the Israeli incursion into Lebanon. International disgust at the U.S. SOLE veto of an immediate cease fire in the conflict so nauseated and alienated our allies that almost nobody will step up now. We have lost any moral authenticity that anybody may have thought we had. Not that we did, Im talking perception here.

 

spar: Diplomatism is only a VERY thin layer that is not really more civilized than street thugs, only on a different level. They smile at your face and only give you the knife when your back is turned calling that "educated" and "civilized".

 

Agreed. Its "warfare by other means" as someone, maybe Kissinger said. But it still has its role to play in the international theatre and the u.s. has bankrupted any diplomatic legitimacy it had. Our own ambassadors have been screaming to the government that our Wild West diplomacy is losing hearts and minds for us but the current powers dont look to international so much as domestic attitudes. Which are finally turning against them too.

[Maximius]

Now how the hell did I manage to do that above?

[Maximius]

And then there is this to factor in:

 

http://pewresearch.org/reports/?ReportID=45

Edited September 7, 2006 by Maximius

[Maximius]

But then there is this too:

 

[SneaksieDave]

What. The fuck. Is that?

 

Is that a joke from someone or for real? That little kid wanted more out of life. So he found Jesus and put on his military fatigues?

 

Wow, is this world in trouble.

[Maximius]

What. The fuck. Is that?

 

Is that a joke from someone or for real? That little kid wanted more out of life. So he found Jesus and put on his military fatigues?

 

Wow, is this world in trouble.

 

 

Im at work so all I can do is watch those loonies and those poor innocent children getting brainwashed. No sound cards at work. I cant wait to get home and listen to that insanity. Then again, maybe I can wait.

 

I think the movie title and credits are a spoof but the footage is all too real. I used to know some deep fried Southern Baptists years ago in Orlando. Believe what you see, its what really goes on. They would send the daughter to Baptist summer camp. I went with them once, once, to a picnic thrown by the church. The kids group would talk about what Jesus meant to them, then how Hispanics, African Americans, and Jews were taking over the country. Except they didn't call them Hispanics, A. Americans, or Jews. The ironic upshot was when I got back from being in the Army and returned to Orlando, all those bible thumping kids had grown up and were dealing X and LSD and weed. Like we used to say at the all night nightclubs:

 

JESUS RAVES!!

[sparhawk]

"This is still the best country around!"

 

LOL!

 

Such was the diplomatic power of the Empire at that time. It used the velvet sheathed fist to get its way. And it usually worked. THen Bush and Co. came along with unilateralism. Now try getting our allies to do a fucking thing for us. Good luck, witness Condi Rice's failure to whip up international support for a taskforce to settle down the Israeli incursion into Lebanon. International disgust at the U.S. SOLE veto of an immediate cease fire in the conflict so nauseated and alienated our allies that almost nobody will step up now. We have lost any moral authenticity that anybody may have thought we had. Not that we did, Im talking perception here.

 

Actually this was one single thing that I really appreciated in Schroeder. That he did not support the war on Iraq and sent no troops. You can say whatever you want about him, but I thought that this was at least some real politics, based on believe and whats best. Well, there were probably other reasons why he stayed off, but at least it's nice to think off. Now we got this whore Merkel. When I hear how Bush praises here I could vomit. Worst was when he was here in germany on a visit. They cleanup up an entire village for him. And a few selected "fans" were "allowed" to see him personally. The population was told that they have to close their windows and put their shutters down, so that the police can be sure that there is no assiasin. They fused lids of the drainage on the street and all kind of crap. I told my collegue, they can be sure that I wouldn't close my windows just because of that idiot and I would have hung an anti US flag outside I would have to by just for that purpose. They spent 20Mio Euro just for this idiot to come around, and when he comes all what he gets to see is a stage of a village. If he is so afraid of the germans, I wonder why he bothers at all. That visit really did piss me off, fortunately it was only a few days and it was a totally different area then where I live.

 

Agreed. Its "warfare by other means" as someone, maybe Kissinger said. But it still has its role to play in the international theatre and the u.s. has bankrupted any diplomatic legitimacy it had. Our own ambassadors have been screaming to the government that our Wild West diplomacy is losing hearts and minds for us but the current powers dont look to international so much as domestic attitudes. Which are finally turning against them too.

 

That's all to true. When I was younger I was a big fan of the US but this has really turned around a lot - 180 Degree. I know for sure that I never would spend a single Euro to get there, and even if I would win some trip to Disneyland for free (or the likes) I definitely wouldn't even take it. I rather would go to Canada instead or sell it.

 

But that should not be interpreted that I dislike US citizens in general, I just wouldn't like to support the political system and attitude. I know that individual people are usually ok in all kind of nations.

[sparhawk]

But then there is this too:

 

 

Is this a real movie trailer or what? Not sure what to make of it.

[Maximius]

Is this a real movie trailer or what? Not sure what to make of it.

 

 

I think the footage is real, but the movie titles and credits are a spoof. I have to wait to get home to listen to it but thats probably whats up. The footage looks too real: crazy ass fundamentalist women with super hairsprayed out manes babbling about angels watching them drive home on dark nights, moon-eyed children crying because baby Jesus had to die for the evil in their little hearts or because the homosexual Jewish fascists that run Hollywood and Wall Street want to force them to have abortions, the military fatigues and close cropped hair on the boys, yep, its a Christian summer camp.