Miss Sloane - The Movie

There is that too...

 

Heh, I like Jessica Chastain but then I like thin redheads.

 

She has that appearance that makes her look like it would doing your couch. You have to admit that the porn parody could take Miss Sloane to a new level and actually have people watch it.

 

Sure, a Tribute to Fiction writing.


"The random discharge of a firearm has often equated more Justice, than our over 200 year old Legal system."

Lt. Hunter
Hill street blues.
(T.V. Cop show )

 

Fictional writing does not preclude elements of truth.

 

its been a bomb and its a joke. want to see REAL movies about what GUN CONTROL really does

Here you go

Schindler's List

The Triumph of the Will

The Killing Fields

The Diary of of Ann Frank

 

When this comes on TV, they can use this commercial, during breaks.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/sear...04c5a772a050727e7d8845beebf78cda&action=click

 

A porno parody is the only way to save this movie. First Miss Sloane as a title doesn't cut it. Change it to Miss Slut. She's a Washington lobbyist who can't get off unless she has her gun fetish on. Maybe Bill Klinton in a cameo with Huma. Cast Chuck Schumer as a tranny narrator and you'll nail it.

 

Sounds like an interesting plot. Maybe you missed your calling.

 

The irony of this nonsense is for people to use a computer and the internet to argue infringement of the 2nd Amendment based on technology.

Does your First Amendment right only cover hand writing, ink printing presses, and public speaking? After all "the Founders would never have envisioned that technology!"

 

Absurd comparison. Can I fire bits and bytes off the Internet, which can kill 100 people in a minute's time?

 

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

 

Well then, explain that, when you go to purchase a grenade launcher.

 

Like this one:
http://www.gunbroker.com/item/659415601

 

It can be argued that a lot of damage has been done by irresponsible and inflammatory speech. That doesn't change the fact that the Constitution protects the right to bear arms, and if you feel that is no longer a valid right for people to have, then push for a Constitutional Amendment. Arguing that one Amendment is irrelevant because of evolving technology and other isn't is nothing but hypocrisy.

 

No, but you can rent a white truck which can kill 86 people in not much longer, unlike any firearm ever made.

 

I'm not the one that brought up Amendment 1. Also, this is the same constitution that didn't allow women the right to vote. It can certainly be an evolving document to fit the times.

 

I apologize, but I got pulled off the topic, by getting into the topic of Constitution and firearms. Not sure how it came up, but this thread is about Miss Sloane, the movie. The leading actress got good reviews, and it has a nice twist at the end.

The only aspect of Gun Control in the movie were some statements about the unpopularity of guns among most women, and the desire to change that stigma.

 

It was a horrible movie and no one saw it. It's not much of a topic. The porno angle is much more interesting and frankly would be more entertaining as well as informative.

 

Actually, I know a number of people who saw it.

 

All six?

 

This statement clearly and unambiguously illustrates the ignorance of the Constitution that you possess. This is the infamous "living Document" argument that has zero basis in reality.

The fact is that the Founders recognized that changing times might require the Constitution to have the ability to evolve. BUT to prevent that "evolution" to be so easy to happen that an amoral and totalitarian government could "evolve" it into irrelevancy, the Amendment process was written to prevent it from being easily changed without the full agreement and support of a clear supermajority of the American people. This is part of how the Founders sought to blunt the mob rule element of pure democracy. Yes, women did not originally have the right to vote, but the Constitution was ultimately AMENDED to recognize their rights. You can't simply ignore the Constitution when you find it inconvenient; if there is an issue, people who feel it necessary can lobby for an Amendment to address it.

If you believe gun ownership is a problem and needs to be eliminated or heavily restricted, feel free to go forth and pursue an Amendment that will make it acceptable under the Constitution. I, in my turn, will work diligently within the system to see your efforts fail.

 

There's an early scene in the movie where a politically motivated male gun advocate describes the female participation as weak and lacking. And his goal is to change that, through the involvement of super-lobbyist Sloane.