A crooked father (Christopher Walken) exerts an ultimately fatal attraction over his estranged son (Sean Penn). This is a tough movie, with unrelenting, unapologetic performances by the two leads, who seem to play off each others coldness in the face of such narrative nastiness. There is also another oddball characterisation to behold from Crispin Glover, as Penns epicene pal. But this is about the depth of it. What remains is a kind of gauntlet thrown down to the audience as each of Penns youthful gang members are picked off by his father how long can you watch this kind of thing?
The company has been talking in private about its aims of speeding up the roll-out of wireless network hardware to individual homes so that the PSP can be used to its full advantage - with the obvious implication being that the PS3 will be wireless LAN enabled in some form, allowing users to easily connect a PSP to the next-generation console and access a full range of media, including games, movies, music and online media, using the PSP as a wires-free terminal for the system.
Close Range full movie online free
Even more intriguing than Sony's vision for the home, however, is the company's ambition for the PSP on the move - and the steps that it is taking to realise its goals. Wireless hot spots, offering Internet access at speeds of up to 10mb/sec (20 times faster than the average home broadband connection) are springing up rapidly in towns and cities around the world, and Sony plans to take advantage of this new form of connectivity to offer a range of media services, multiplayer games and online functionality to PSP.
Close Range full movie ,Close Range English movie online free ,Close Range full English movie watch online ,Close Range movie watch online free ,watch Close Range movie online ,watch Close Range full movie online ,Close Range online , Close Range dvd movie ,Close Range hd movie free , movie Close Range online , Close Range movie download
The anti gun control crowd keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment as if it is absolute, but nothing in life is. The 1st Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech, but if you walk into a movie theater and scream 'Fire' you'd be arrested and prosecuted, and if you threaten to kill the President, the Secret Service and FBI would knock on your door within hours. Defaming another person could end up in heavy financial losses.The Constitution is based on the Declaration of Independence, which says that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" Life and the pursuit of happiness are idenied by mess murders perpetrated by individuals or groups armed with battlefield grade assault weapons capable of killing many innocent civilians in seconds, weapons the framers could never even imagine centuries ago and the government has not only the right, but the obligation to protect the public by banning such weapons, based on the Declaration of Independence.
There are multiple definitions, varying by location and time: Web LinkThe practical difference between a regular home defense handgun and an "assault" rifle is not how many innocent people it can kill during a given period of time. The difference is in the effective distance and types of anti-bullet-protection it can overcome.A handgun is a short-range low-power weapon: relatively reliable hits on target are only to about 60 feet out; the bullets will be stopped by a police-grade bulletproof vest.An "assault" rifle is a medium-range medium-power weapon: reliable hits to about 300 feet out; one can manufacture hard-metal-core bullets that will penetrate most police-grade bulletproof vests.When it comes to the insane and deplorable acts of killing innocents at a close distance, handguns could be even more effective than rifles, as they are quicker to aim, easier to retain, and a shooter can use two of them simultaneously.Even a person with moderate mechanical skills can manufacture a high-capacity magazine for a handgun. With a bit of training, an average shooter can achieve rate of fire of 2 shots per second, more than sufficient for a mass shooting.The practical benefits of "assault" rifles were demonstrated during mass riots. For instance in Los Angeles in 1992: Web LinkA mostly unarmed rioting crowd, even if it includes individuals armed with handguns, stands a little chance against a properly trained and positioned defender armed with an "assault" rifle.On a much less attractive flip side, as I mentioned, access to "assault" rifles makes gangs members, deranged psychos, and other individuals deadly not only to innocents at close range, but also to police officers and national guard soldiers at moderate ranges.Any prohibition would be a double-edged sword. On one hand, banning "assault" rifles would benefit the police and national guard in situations when they have to deal with determined killers.On the other hand, it would remove effective protection tools from the hands of individuals who might otherwise use them to ensure safety of their community at times of riots and large-scale natural disasters.
> Balance, a resident of Charleston MeadowsThat is at the very least a place to start. Thank you. You raised some questions,do you have any suggestions that might be answers?> The practical difference between a regular home defense handgun and an> "assault" rifle is not how many innocent people it can kill during a given> period of time. The difference is in the effective distance and types of> anti-bullet-protection it can overcome.> An "assault" rifle is a medium-range medium-power weapon: reliable hits> to about 300 feet out; one can manufacture hard-metal-core bullets that> will penetrate most police-grade bulletproof vests.What is the distribution spread of distance of mass shooting victims. I amunder the impression that most people who were shot were closer than the60 feet you put as the limit of a handgun.> When it comes to the insane and deplorable acts of killing innocents at a> close distance, handguns could be even more effective than rifles, as> they are quicker to aim, easier to retain, and a shooter can use two of> them simultaneously.This is the point I have been trying to get at. Any gun that is single shotreload is going to be useless for defense, aside from maybe a shotgun,because if you are scared and your adrenalin is pumping your aim will beshaky unless you are very practiced. So, for defense, it seems to me thatwhatever gun would work could very well be classed as an assault rifle.And that completely ignores the handgun angle your mentioned.> A mostly unarmed rioting crowd, even if it includes individuals armed> with handguns, stands a little chance against a properly trained and> positioned defender armed with an "assault" rifle.Against an unarmed crowd a guy with a samurai sword will prevail, soI am not sure what point is that supposed to make.For purposes of a mass shooter, what they need to kill masses of peopleis a "semi-automatic weapon" that can shoot fast, as fast as the shootercan pull his finger. Singling out "assault style" weapons might not makeany practical difference while the act is going on.- but perhaps the unavailability of assault-style "sexy" weapons to gunfetishists could act as at least a slight deterrent in itself?> access to "assault" rifles makes gangs members, deranged psychos,> and other individuals deadly not only to innocents at close range, but> also to police officers and national guard soldiers at moderate ranges.This raised another point of trying to ensure that guns civilians have willbe less than what the police have. That is a desired state, but is it possible?Your points are well stated. Can anyone add or rebut these points.The dual concerns are 1. Can a gun-owner protect themselves or detercrime against himself? 2. In a mass shooter situation or standoff can thepolice maintain a superior advantage.So, the effort to equate any semi-automatic weapon with an assaultweapon is not so far-fetched. What experience have other states orcountries had with different methods to curb violent gun crimes? Theassault weapons ban is claimed to have worked, and waiting periodsand background checks add something to the mix as well.The criminalizing of mental illness, because for these purposes alot of things are getting mashed together, drug use, depression, OCD,BPD ... and I think I understand that while most shooters we think ofas mentally ill, a very small number of generically mentally ill peopleare actually dangerous or violent.Deciding someone is a menace and taking their guns or gun away,seems like it might be problematic, and even violating due process.This is a very intractable problem. Then there is the simple solutionof removing all guns from the public. How would that work? 2ff7e9595c
Comments