The real reason U2 isn't releasing any of this material

[gvox]

Can't speak for the world (I've tried but there's always that one guy in Tibet...), but I would like Angry Bono 2.0 very much.

After all his "save the world" bipartisanship, it would be nice for him to say a big "F OFF!" once in a while. It would be nice to hear him rant about WHY we need to save the world. Recent years, the "kinder, gentler" Bono more or less told us about causes. I accepted this because his actions spoke louder than his words. He was literally trying to save the world. This was definitely a step up from the 80's Bono - who was very Lennon like - in that he ranted and raved, but didn't seem to really do all that much. It's great to bring causes to the public's attention as 80's Bono and Lennon did - but far better to actually do something about them.

However, after a decade of this "gentler" Bono, I want a more passionate, ranting Bono.

The speech Bono gave in 2008 after accepting an NAACP award was fantastic (see below).

YouTube - Bono 's NAACP Speech


This speech may be too long for a concert, but I still get chills listening to his passion, his anger and how we can all change the world. And that's what I've been missing a bit lately.

I think this type of Bono will go over well - it will help remind us why we need passion. And it will demonstrate that a 51 year old rich rock star can still be a rebel.

This entire post is worth repeating. Expresses my sentiments exactly...and I might add that perhaps it might even inspire some new great writing yet!

I think that's something we can all get behind

 

[shart1780]

Are we sure Bono knows what he's talking about here? From what I've heard the problem he's ranting about isn't nearly as big a problem as he's making it out to be. I'm not particularly educated on the subject, but Bono isn't exactly my source for info on the state of the USA.

 

[corianderstem]

What's not as big a problem? The violence in the border towns in Mexico? Or the number of guns going over the border from the US?

 

[shart1780]

The number of illegal guns going over the border.

 

[corianderstem]

Gotcha.

Yeah, I don't know - I haven't heard anything about that one way or the other. Which, I think, is part of Bono's point - that it's not in the media.

 

[shart1780]

Here's the thing... guns can be sold legally to legal US citizens and then sold to Mexicans or they can be sold illigally to illegal Mexicans directly from gun dealers. If the former is the situation here then I don't think Bono has much of a point, so I'm hesitant to cheer for Bono because for all I know he has a really flawed argument. Obviously drugs are different because regardless of the situation selling drugs is ALWAYS illegal and selling guns is only illegal if you aren't licensed. My understanding from what I've read is they're are a lot of guns going through the black market that can't even be obtained by most gun dealers such as rocket and grenade launchers which were stolen from the military.

I'm not saying Bono's wrong... I'm just saying I'm too skeptical to start cheering for him.

 

[Niceman]

I'll cheer for his passion. Whether he's right or wrong isn't what concerns me!

 

[An Cat Gav]

Oh Angry Bono, why did you ever have to leave us? Please stick around, it's great to have you back.

 

[mama cass]

oh for fuck's sake, Bono.

automatic weapons don't kill people. people kill people.

we should be outright selling more guns to Mexicans so that good, god-fearing people can defend themselves against the cartels.

just ask Gabby Giffords and all those people in Arizona who were killed by a semiautomatic that had more bullets in it because of the 2004 expiration of the clinton-era assault weapon ban under Bush and the Republicans.

you may be right -- this isn't FYM, sarcasm won't be understood here.

ha, i had to read it twice just to make sure

 

[lemonfly]

I hope after the show Bono went to his hotel and wrote a song or two. If he channels that kind of raw anger into U2 songs again...well it will be something special that has been missing for a long while.

 

[gvox]

Here's the thing... guns can be sold legally to legal US citizens and then sold to Mexicans or they can be sold illigally to illegal Mexicans directly from gun dealers. .

Oh for fuck's sake. Either way, some asshole and/or assholes along the way are manufacturing, transporting and selling guns to Mexicans either under the guise of legality, or illegally. If there weren't thousands of gun dealers, an entire assault rifle industry that has no business selling assault rifles to the average joe and a rabid public salivitating over the latest and greatest killing machine, those guns would have a much harder time arriving in Mexico. And of course, a clandestine network more than willing to turn them over to third-world countries, many times in direct exchange for drugs, to keep them destabilized. It's been going on for decades.

And, of course, we're not supposed to know it's happening, hence the lack of reporting on it. Bono is right on the money on this one.

 

[Cactus Annie]

Gvox loves gospal music the best!

This morning on the radio they played an earlier Elton John song that sounded more like gospal than rock

 

[gvox]

It frightens me to know that you actually believe you know a thing about music and yet can't even spell one of the genres correctly.

 

[Jeannieco]

Oh for fuck's sake. Either way, some asshole and/or assholes along the way are manufacturing, transporting and selling guns to Mexicans either under the guise of legality, or illegally. If there weren't thousands of gun dealers, an entire assault rifle industry that has no business selling assault rifles to the average joe and a rabid public salivitating over the latest and greatest killing machine, those guns would have a much harder time arriving in Mexico. And of course, a clandestine network more than willing to turn them over to third-world countries, many times in direct exchange for drugs, to keep them destabilized. It's been going on for decades.

And, of course, we're not supposed to know it's happening, hence the lack of reporting on it. Bono is right on the money on this one.

Exactly.

 

[BVS]

Are we sure Bono knows what he's talking about here? From what I've heard the problem he's ranting about isn't nearly as big a problem as he's making it out to be. I'm not particularly educated on the subject, but Bono isn't exactly my source for info on the state of the USA.

Well then stop using Fox News as a source. It's a huge problem, and it's being reported quite a bit on non-major network programs. NPR just did a story that showed five border patrol officers smuggling automatic guns over getting paid 1000 bucks for each gun.

So this is not a problem for you?

Here's the thing... guns can be sold legally to legal US citizens and then sold to Mexicans or they can be sold illigally to illegal Mexicans directly from gun dealers. If the former is the situation here then I don't think Bono has much of a point, so I'm hesitant to cheer for Bono because for all I know he has a really flawed argument. Obviously drugs are different because regardless of the situation selling drugs is ALWAYS illegal and selling guns is only illegal if you aren't licensed. My understanding from what I've read is they're are a lot of guns going through the black market that can't even be obtained by most gun dealers such as rocket and grenade launchers which were stolen from the military.

I'm not saying Bono's wrong... I'm just saying I'm too skeptical to start cheering for him.

Once again, do a little research, you have this all wrong.

 

[Rachel D.]

I heard a long time ago that these drug thugs have more powerful guns than the Mexican police because the police force can't afford them. I don't know if that's true anymore, but maybe the US should be arming the cops.

Not that this has anything to do with the original topic.

 

[Jeannieco]

I heard a long time ago that these drug thugs have more powerful guns than the Mexican police because the police force can't afford them. I don't know if that's true anymore, but maybe the US should be arming the cops.

Not that this has anything to do with the original topic.

This is such a bad idea for so many reasons.
The police in Mexico and all of Central America for that matter, are corrupt.
Did we not learn anything from the fiasco in Nicaragua and El Salvador? For the sake of fighting a "perceived enemey" the Sandanistas, we (RONALD REAGAN) armed the Contras who in turn slaughtered priests and nuns and children.
To stay on topic, Bullet the Blue Sky is an entire song about this subject.

 

[Steved1998]

This is such a bad idea for so many reasons.
The police in Mexico and all of Central America for that matter, are corrupt.
Did we not learn anything from the fiasco in Nicaragua and El Salvador? For the sake of fighting a "perceived enemey" the Sandanistas, we (RONALD REAGAN) armed the Contras who in turn slaughtered priests and nuns and children.
To stay on topic, Bullet the Blue Sky is an entire song about this subject.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. It's real politik

 

[dan_smee]

Can I ask a question to our American friends:

Supposedly, the only argument I have heard for the domestic use of any sort of gun is in the constitution based on a vague and tenuous sentence about 'the right to bear arms' when forming or participating in an 'urban militia'. This seems to me to have more of a 'war time' connotation, rather than some fucked up teenager taking a rifle to school and killing his teachers and classmates.

Now, it seems that the pro-gun community has taken this concept and derived something about their right to bear arms as a key element of their freedoms. Given the weight of evidence that suggests that domestic gun ownership causes far more deaths than it prevents, can the same not be said for heroin use? What about anthrax? Can it be an American's right to use heroin as a fundamental aspect of their freedoms?

Can someone explain this difference to me.

 

[BVS]

We've tried this debate in FYM many times, good luck finding someone who can discuss the pro gun side in an informed way and not skipping over the context of time and militia.

I haven't found anyone that can...

But the NRA has lots of $$$ so it's gonna be awhile before anything really gets done.

 

[JamietheEdgefan]

Can I ask a question to our American friends:

Supposedly, the only argument I have heard for the domestic use of any sort of gun is in the constitution based on a vague and tenuous sentence about 'the right to bear arms' when forming or participating in an 'urban militia'. This seems to me to have more of a 'war time' connotation, rather than some fucked up teenager taking a rifle to school and killing his teachers and classmates.

Now, it seems that the pro-gun community has taken this concept and derived something about their right to bear arms as a key element of their freedoms. Given the weight of evidence that suggests that domestic gun ownership causes far more deaths than it prevents, can the same not be said for heroin use? What about anthrax? Can it be an American's right to use heroin as a fundamental aspect of their freedoms?

Can someone explain this difference to me.

Well said
See, the problem i have with people saying owning a gun is one of their fundamental rights, is just the basic fact that it's used to injure/kill someone. Taking away someone else's right to safety/life by shooting them is not really a freedom.
I mean, i know it's about self defence, but it doesn't strike me as a defensive move to start a firefight. Allowing people to own guns just strikes me as problematic.

But yeah, i don't know much about the issue, so i'll back out now...

 

[dan_smee]

A grandmother beign robbed is no more protected if she has a gun. Because the criminal also has a gun. And the element of surprise.

The only thing it changes is the fact that someone will probably die, rather than someone being robbed.

 

[JamietheEdgefan]

A grandmother beign robbed is no more protected if she has a gun. Because the criminal also has a gun. And the element of surprise.

The only thing it changes is the fact that someone will probably die, rather than someone being robbed.

Agreed, it's just problematic. It doesn't solve a problem, it makes it more violent.
Plus, inflicting your will/bullets on someone else is absolutely not a 'freedom'. And, as you point out, the self defence idea doesn't really work.

 

[corianderstem]

Not all gun owners have it for purely self defense reasons. There are a lot of Americans who hunt, whether for food or for sport.

Not that I have a dog in this fight, but I thought it was important to make that distinction.

 

[Irvine511]

Can I ask a question to our American friends:

Supposedly, the only argument I have heard for the domestic use of any sort of gun is in the constitution based on a vague and tenuous sentence about 'the right to bear arms' when forming or participating in an 'urban militia'. This seems to me to have more of a 'war time' connotation, rather than some fucked up teenager taking a rifle to school and killing his teachers and classmates.

Now, it seems that the pro-gun community has taken this concept and derived something about their right to bear arms as a key element of their freedoms. Given the weight of evidence that suggests that domestic gun ownership causes far more deaths than it prevents, can the same not be said for heroin use? What about anthrax? Can it be an American's right to use heroin as a fundamental aspect of their freedoms?

Can someone explain this difference to me.

as an american who has never, and will never, own a gun, my advice to you is to check the FYM archives.

 

[dan_smee]

I would argue that goes beyond guns and into "any perceived freedom that encroaches on another's freedoms is not a legitimate freedom".

I wrote a paper about personal freedoms a few years ago. Basically the notion of freedom is so malleable, and so easily adapted to anyone's use that it loses all meaning. Any true freedom can only be a freedom when it doesn't hinder another's freedom.

 

[JamietheEdgefan]

Not all gun owners have it for purely self defense reasons. There are a lot of Americans who hunt, whether for food or for sport.

Not that I have a dog in this fight, but I thought it was important to make that distinction.

Ah that's a good point, i hadn't thought about that. Like i said, i'm not very clued-up on the whole gun debate, just giving my thoughts.

 

[dan_smee]

Not all gun owners have it for purely self defense reasons. There are a lot of Americans who hunt, whether for food or for sport.

Not that I have a dog in this fight, but I thought it was important to make that distinction.

True, and I wasn't so much arguing those sort of points. I was talking specifically about gun ownership for domestic use.

In Australia we have very tight gun laws and controls, but we still have gun owners for hunting/crop proection on farms/recreational (gun club) shooters.

It only took one event (Port Aurthur massacre) to tighten the laws to the point where it is nigh on impossible to obtain a gun without all sorts of background security checks, legitimate reason, waiting times etc.

 

[Jeannieco]

Well, to over simplify , violence begets violence, fear breads more fear... and on and on it goes.
Generally speaking I believe owning a gun for self "protection" only attracks the thing that you are afraid the most. So many times we hear stories of how the gun used during a crime was the victims own gun..used against them.

Also, one of my dearest friends lost her fiance to an accidental gun shot a week before the wedding.
I detest even looking at them. They are made for one thing and one thing only... to KILL other human beings and living creatures.

 

[dan_smee]

as an american who has never, and will never, own a gun, my advice to you is to check the FYM archives.

I was looking for intelligible reason. All I want is for soeone to give me a simple answer on why a distinction was made between (for example) guns and heroin. They both give people pleasure, enjoyment and they both kill a disproprtionately high number of people. Why is it dismissed as a personal freedom to own a gun, but a person who wants to take heroin is legislated against and demonised?