I realised I'd never seen a Rambo film and went back and watched the original and... it's a surprisingly nuanced film. No really!

The Rambo I was know is a classic meat head action hero, but the original is a damaged Vietnam vet who just wants to be left alone. The real villains are the towns folk who demonise and victimise him.

He does everything he can to avoid conflict until he's "pushed too far" and I think that's what everyone remembered. But the core of the story for me was a soldier who came back, that society had didn't want and who had nowhere to go.

If you've not seen the original check it out! You might be surprised.

Bob.
Get seen for cranial rectosis.
3:21 mark

"He served just under 4 years, and was discharged at the exalted rank of private."

You somehow think that means he's not a veteran? Go to any local military base and tell them that, see how it goes. He has been consistent stating he was not in Vietnam or battle, he didn't claim to be a war veteran or Vietnam vet, that was just lazy/poor reporting...but not nearly as poor as this 1791 ranting YouTube tripe that actually corroborated my statement by accident.

Seriously, get seen. There's something amiss if you thought this was somehow proving he's not a vet.

It's funny how sure people sound that they know what happened based on a few "media reports"(oops, turns out he's not a Vietnam Vet!). There's video out there, educate yourself people! The drummers did walk into the crowd of teenagers purposefully. The kids likely didn't even know he was part of a protest, just that he was getting in their faces and banging his drum. Some even sang along with him.

The description here "decided to surround and block, taunt, and threaten a native American veteran performing a ceremony" is all false.

Welcome to Ameriguns!
Puns set aside..
You all seem to miss (If my short memory recalls correct) that the old man was a vietnam vet. So he's probably not dera.. oh wait no war can quite fuck you up, and make you paranoid. And he was old, oh.. probably not a suitable gun owner. And he used to shoot foreigners like them in his youth so perhaps it was a "flashback" moment he had and just pulled the trigger.
Blahblah, I would more like to reply to dirk.
1. Emergencies requires speed. (That inclued both ambulance & private)
2: I think the discussion to regulate torque/horsepower has come up somewhere before. But if you think long about it.. it ends up quite uneccesary (if you follow the next points) to limit this
2.1 Just see to the whole history and scale of motor vehicles. There's probably alot of engineering, problem of controlling, bad fuel consumtion (low gear vs high gears etc) that makes implementation of limits a bad idea. Cars are, much more than guns, an actual symbol of mans (modern) freedom. Freedom to travel, move, explore and work, transport and evolve. It's also a passion for so many people. Racing and amateur racing.
2.2 So no chance people would obey or accept somthing limiting their horsepowers.
2.3 Not really a big problem. Yes, some people speed and some die as a result. Atleast to be qualified for a license you HAVE to learn, pass an exam and have a license.
2.4 The US state does alot to "nanny" the traffic and highways already.
-----Reply to your second segment----
First I think comparing guns to any other item of possesion is just going down a route of stupid argumentation. I'd rather see 99% of all arguments and discussion stay on-topic instead oft taking the try-to-win-a--point-with-farfetched-comparisons turn.
But. Already said, vehicles and cars most often requires licenses, are monitored, regulated, taxed and enforced etc. Also, could I turn this steak over 180? As cars are taxed, registries are of them and police can force you to show license/revoke/stop you when drunk etc. Shouldn't all the same things they do here also apply to guns?
--Third segment--
A. Removing all guns would be great, but not possible as that just is not the world we live in (Or as for USA, the country they live in). So the question is rather: Who shall be allowed to buy them? B (to answer the actual and sole question I could read): They Kill people, alot easier than cars (and what dangerous hobbies are you thinking of?), so we are less inclined to ban fast cars. But sure, we could ban fast cars as well, which leads to
C: Invalid argument. Let's just say the actual sequence of events would be: "Yes, now we are banning guns, and you are right about fast cars as well. They are to be forbidden next month. Oh, I see some argue that if no fast cars, then why sharp knives - they kill as well. That's correct, next month they will be banned as well." And then it just rolls on.. down to forks and metal cutlery. See the fallacy?
--Final part--
I'm not going into what I believe a state should, or should not do. And how ignorant and missing the point of the point of having a state in the first place, there is to ... saying that it should either completely be THIS - or completely do THAT. It's not a do-or-don't; black-and-white way, that state, laws and regulations work (or is meant to work).
I will go on your "OR we have to accept" since that's more sensible way to have a society. Then I have
To be clear: My opinion is that I see no point in civilian ownership of HIGHLY lethal weaponry. Guns are not comparable to anything else (almost) that exists. Everything else that is as potentially lethal is already forbidden or reduced. A gun can so ridiculously easy destroy so much, so fast. I simply see no point in any-one and everyone able to own one. Yes, hunters (limited to rifles) and hobby marksmen (limited to X mm gun/rifle - controlled and licensed and trackable etc) I believe should be able to use or practice their livelyhood or passion. But as easily as it is now, no way.

---
I think alot of this problem is simply the fact that it's written clearn in your constitution - the right to bear arms. Was written very long ago, or more so: so much has gone so fast and evolved since then. It's not a necessity now; as it was then, they were sure not as effective then as now, and several other things that has evolved and made the reasons for bearing arms (lacking a huge law enforcement agencies as no#1) seem good then: just be stupid theese days.

*isdupe=http://videosift.com/video/Romney-Tells-Gay-Vietnam-Vet-Marriage-Is-Between-A-Man-and

seems to be popular dupe =o)

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by PlayhousePals.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Grimm. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Romney-Tells-Gay-Vietnam-Vet-Marriage-Is-Between-A-Man-and

Dupe of this:

http://videosift.com/video/Romney-Tells-Gay-Vietnam-Vet-Marriage-Is-Between-A-Man-and

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by Sagemind.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by cricket. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Romney-Tells-Gay-Vietnam-Vet-Marriage-Is-Between-A-Man-and

...and then you find out this is a Taming of the Shrew sort of movie.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I don't get why a female lead should be so controversial. I don't see any evidence that women are in any way a threat to male dominance in cinema.
Why does female empowerment bother people? Do they feel women should be subservient? Do they feel women are inferior and should not be glorified in cinema? Are they threatened by challenges to traditional gender roles? I don't get the conservative lizard brain.
Most films are focused on male characters: ex cia operatives, cia operatives, superheroes, starship pilots, lawyers, roughnecks, wealthy aires, adventurous lads, movie stars, pilots, news reporters, detectives, grieving sons, criminals, singing woodland crittters, spys, soldiers, cops, businessmen, farmers, swordsmen, insurance salesmen, vietnam vets, tap dancing penguins, even men playing female roles.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/movie/box_office.php

I don't get why a female lead should be so controversial. I don't see any evidence that women are in any way a threat to male dominance in cinema.

Why does female empowerment bother people? Do they feel women should be subservient? Do they feel women are inferior and should not be glorified in cinema? Are they threatened by challenges to traditional gender roles? I don't get the conservative lizard brain.

Most films are focused on male characters: ex cia operatives, cia operatives, superheroes, starship pilots, lawyers, roughnecks, wealthy aires, adventurous lads, movie stars, pilots, news reporters, detectives, grieving sons, criminals, singing woodland crittters, spys, soldiers, cops, businessmen, farmers, swordsmen, insurance salesmen, vietnam vets, tap dancing penguins, even men playing female roles.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/movie/box_office.php

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by Boise_Lib.