this all reminds me of az-bats.  remember?  changed the costume, killed and hurt ppl a lot.  didn't last.

Quote from: bearded on February 01, 2008, 05:03:29 AM
this all reminds me of az-bats.  remember?  changed the costume, killed and hurt ppl a lot.  didn't last.

One of my least favorite characters ever. So yeah but worse in this case IMO.

i think what's worse is that ppl seem to be buying it.  literally.  which means it will last.
new generation of readers.  i mean, who am i to say?
i'm putting my vote with "Senoirity", by zuludelta and tortuga, when it comes out.

I guess if it sells it'll stay but I sure hope not. I just wish they'd have more comics with the traditional heroes my kids including my teenager could read. she devours manga but she also really loves the old comics in my collection. She would love some new Wonder Woman or Batman for example, but the new stuff just doesn't have it for her.
If guys with conventional basic handguns are so effective though. Why should we need superheroes?

I burrowed this from Bill Keyes on the HERO games forum:

CapGun is awesome! I can see the next 6 months of storylines:

Exciting Issue #1:
Red Skull: Captain America! You are too late! My nefarious scheme...
CapGun: *Blam!*
Red Skull: *Dies*

Sensational Issue #2:
Baron Zemo: Once again, verdammt Amerikaner, you see that...
CapGun: *Blam!*
Baron Zemo: *Dies*

Thrilling Issue #3:
MODOK: Foolish human...
CapGun: *Blam!* *Blam!* *Blam!* *Blam!* *Blam!* *Blam!* ('cause MODOK is a machine, see, so he takes more than one shot)
MODOK: *Dies*

Fantastic Issue #4:
Batroc: Now I, Batroc ze Leapaire, shall steal ze...
CapGun: *Blam!*
Batroc: *Dies*

Fundamental Issue #5:
Madame Hydra: So you see, Captain...
CapGun: *Blam!*
Madame Hydra: *Dies*

Spectacular Issue #6:
CapGun: Hello? Anyone? Hello?
Black Widow: Sorry Cap. You've killed your entire rogues' gallery with your pistol. There's no one left.
CapGun: No one? At all?
Black Widow: Well... there's one guy left you could go after...
Galactus: FEAR ME, TREMBLING MORTALS!
CapGun: *Blam! Ping!* *Blam! Ping!* *Blam! Ping!* *Blam! Ping!* *Blam! Ping!* *Blam! Ping!*
CapGun: Well, f***.
__________________
(\/)

Yes, you got your point across. Hate gun. You overexaggerated it as well. You can cut it out and let the discussion progress elsewhere now because this discussions is slowly going back to what it was BEFORE Bucky took over and brubaker started all that development. It's not for you, fine. Let other people who do enjoy it roll with it without all the hyperbole about a weapon he's used once as cap and you don't know how it'll develop down the line...or maybe you do. Your minds are already made up. *shrugs*

FYI: He hasn't purposely crippled anyone. Being shot in the kneecap doesnt mean insta-crippling and you technically can't be sure where each bullet hit. Until the art/writer begins stating that, then you can't claim that as a reason you don't like new cap. If Steve as cap can do equal or more damage and it's not portrayed to you or you don't make acknowledgment of it because it's not specifically stated, then that same rule should be applied to Bucky Barnes. Just a thought.

Quote from: starlock on February 01, 2008, 03:57:14 AM
:thumbup:
Stopped collecting captain america the issue before he died and never looked back

Well, you're missing out on one of the greatest plots of all time. If I had to drop every single title I currently read except one, this would be the title I keep.

Quite frankly, I never thought of this book as a true Captain America title anyways. He's in it of course, but the star in the series is the Red Skull. Always has been. They should just change the title to "Red Skull: How I finally killed Captain America and destroyed his beloved country." :P

Inevitably and eventually, Steve is coming back. So, quit giving yourselves heart attacks. Sit back and enjoy the ride, cause it's a great one.

In Brubaker, I trust. :lol:

I agree with you completely Murs. ;) It's a good book....period.

I said before that Bru's whole run has lead to this, and I kinda think that Steve will return by the end of it. I think Bru has a complete story in mind.

Anyway Murs I'm seriously considering your advice.

Quote from: Podmark on February 01, 2008, 12:43:05 PM
I said before that Bru's whole run has lead to this, and I kinda think that Steve will return by the end of it. I think Bru has a complete story in mind.

Anyway Murs I'm seriously considering your advice.

You won't be disappointed. The omnibus runs at about $40-50 U.S. currency but you could probably find it cheaper on ebay or something.

If you're still not quite sure, just go grab the first 2 TPB's. I got the hardcovers of the first 2 for around 8 bucks each on ebay, I'm sure you could find the paperback ones for less.

Captain America is the only Marvel book I am reading, and the fact that Cap (Steve) is my favorite hero (well, favorite Marvel hero, anyway) and I haven't dropped the book should say a lot.

I'd rather Bucky not be using a gun at all or at least be using specialized, non-lethal ammo (like stun bullets, rubber bullets, gas capsules, etc - ie, like Hawkeye but with a gun instead of a bow), but him packing heat makes sense since he is a highly trained marksman. I think he's trying to honor Steve in his own way, and using a gun isn't that big a deal, as long as he doesn't use lethal force unless absolutely necessary. Maiming someone to stop them is one thing, but permanently disfiguring them or killing them is altogether different. HOWEVER, I actually kind of hope he does kill Faustus and the Skull (hey, they've got to find some way to get him out of Lukin's body eventually, and I'm sure Arnim Zola has more cloned bodies standing by or can make some fairly easily).

I know this is going to make a few people roll their eyes or nod their heads, but Bucky's history was retconned so that he was actually a young adult trained as a marksman and packing heat instead of a kid sidekick using hand to hand combat skills and acrobatics, and if you think about it that actually makes sense. And I'm sure that Cap and Bucky killed their fair share of Nazis during WWII, anyway; most if it just hasn't been shown.

Look at it another way: Bucky can't tarnish the image of Captain America much worse than USAgent did. Walker is a big tool and he slaughtered the Watchdogs (although, he did have good reason - they murdered his parents) with his bare hands while wearing the costume. Bucky actually has a connection to Cap and is trying to redeem himself for the things he did while brainwashed as Winter Soldier, so I think he'll be creative with his use of the gun instead of blasting every bad guy in sight with it.....hopefully.

And I'll say it again: I think Steve will be back by issue #50.

P.S. Come to think of it, I think they're trying to make Bucky as Cap a bit like Batman, except Batman cripples crooks with his bare hands instead of busting a cap in their knees.

Cap carried a gun in the Republic movie serial, of course. I think this new variation is appropriate, given the current sad state of the United States. American idealism is dead, and so is Captain America. In his place we have a gun-toting former assassin for a totalitarian government. Fitting.

you're treading political grounds and you're pushing the discussion towards something that it has been moved away from...twice. You know, silly thing, everytime the cap moniker gets a revamp doesn't always mean it's a symbol of current American OR the world state. Sometimes it's just a change. If it fits your "generalized" image of how america is today, fine, but save it for somewhere more appropriate, plz. The last thing this thread needs is yet another semi-political debate.

Quote from: danhagen on February 02, 2008, 03:27:59 PM
Cap carried a gun in the Republic movie serial, of course. I think this new variation is appropriate, given the current sad state of the United States. American idealism is dead, and so is Captain America. In his place we have a gun-toting former assassin for a totalitarian government. Fitting.

There is NO place for discussion like this on these forums. This thread alone had had a couple warnings. Stay on subject and out of the political realm. 'Nuff said.

-MJB

the question is, do superheroes carry guns?  real heroes carry guns, in the real world.
there was an early phase in which superheroes carried guns.  i just saw "next", the movie with cage.  there was a kneecap shot, and it was done by bad guys.  it just seems to me like something bad guys would do.
the writing is good.  i'll give it that.  it has vestiges of robin becoming nightwing, doing his own thing.  or even speedy becoming arsenal.
it's just that guns are, in general, something that bad guys use, in superhero comics.

Quote from: steamteck on February 01, 2008, 06:08:45 AM

Quote from: bearded on February 01, 2008, 05:03:29 AM
this all reminds me of az-bats.  remember?  changed the costume, killed and hurt ppl a lot.  didn't last.

One of my least favorite characters ever. So yeah but worse in this case IMO.

I'm one of those who liked Az-bats.  I think marvels first answer to the popularity of Az-bats was bone claws, which i didn't like.  I'm willing to give Buc-Cap.  After all, writing is nothing more than re-inventing the wheel.

Quote from: bearded on February 03, 2008, 12:58:33 AM
it's just that guns are, in general, something that bad guys use, in superhero comics.

Except that's not true at all.

• Batman has used a gun
• Captain America (Steve) has used a gun
• Ultimate Hawkeye now uses a gun
• Cable
• Bishop
• Deadpool
• Agent X
• Green Lantern - John has created a green sniper rifle, iirc
• Ghost Rider/Johnny Blaze
• Vigilante
• 2-gun kid
• Jonah Hex (depends on how you look at him)
• The Rawhide Kid
• Bat Lash
• "Pow Wow"
• Trigger Twins
• Phantom Rider
• GI Joes
• Nick Fury
• Renee Montoya
• Union Jack
• Dum Dum Dugan
• Black Widow
• Crimson Avenger
• Shooting star
• The Green Hornet
• Angela St. Grace/Codename: Knockout

That's only 27 or so heroes that have used guns and do you consider them bad guys? I mean, even in freedom force we got Black Jack and Tombstone. Again, no complaints. In fact, people embraced them fully. Ironic in a way considering how people respond to guns in comics. Soory, that's a broad statement (like some of the statements in this thread). It's like how some people react to certain characters that carry weapons, guns in particular.  ;)

Notice, most of these are people without any sort of offensive power like heat rays and such. If written correctly, heroes with weapons are fine. If you can tolerate hawkeye, huntress, and green arrow running around with arrows that can do the same potential damage and can kill just as easily (or more easily in some cases with their specialize arrows), then I don't understand how a gun can get you all up in a twist if it's depicted similarly. Besides, powered heroes can cause much more damage without our silly weapons and yet we nary complain about the destruction they do on a weekly basis. When was the last time you thought, "I wish Batman, Superman, Cyclops, etc. would just talk a villain down or use some other cunning to stop him without immediately resorting to violence. Don't they know they could do major harm! GAH!"?

Let us not forget that most heroes also have some sort of projectile weapon or power that does more harm and has way more uses than our 'petty' weapons. Heat beams, Ice blasts, lightning blasts, and tk/tp are shown to do way more damage and can take a life more quickly than a gun or an arrow (with less conscious effort) and no one complains. My point is, we can accept ALL of that and not say a word, but once we see something real used (ignoring bow and arrows for some odd reason)...there's a problem? That just seems kinda...odd to me.

I'm pretty sure, for the most part, most of you are reacting off of how guns were portrayed negatively/overpowered in some form of comic (90s?) in the past and you're just prejudging without seeing how NuCap will change his arsenal or attack pattern. At least, I'm assuming that. But remember, just like anything else, it can also be portrayed positively under the right pen. I can understand not liking it or agreeing with him having one, but how can you judge it fully when he's only been on a single mission? For those that didn't read the book, he didnt use the gun the whole issue, he used the shield and his own abilities [note: he's weaker and slower than steve], so it's not like he was trigger happy.

I leave you with this quote:

Quote from:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/15/AR2007101501494.htmlBrubaker, who has been writing the comic book for nearly three years, says he's had people from the left and the right tell him what Captain America should stand for. But Brubaker says he's always tried to emphasize Captain America's military background. And the truth is, he adds, this isn't the first time that the Captain has been armed.

"I've leaned on the 'soldier' part of super-soldier," Brubaker says. "If you look at Cap in the 1940s, they have him with a shield in one hand and a machine gun in the other, and Bucky [the Captain's World War II teen sidekick] has a flamethrower.

"In the '80s they started changing his history, saying he'd never killed anyone. A guy who fought in World War II isn't going to care if terrorists die. I've always approached the book as a superhero espionage comic."

Brubaker realizes that everyone in the country doesn't read the comic book, let alone know the character's history, and that for some the Captain is more a symbol of untainted righteousness.

"To me, I'm telling a story," he says. "The idea that he has a gun really grows out of who it is that's in the suit. But that's how symbolism works. Some people see [the image on the Web site] and go 'Oh, my God.'"

[.....]

he adds, he hopes the attention surrounding the new Captain America won't center on the fact that he's armed.

"The actual content of the story won't just be about the gun," he says. "We knew it was a provocative symbol to put a firearm in Cap's hand. That choice wasn't made in ignorance. . . . When people read the story, they'll get a broader view of what our new Cap is about and hopefully he represents American ideals the same way Steve Rogers did in the past."

So maybe all of our attention will FINALLY move off of the gun and see where brubaker is trying to take the story and bucky and hopefully, we'll enjoy the ride. And maybe when Steve returns, which I'm hoping Quesada doesn't put him back on square one after the upcoming invaders storyline, we can appreciate this slight departure and people will stop complaining. One can dream, right? Cause, good gravy, I hope this is the last long-winded post I'll have to do for awhile or I'll start charging all of you. I'm not even kidding.

Bravo sir. That was awesome.

Quote from: steamteck on February 01, 2008, 07:23:59 AM
Spectacular Issue #6:
CapGun: Hello? Anyone? Hello?
Black Widow: Sorry Cap. You've killed your entire rogues' gallery with your pistol. There's no one left.
CapGun: No one? At all?
Black Widow: Well... there's one guy left you could go after...
Galactus: FEAR ME, TREMBLING MORTALS!
CapGun: *Blam! Ping!* *Blam! Ping!* *Blam! Ping!* *Blam! Ping!* *Blam! Ping!* *Blam! Ping!*
CapGun: Well, f***.

Yet, somehow, the Punisher still has the few enemies he repeatedly fights. Well, ok, I guess it's just Jigsaw who's the only member of his Rogue's Gallery. But still, even with him killing all the bad-guys he can find, he still has an interesting series which has lasted for far longer than 6-issues and he has never had to pick a fight with the Eater-of-Worlds to fill out an issue.

Anyway, I assume Captain-Bucky won't shoot the important people like Madam Hydra merely because he wants to capture them. Bad news for the mooks, though, they just won't get away with broken teeth and ribs next time they fight the Captain.

Sorry. I didn't regard that comment as particularly political. Just an observation about the zeitgeist.

<nitpick>Batman very quickly stopped using guns, and now doesn't as a matter of policy. And the Green Hornet's and Crimson Avenger's guns didn't fire bullets; they were KO gas guns.</nitpick>

During the 90s even the Fanstastic Fource used guns:
http://comiccoverage.typepad.com/comic_coverage/2008/01/worst-cover-eve.html

Which in and of itself is a reason not to have heroes use them: flashbacks of giant shoulderpads and holographic covers.

Super heroes regularly used guns in the movie serials of the 1940s, and killed people in the comics of the 1930s. After all, they began as power fantasies made necessary the Depression, and were sustained by the desperate situation of WWII. But the guns were quickly discarded for two reasons, I think — because people were uncomfortable creating fantasies for children about killing, and because gunning people down does not reflect civilized values. I can't imagine the people on the Planet Krypton using guns, for example.

I have seen The Hulk use guns too.

Quote from: HumanTon on February 03, 2008, 10:40:53 AM
<nitpick>Batman very quickly stopped using guns, and now doesn't as a matter of policy. And the Green Hornet's and Crimson Avenger's guns didn't fire bullets; they were KO gas guns.</nitpick>

During the 90s even the Fanstastic Fource used guns:
http://comiccoverage.typepad.com/comic_coverage/2008/01/worst-cover-eve.html

Which in and of itself is a reason not to have heroes use them: flashbacks of giant shoulderpads and holographic covers.

many people on the list used specialized bullets. that wasn't the issue. People are freaking out simply because Bucky has a gun (were you guys as bothered when Bucky as Winter Soldier and afterwards used a gun? Just wondering). Also, heroes DO have guns, that shouldn't be an issue either. Vigilante is more or less a fan favorite and people loved him in JLU...he used a gun. Also, I point out FFVTTR again, tombstone is a fan favorite. He uses a gun. Doesn't matter what he uses as a bullet...he has...a gun. Bucky, at any moment, can drop the gun or switch to rubber bullets or paralyzing cartridges and still keep the gun. Also note, I didn't mention a time limit...I said they've used a gun...not that they kept it. And from it came development. It wasn't really needed in batman's circumstances, but it reinforced his already held ideals. The fan 4 and their villains use gun like objects quite a lot. Ray guns, nullifiers, etc...doesn't shoot bullets...gun none the less. Guns have been in fantasy for a good amount of time and they're not just gonna disappear from it. It all depends on the depiction and you shouldn't just hate it because it's there. Also, I already negated your 90s comment. Leave that period alone...do you want us to explode? :P

I really wish everyone would just move pass this and wait until you have more proof or evidence to fully form an opinion. Now it just seems like we're running in circles and arguing/debating just to do it because everyone is being stubborn. Removing guns from heroes isn't an answer. Some heroes actually depend on them and if you remove guns, you remove part of their character. Removing guns in general, means you should remove all variants. If you're able to remove guns, then what's next? Grenades,  bows, boomerangs, then all weapons? Eventually you'll have to remove super powers too and that's just boring. I, speaking for myself alone, don't know what the big deal is at this moment. He's not mowing down people, he's not gung ho with a gun, he hasn't done anything to warrant all this negative reaction YET. You can all go crazy when you actually have something in ink that proves all this hyperbole and you can go rant happy...when it and if it happens, but for now, I wish everyone would just give the story a chance to actually evolve into something so, you know, actual discussion can take place without referencing weapons.

Comics books are not longer for small children, so there's no problem with guns there. And as for whether guns are appropriate to civilized beings, that's a theme that could be explored and developed in super hero tales that include guns.

Ok, I guess it's time that I get back into this one again.

Quoteit's just that guns are, in general, something that bad guys use, in superhero comics.

QuoteExcept that's not true at all.

• Batman has used a gun
• Captain America (Steve) has used a gun

Ok, first lets not confuse rare usage... with the common use of.  He did say in general and off the top of your head... this list, of which I have some issues with, you said 27 are heroes.  Lets say common use of, like criminals.  Second, lets also not forget that the above two characters had major issues with using the gun when they did.  So including a character who uses a gun once or twice in a 60 year run to me - is bogus.

Quote

• Ultimate Hawkeye now uses a gun

Do Ultimates really count?  I mean really, the whole idea behind the Ultimates line I thought was that characters be more "realistic" - which kinda' means slapping a gun on half the characters.  Thats like including Elseworld & What If characters as examples. 

Quote

• Cable
• Bishop
• Deadpool
• Agent X

Ugh.  Could care less for the top two characters, but again... but lets examine their origins.  Two characters from a post apocalyptic/bleak future that travel back to our time.  Key phrases to me is post apocalyptic/bleak and future.  My opinion only, but I pretty much toss them in the same category as Elseworld & What If characters.  Not only that, but if I recall - wasn't it Liefield himself who pretty much said Cable was based off Dirty Harry?  'Nuff said about that really.

Ugh.  I could care less for Deadpool and really, this now Anti-Hero started as an established gun wielding villian.  I wouldn't count him.

• Green Lantern - John has created a green sniper rifle, iirc

Really?  Which writer was this?  Of all the things he can construct and imagine --- he lowered himself to that?  Man, thats just bad writing.  Again, as with Bats and Cap I wouldn't toss him in because of one time usage and while we're at it - I'd have the writer fired.

• Ghost Rider/Johnny Blaze

I don't recall Ghost Rider ever using guns, much less needing them, he's a demon.  If he ever has, again ---- I'd fire the writer.  Johnny Blaze, yes, a magic shotgun that spews hellfire.  I wouldn't count that, considering it's magic and not bullets.  Now... if you said Crimson Avenger III we may have a good discussion, despite the fact the guns do fire bullets, the gun and bullets themselves do appear to be magical as well.  The fact they are guns and still firing bullets although magical - I would say yes.  You should include Crimson Avenger I & III.

• Vigilante
• 2-gun kid
• Jonah Hex (depends on how you look at him)
• The Rawhide Kid
• Bat Lash
• "Pow Wow"
• Trigger Twins
• Phantom Rider

Not to split hairs, but which Vigilante?  Not that it matters, both were gun toting.  The first being a western themed hero and the second (of which there were several) being more like DC's own Punisher.  Way cool bit of trivia for you, Vigilante is also one of the few early DC heroes with his own serial.  Still trying to get my hands on that!

Ok, now your stretching things.  All those heroes are Western heroes and written for those genres specifically.  No fault of there own they were pulled out of their own genre and into modern day like poor Rawhide or someone decided to continue their legacy into a modern day counterpart like the Trigger Twins.

If you're going to add them though, you have to remember; the Gun Hawks, Johnny Thunder... man I can point you two several sites with dozens of western genre comic heroes you missed.  I have to exclude this whole section.

• GI Joes
• Nick Fury
• Renee Montoya
• Union Jack
• Dum Dum Dugan
• Black Widow
• Crimson Avenger
• Shooting star
• The Green Hornet
• Angela St. Grace/Codename: Knockout

Your kidding right?  Your including the Joes?  Your including a MILITARY UNIT?  Alright.  I see you included Nick Fury & Dum Dum Dugan --- why not the rest of the Howling Commandos?  What about Sgt. Rock and Easy Company, man???  Why not the rest of the War genre heroes?  What about the Haunted Tank guys?  Now theres a big gun weilding bunch of heroes.  What about the Unknown Soldier?  Dude, again, you're pulling another genre in where it doesn't belong.  The Joes' are out.  I'll give you Nick Fury & Dum Dum Dugan though, at least they made them full fledge agents of a modern outfit.

I see Renee Montoya and agree with you there --- but then again, should we add every cop who is given depth in Gotham?  You add Renee Montoya and you need to add the rest of the Gotahm Central group - at least Jim Gordan and Harvey Bullock.

Agree on Union Jack and Black Widow.

Green Hornet?  No sir.  He's a radio chap who was much later converted to comics.  Cross media, now thats another can of worms besides... he uses a gas gun and a stun gun --- but not one that shoots bullets.  Surely you must be mistaken and thinking of the Shadow... right?  That must be it... because no way can you do this list and not include The Shadow. 

No Phantom either?

And strangely - no Punisher?

Man --- I love... love... LOVE gun toting heroes and here I am trying to fight you on this... and here I am, giving you not one, not two, but three of the biggest that you some how missed on your list.  The Punisher, the Shadow and the Phantom.

Now a hero slinging a gun doesn't make him a villian, but lets face it, heroes using guns isn't exactly common.  Of that list I'd say only a dozen of those are full time gun toting heroes.  Off the top of your head name as many heroes as you can... how many you got, easily 100 right?  At least 150 with some struggle.  200 and if you're given some time to think and start using more common characters from the other companies?  For all the characters out there... how many did we think up?  Were talking a small percentage.  How many on this list are in their own titles, at least a back up to main story or heavily featured?  Smaller percentage still.

QuoteThat's only 27 or so heroes that have used guns and do you consider them bad guys? I mean, even in freedom force we got Black Jack and Tombstone. Again, no complaints. In fact, people embraced them fully. Ironic in a way considering how people respond to guns in comics. Sorry, that's a broad statement (like some of the statements in this thread). It's like how some people react to certain characters that carry weapons, guns in particular.  ;)

Black Jack was a great tip of the hat to the secret/war agent characters of the time period who were often featured on the radio, as was Tombstone the same to the darker pulps.  Neither was a reflection of the direct comic heroes of their time.  One shot a simple gun... the other a magical one... yet you're forgetting the guy with the big gatlins.... Sky King!  What gives?!?!

I think the true issue that you mentioned and I have highligted is not heroes using guns, but which heroes use guns.[/quote]

Now setting aside the rest of you post, which is an excellent bit of argument... let me offer this to you.  Were those the whole comics Brubaker read with Cap and Bucky doing those things... or were those just the great covers he looked at it?  Do I even have to tell you about judging a book by its cover?  Theres a whole gallery of covers to sensational Superman stories that make him seem anything but.

Also, lets apply the time and what we did and did not see.  War time stories.  And how many of those soldiers did you see slaughtered from the onslaught of Caps machine gun toting?  How many men did we see burned and melted from Bucky?  We didn't --- we saw them running away in terror, often comically.  Sign of the times.  If it was now a day, I'm sure we'd see something different.

Does that mean we should?

I thought this is what the What if, and lately the Ultimates line was for.

Again, the issue is not a hero who is gun slinging.  The issue is which one... and why.

Its like when someone turned the Shadow into just a head on top of a robotic body.  What was next?  The Shadow ditching his dual 45's and firing repulsors from his hand?  Maybe even a shield?  See what I'm getting at?

I'm sure Brubaker is writing a good story, I'm sure he's writing a damn good story and he's doing a great and bang up job with it.  He's taking a bad idea and making it gold.

Doesn't change it for me though.

Doesn't change the fact its a bad idea.

Doesn't change the fact what happened, never should have happened --- especially with all the other lines we have out there.  Why do we need the Winter Soldier to be the new Captain America with guns.  We don't.  Thinking like that should be for the What Ifs and Ultimates.

Which leaves me to say this.

The idea that most of America and the rest of the world think that the new Captain America wielding guns is a direct reflection of the modern America...

... is all the more reason why we need a Captain America that does not use guns.

RTT

*sigh* THose were names off the top of my head that use guns! I didn't make a case on any of them. I never mentioned anything EXACT about them. I said they used them. If you're gonna argue them, atleast stick to things I actually said. My gah. This is basically what I'm talking about...we're arguing just to argue now and it's kinda irritating. I didn't stretch anything, I didn't condense anything, I made a general list. FYI, cap and bucky...military background. ALso, Punisher was brought up a lot. How many times do we as a group of debaters need to go over him. All this negativity is just unnecessary in my opinion. Agree with me or not, atleast debate on stuff I actually said and don't blow it up just to make a case. I didn't do it to anyone else so I think it's only fair that the same standards should apply to me, no?  ;)

Quote from: danhagen on February 03, 2008, 11:45:34 AM
Comics books are not longer for small children, so there's no problem with guns there. And as for whether guns are appropriate to civilized beings, that's a theme that could be explored and developed in super hero tales that include guns.

A great deal of the older comics weren't for kids either if you look at them in hindsight. There's a reason so many jokes about Wonder woman and bondage exist. :P Anyway, there's still plenty of young oriented books out there for kids. Marvel Adventures being one of them.

EDIT: Green Sniper Rifle was in one of those sinestro corps issues. That's a question for...Murs as I may be misremembering. Regardless, he also has a military background and that event, as far as I know, was well received. I don't think you can call something bad writing without having read it or just because you don't like a particular piece of it.

Quote from: Previsionary on February 03, 2008, 11:50:35 AM
*sigh* THose were names off the top of my head that use guns! I didn't make a case on any of them. I never mentioned anything EXACT about them. I said they used them. If you're gonna argue them, atleast stick to things I actually said. My gah. This is basically what I'm talking about...we're arguing just to argue now and it's kinda irritating. I didn't stretch anything, I didn't condense anything, I made a general list. FYI, cap and bucky...military background. ALso, Punisher was brought up a lot. How many times do we as a group of debaters need to go over him. All this negativity is just unnecessary in my opinion. Agree with me or not, atleast debate on stuff I actually said and don't blow it up just to make a case. I didn't do it to anyone else so I think it's only fair that the same standards should apply to me, no?  ;)

If you're going to use them as examples... you need to bring the knowledge sir and the reason WHY they are examples.  It helps, you know, strengthen an argument.

Its very important you understand certain heroes ARE not gun toting heroes.  You're trying to argue that Green Hornet is a gun toting hero because he has a gun like mechanism.  Which is a poor argument.  Anything that propels than would be considered.  Anything with a projectile would be considered - and your argument becomes broad and very inspecific and we are discussing something very specific.

If you were to include Green Hornet because him using a gun like mechanism made him a gun toting hero --- than why not The Sandman, or Blue Beetle?  Both who used gun like mechanisms for their weapons - with anything but lethal ammo.  Gas and light.  You're arguing its the same.

No sir.  You can't.  It weakens your argument and I have to call you on it.  Especially, when you include heroes who are not gun toting heroes and exclude obvious ones who are.

RTT

Uh, no, I didn't argue that. I said he has used a gun. That's not arguing to say he is something one way or another. It says...he uses or has used a gun type weapon. What you expand that into is a you thing and not what I painted it out to be. That's what happens when you assume things and throw a whole argument into it. But thanks for proving my point again, that's why I asked EVERYONE to move off the gun subject until more stuff comes out to actually discuss. Now, it's getting messy and you (as well as I) are contributing to it. May I suggest we both stop and actually take my previous suggestion of...you know...waiting?

I personally think that the image of the post-WWII Captian America helped define the rule that "Role Model" heroes during the early political correctness years needed to be unarmed. Everyone in the Marvel Universe had a gimmick (Hawkeye with his arrows, Black Widow had her wrist darts, Spider-Man with his web shooters, Moon Knight with his throwing moons, etc) and unless they were part of SHIELD, police force, or a military organization that they carried weapons that their kid readers couldn't find around the house unless it was replicated as a Nerf toy or homemade from around the house. Punisher was an anti-hero who was hyped as being a killer of criminals which made him a villian by nature using firearms/explosives so having everyone chasing him down balanced out that part of his character - he would have been treated like any other killer if he was caught and remained that way without his backup crew breaking him out or one of his arch-enemies trying to kill him and freeing him in the process.

The '90s era of comics just threw caution to the wind because Liefield started making other anti-heroes (Cable, Deadpool, The Six Pack) which fans liked and everyone else started to follow. Hence that costumes everywhere started growing more pockets, belts, shoulder pads, ammo belts, and a dozen or so lethal weapons strapped to every limb on their body. Of course that nonsense was retconned out of existance when the fad was over with along with the entire "Clone Spider-Man" mess. Less said about it the better..  ;)

The new writers on Captain America are reconning a few things just so things in Steve's history made a little more modern sense (Bucky being a young soldier and not a teen sidekick and a small arms and long ranged weapons expert - which makes sense that while Cap was smashing heads in close combat that Bucky would be hiding and taking out enemy soldiers from behind). Having the comic being handled like a graphic novel version of '24' and most action suspence shows these days then it would make more sense to have a Captian that would handle this situation in his own way. Bucky knew that Doom, Red Skull, and the Skrull Invaders had a bigger plan in motion which requires him to confuse his enemies and strike at them using non-Cap methods (Cap with a Gun? Why leave the AIM guys alive?) plus it feeds into the whole espionage mood. We still have the whole untold story of what happened with Nick Fury and who is involved with the Secret Invasion which when fully explained might actually make a huge amount of sense if you step back far enough (and hopefully not far enough that Quesada makes us all fall backwards off a cliff).

We still have the third Genie that Quesada wanted to put back in the bottle ("No More Mutants" and "Peter/MJ's marriage" being the first two for those who have not seen the scorecard) and I'm sure that Secret Invasion and Ultimatium are the tools for that to happen.

- CrimsonQuill