1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Not all Celebrities are against the 2nd Amendment

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by mastiffhound, Jan 4, 2013.

  1. mastiffhound

    mastiffhound New Member

    It looks as if Chuck Woolery is against another AWB.


    It's too bad that more celebrities don't speak up. If we could get enough celebrities together we could make a video titled "Stop the Idiocy" as an answer to that other video that shows celebrities being moronic hypocrites.
  2. OpelBlitz

    OpelBlitz New Member


    My personal favorite, Adam Baldwin, is very pro-2A.
  3. ZeSpectre

    ZeSpectre New Member

    Taking the anti-rights spin tactics, packaging them up in a similar format, and beating them over the head with it = enjoyable.
  4. guyfromohio

    guyfromohio Active Member

  5. NWCP

    NWCP New Member

    Tom Selleck and Bruce Willis are pro gunners. Selleck is a life member of the NRA IIRC and not bashful about it. :cool:
  6. TJx

    TJx New Member

    I think Tom Selleck was considered for president of the NRA at one point.
  7. Grassman

    Grassman New Member

    I hear Brad Pitt and Angalina have their own shooting range, and Pitt carries quite a bit I've heard. I got a feeling that they are privately pro 2a, but publicly not, they have to keep the Hollywood machine going.
  8. Ehtereon11B

    Ehtereon11B internet infantryman

    Brad Pitt and Angelina built a $400,000 shooting range at one of their houses. Angelina also liked the HK USP Match pistols from Laura Croft so much, she bought them. After hearing that, I wanted to be their next adoption.
  9. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    There is a large thread that ran for a while listing the openly pro 2A celebrities. The list was surprisingly long.

    The problem is why should be care what celebrities think about firearms and firearms ownership? They're not qualified to cite their opinions on anything other than what they do/have done, but many people will follow celebrities in our culture where celebrity substitutes for contributing to society.

    If that's the case then it is as important to cite celebrities for the 2A when those against the 2A are cited. Fighting fire with fire, so to speak.
  10. ol' scratch

    ol' scratch New Member

    I think Hso it is because of the Anti ads featuring celebrities and the fact that so many people listen to celebrities. I personally was surprised at Conan O' Brian. I loved the segment he did with Hunter S. Thompson with the machine guns.
  11. Jim NE

    Jim NE New Member

    There was a video on Fox mocking the "public service" video from Hollywood stars to ban hi-cap semi-auto weapons. It showed each star making his or her anti-gun statement, then followed it with the bloody and excessively violent shootout scenes each had appeared in during their "acting" career.

    This is proof that many in Hollywood think of themselves as something akin to royalty, whose contradictions and hypocrisies should be overlooked by us mere peasants who go and see their movies.

    This certainly doesn't include all of them, as Charlton Heston and others prove, but the general trend is obvious to anyone who wants to be honest about it.
  12. Skribs

    Skribs New Member

    Not necessarily, Jim. Most action movies portray someone who is former/current military/LEO/spy, and/or a criminal. Movies which portray an ordinary citizen as using weapons are explained away through "I play a lot of x-box", training during the movie, or the fact that they fail at basic firearm mechanics (i.e. "you have to take the safety off"). This fits within the elitist attitude of the majority of the anti-gun crowd.

    Also, an actor behaving differently in a movie vs. real life isn't necessarily hypocrasy. Otherwise Anthony Hopkins would be in prison, Jack Nickolson in an insane asylum, and Sean Bean would be in a cemetery.
  13. mcdonl

    mcdonl New Member

    the video is here if anyone cares to see it....

  14. fgr39

    fgr39 New Member

  15. ZeSpectre

    ZeSpectre New Member

    @ Skribs
    Making millions of dollars and gaining fame in your acting career as an action hero or other archetype that utilizes guns and glorifies a culture of violence and then participating in a video saying "guns are bad and need to be banned" is about a hypocritical as it gets.
  16. Skribs

    Skribs New Member

    ZeSpectre, in other movies they glorify bank heists, grand theft auto (the crime, not the game), and the bad guys glorify murder. Michael C Hall doesn't advocate people actually hunting and killing serial killers, and the emmy-winning performances by bad guys are not played by people who believe that. The best actors are those who can put on a persona different from their own.

    I'm not saying the actors are correct that guns are evil, but I am saying that it isn't hypocritical to act one way in a movie and then differently in real life. The other half of my post - regarding the usual mentality of the directors - furthers a lack of hypocrisy. People are only competent with guns in movies if they are either A) criminals or B) government trained. With the weird exception of archeologists. For the actors to then say "guns should only be in the hands of military/government" is to follow the belief presented in the films.
  17. Jim NE

    Jim NE New Member

    Skribs. I'm not making the case that there is no room for violence in art or entertainment. It goes back for centuries. In the original "Little Red Riding Hood", the main character was eaten by the Wolf! :) This is very true of many folk and fairy tales, as well as old mountain ballads like "Little Sadie".

    But there is something undeniably influential about the visual image to people, well above and beyond the spoken or written word. This past election, politicians spent a record amount (hundreds of billions, as I recall) on advertising, and most of that went to television. Politicians, including those who are for a gun ban, seem to acknowledge that TV has an impact above and beyond the written word.

    The University of Michigan says the typical American will see 16,000 dramatized killings on TV during their childhood, and 200,000 acts of violence. To think that TV, when dealing with these kind of numbers, doesn't have an impact on people, especially children, isn't reality. That's why movies in theaters have a restrictive age related rating system - because the visual image has a potentially negative impact or influence on kids. Hollywood acknowledges that. Yet they seem, generally speaking, to feel immune from criticism of their own role in violence in our society.

    Why? It might be because movies and television are a $200 - $300 billion (annual) industry, as opposed to firearms, which is a $4 billion annual industry. That's just movies and television. Collectively, the entertainment industry is estimated to be the fourth largest industry in the US, and one of the largest in the world. When famous actors make a substantial portion of that amount - millions of dollars per movie - I'm not going to give them a pass on culpability. There may be a "willing suspension of disbelief" component to acting and theater, but it's hard to suspend that disbelief when a celebrity who makes a fortune for each acting job condemns violence while at the same time glorifying it.

Share This Page