Vince Vaughn on the 2A

I suspect he just wrecked his career......

While Mr. Vaughn is marginally funny in some of his motion pictures, the fact remains that for every actor in Hollywood who comes out as pro-gun, there seem to be several hundred who come out as anti-gun.

Of course, given how so many in our society seem to prize knowing what celebrities are doing or thinking, it probably won't hurt our cause ...

While i appreciate Mr. Vaughn's public stance and agree with him, it would be nice if we heard this from someone who's opinion mattered in the legal and legislative domain. Most who make a public stand offer qualified support or are blatantly anti.

But anyway, maybe his support will sway some or make some think.

Well, his voice is louder than mine.

Nothing I ever said appeared in even minor news outlets.

Five years ago, I'd have agreed about wrecking his career, but I've been getting subtle indications here and there that the MSM and the entertainment media are maybe, perhaps, possibly, starting to turn around in their collective (!) attitude toward the 2A and firearms in general.

Little things, not worth cataloging, but they're there.

"Take a reporter shooting."

Terry

Love Vince Vaugh the actor, especially some of his early movies, before he got mega famous. Now, is he pro 2nd amendment? I'll need more proof of this before I put him in that category.

Lycidas Janwor said:

Now, is he pro 2nd amendment? I'll need more proof of this before I put him in that category.

Click to expand...

Clear enough here:

http://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/ar...is-as-pro-gun-as-it-gets#sthash.D1jqOX2W.dpbs

Wow, that's pretty awesome.

I liked him anyway.
I like him more now.

the fact remains that for every actor in Hollywood who comes out as pro-gun, there seem to be several hundred who come out as anti-gun.

Click to expand...

It often seems that way, but there are actually quite a lot of conservative and libertarian names in the entertainment industry, with quite a few being moderately to heavily pro-2A. It's just that the flaming liberal anti-gun variety squak louder and more often.

MachIVshooter said:

It often seems that way, but there are actually quite a lot of conservative and libertarian names in the entertainment industry, with quite a few being moderately to heavily pro-2A. It's just that the flaming liberal anti-gun variety squak louder and more often.

Click to expand...

I'm also guessing that due to the preponderance of "progressive" heavy hitters in the industry, some of the more conservative ones are less inclined to speak out for fear of being black-balled and losing job opportunities. It's the more established and long-term performers (e.g., Vaughn, Kelsey Grammer, Dennis Hopper -- RIP, Bo Derek, Clint Eastwood, Jon Voight, Tom Selleck, etc.) who are the most likely to speak out -- as well as simply on principle.

.

Just hoping things are starting to go our way.

"Taking away guns, taking away drugs, the booze, it won't rid the world of criminality."

So who said it would? I've always thought this to be a pretty silly, straw man argument.

JustinJ said:

"Taking away guns, taking away drugs, the booze, it won't rid the world of criminality."

So who said it would? I've always thought this to be a pretty silly, straw man argument.

Click to expand...

i used to associate with liberals/dems quite a bit, in-fact i was one until 2013. most of them consider calling in the government to restrict 'something' the best solution to any problem being caused by 'something'. personal responsibility is never called into the equation, it's all the item/substance/something's fault, never the person using it. so, 'who said it would', well, lots of people not only say that but think that and vote for that logic.

"Taking away guns, taking away drugs, the booze, it won't rid the world of criminality."

So who said it would? I've always thought this to be a pretty silly, straw man argument.

Click to expand...

I've been hearing that for most of my life, sometimes its conservatives sometimes liberal sometimes libertarians I guess it all depends on how they figure they can best lull you into a stupor or rage big enough to vote for them.

Seems in general most like to be told what to do rather than use that conscience thing we were born with, you know the thing that tells you your doing something wrong even though you may still do it. I think somehow science has devised a way to breed that out of our DNA.

i used to associate with liberals/dems quite a bit, in-fact i was one until 2013. most of them consider calling in the government to restrict 'something' the best solution to any problem being caused by 'something'. personal responsibility is never called into the equation, it's all the item/substance/something's fault, never the person using it. so, 'who said it would', well, lots of people not only say that but think that and vote for that logic.

Click to expand...

You're going out one quite a few limbs here. The question is who said that taking away guns would end criminality. Not reduce it, but end it, in totality. Nobody says that, it's a straw man argument.

The anti-Liam Neeson.

I think his comments gave me serious cause to consider watching his movies, and paying to support him.

This is real, folks. And what he said took a pair of balls the size of Nebraska.

The question is who said that taking away guns would end criminality. Not reduce it, but end it, in totality. Nobody says that, it's a straw man argument.

Click to expand...

Whenever I've seen that line of phrasing used, it's never to "end all" the violence, but it's usually a pre-cursor to another phrase like "surely we can do better" or "if it saves just ONE life"...which then leads into some gun control nonsense that they want to try to sell people on.

If a Kardashian or other big booty princess came out pro 2A, THEN people would listen....

Have to give him a two thumbs up. We don't have many pro gun speaking out in the movie industry.

I think his comments gave me serious cause to consider watching his movies, and paying to support him.

This is real, folks. And what he said took a pair of balls the size of Nebraska.

Click to expand...

'
Agreed on both accounts.

JustinJ said:

"Taking away guns, taking away drugs, the booze, it won't rid the world of criminality."

So who said it would? I've always thought this to be a pretty silly, straw man argument.

Click to expand...

For arguments sake, I'll say that you're right for the most part.

But its the other part that matters most.


Paraphrasing, What they say is that it will reduce murders etc.

Realists know that limiting the size of sodas (mag size or # of guns per person, or eliminating guns all together) wont reduce the number of overweight people (murders etc) because there are so many other very easy ways to get fat (drive your car through a crowded bus stop).

Realists know that limiting the size of sodas (mag size or # of guns per person, or eliminating guns all together) wont reduce the number of overweight people (murders etc) because there are so many other very easy ways to get fat (drive your car through a crowded bus stop).

Click to expand...

"Drive your car through a crowded bus stop" only applies to the very small percentage of people who intend mass murder with no regard for consequences, and even of those people the vast majority prefer guns because they are simply the most readily accessible means to reliably kill a bunch of people. The vast majority of murderers though do care about getting away with their crime. Just like any other act, when a human mind is considering murder it will weigh the likelihood of success, likelihood of consequences, ease of performance, etc. Guns offer advantage in all such categories over other means of murder available to most people. The fact is, available means absolutely goes into decision making. The human mind does not operate in a vacuum. There are a multitude of factors that go into crime rates and what inspires people to commit them, but it is naive to believe ready access to guns is not a factor.

There are a multitude of factors that go into crime rates and what inspires people to commit them, but it is naive to believe ready access to guns is not a factor.

Click to expand...

It is also naive to believe that it IS. A popular, oft-repeated, "truthy" sort of belief, but true only in that every facet of life and society is "a factor" in crime rates.

There are big drivers of crime rates and there are small ones. Big drivers include things like poverty, education, enfranchisement, population density and average age, gender ratios in a given community, etc. Those actually have legitimate consequences for crime rates.

...

You may have a legitimate disagreement with Mr. Vaughn's short-hand way of phrasing this. To be more accurate he should have said "Making illegal guns, drugs, the booze, ... won't rid the world of criminality." That's pretty inarguable.

There really is no case to discuss about "taking away" those things, as that's a physical impossibility as proven repeatedly throughout history. We might as well say "taking away race, culture, and religion won't end criminality." Doesn't compute. Can't happen. (At least not in the foreseeable near future.)

But almost all of us are guilty of conflating the phrases "making illegal for law-abiding citizens to have" and "taking away" in our less careful moments. They are not the same thing, so your quibble about what he literally said doesn't detract from the truth of the concept he was attempting to communicate.