splattergun
Member
I've got no use for the bum
Rambo Sly Stallone is for AWB
- Thread starter nathan
- Start date
- Status
OilyPablo
Member
Who cares???? I mean who actually goes to this clown and asks for advice? I mean on ANYTHING? Acting? You have got to be kidding. Urethra pain? Italian cooking? No.
SO Firearms and our Constitution? Sure he's the MAN.
SO Firearms and our Constitution? Sure he's the MAN.
wojownik
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2009
- Messages
- 2,086
Stallone certainly has a right to speak his mind. But, why does it matter what any actor, or model, or sports figure has to say about anything outside of their particular craft?
On a not-quite-high-road note, however, I will credit Mr. Stallone for making me think that AK-47s and M60s were so huge (from seeing the movies when I was a younger man, and not so exposed to firearms). Wasn't till later in life I realized, when I got my first hands on experience with both, that the firearms were "normal" sized .... it was Sylvester who was small.
On a not-quite-high-road note, however, I will credit Mr. Stallone for making me think that AK-47s and M60s were so huge (from seeing the movies when I was a younger man, and not so exposed to firearms). Wasn't till later in life I realized, when I got my first hands on experience with both, that the firearms were "normal" sized .... it was Sylvester who was small.
Fair enough. Just don't look too closely at any of your other favorite actors, or you'll never get to enjoy a TV show or movie again.
I'd pound my chest and talk about not seeing his new movie on principle to impress my fellow gun owners, but the truth is I'm already not seeing it becaues I don't go to crappy movies.
That's even funnier considering your location.
That's even funnier considering your location.
rugerman
Member
I could care less, it would be hard but I could do it. I haven't been to a movie since my kids were little, its just smoke & mirrors anyway.
ApacheCoTodd
member
See now, that right there is my very point.
If I have to look to find out that they may have a stance with which I disagree - I'm OK with them being of that mindset. They can have an opinion differing from mine as long as they aren't using the very celebrity which I help to pay for in order to aggressively advance a contrary agenda.
When it's on a level of epic hypocrisy as in the case of a shoot-em-up action star who has made literally 100s of millions in the free wheeling discharge of the very firearms he hopes to deny me the ownership of... well, I'm gonna take it personal.
As far as film/television entertainment - I've gone many months (once, over a year) in the past without it and am willing to give it up altogether if it ever came to that
Like the rest of us? I don't know about that. They are part of the elite class of citizens. They are better than us. And they don't need guns because they can afford to hire security personnel that take care of that for them. They can even hire security personnel that have the licenses required to do that which regular citizens cannot. They also commonly have the connections necessary to, say, get a "may issue" carry license when ordinary people cannot.
Sam Cade
Member
ha! True.
Hey, just because they have to work in Cali (for the most part) doesn't mean they have to live there.
Porno people are just reg'lar folks and have the same range of ideological beliefs as everyone else.
Well....mostly.
Sam Cade
Member
Don't confuse "Actor" with "Celebrity".
Most folks with a SAG card work damn hard for their money.
Lol, I can't sit through his movies anymore. They're so outrageous. Lots of action shooter-type movies aren't really intriguing to the gun savvy crowd.
Want a solid action movie with gunplay? Pick something from Michael Mann. That's as good as it gets for movies. Otherwise you have Stallone spraying shots with pinpoint accuracy from a single action six shooter, dual wielding M60s, and all kinds of nonsense.
Want a solid action movie with gunplay? Pick something from Michael Mann. That's as good as it gets for movies. Otherwise you have Stallone spraying shots with pinpoint accuracy from a single action six shooter, dual wielding M60s, and all kinds of nonsense.
You guys should feel better knowing that his new movie "Bullet to the Head" just bombed at the box office. Production budget of over $50 million and it only pulled in $4.5 million this weekend. Reviews aren't good either, so it'll probably gross like $15 million total.
pilotlight
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2011
- Messages
- 63
I dont even waste my time watching movies. I do not want them to get a dime of my money.
Now that is funny. Sorry Stallone, you're a fossil and so are your views.
Backpacker33
Member
I think we do have to care about the stance of anyone who is so in the public eye.
He uses his money, position and contacts to promote his ideology.
As someone in this thread said, he has been opposed to people owning firearms, other than his elitist self, for a long time, and vehemently so.
To people who would not vote for a declared anti-civil-libertarian such as Feinstein, I suggest:
The ones who will pay many dollars to watch Stalone anyway might want to consider whether they are themselves hypocritical.
He uses his money, position and contacts to promote his ideology.
As someone in this thread said, he has been opposed to people owning firearms, other than his elitist self, for a long time, and vehemently so.
To people who would not vote for a declared anti-civil-libertarian such as Feinstein, I suggest:
The ones who will pay many dollars to watch Stalone anyway might want to consider whether they are themselves hypocritical.
"You can't hunt with it."
Sylvester Stallone:
Mr. Stallone, you CAN hunt with it. Perfectly legal in most states, and in my humble opinion, a better firearm than we've ever had.
Folks, the idea that you can't hunt with an AR is another one of the lies being foisted on the public, and everyone who says it, needs to be challenged on the spot.
I know many of you do hunt with AR's - I believe the sales figures since the sunset of the AWB make it the biggest selling firearm out there. Not levers - which are dwindling away, Winchester went under, leaving Marlin nearly the only choice. Not bolt actions, which have been declining for a long time. As the boomers age, they buy less, the newer generations don't hunt as much, and the only gun they see prominently on the news is the AR15 in all it's military versions.
So, manual action guns are falling down the sales lists, and the AR15 is continuing to rise. It's a lot more about a passing of an age - the old action gun fans aren't the focus of today's market anymore. And that means they aren't at the top of the social pecking order in guns anymore.
Anyway, millions of us DO use the AR for hunting, Sly, and we DO take game with them. We DON'T go out in the woods with half a dozen 30 round magazines filled to the brim, because we are law abiding hunters and shooters. Most states have a 5 or 10 shot mag capacity for hunting already. WE ARE ALREADY HUNTING WITH RESTRICTED MAGAZINES.
There's the reality of one lie the AR haters like to repeat - "you don't need a 30 round mag to hunt." Pls inform the next "d/a" that we DON'T.
Another part of the hater talk against the AR - and we hear it from traditional gun people - is that AR hunters just like to spray ammo in the woods. What they are really saying is they can't get a second shot off accurately with any speed in comparison.
Hunter: See the shot, pull the trigger, but the deer moves, round is deflected, whatever. You have seen it happen - bad shot placement. A lot of haters will immediately claim the AR hunter is a poor shot and imply it's a lack of skill and masculinity. The reality is it can happen to anybody with any gun.
I hear them in the woods, you do too, the slow repeated blasting away as they cycle the action by hand trying to get the next shot. And you wonder if the deer is wounded, and hope it's coming your way.
The AR leaves your hand on the trigger, the sights on the game, you can immediately readjust and try again. The bolt or lever, no. You MUST move the action handle, you MUST move your face out of the way, and you then have to reacquire the sights after reloading the chamber, all of which means you cannot pull the trigger.
The average hunter cannot cycle rounds thru a manual gun as quickly and accurately as an AR hunter. Sorry, I'm not challenging their masculinity, it's just a simple fact. One that seems to be instantly taken up as demeaning, tho. It's not.
The deer? Which is more likely to get away wounded, the one being shot at by a mechanically slow repetition of fire requiring loss of sight picture and a mandatory amount of time the gun is out of battery, or the AR, which is ready to fire within a split second?
Which is more likely to be an older, larger caliber, too, with higher recoil? Most AR's aren't the -10 model, in .308, which nonetheless still offers all the other benefits of the platform. They are in calibers with much less recoil - about 40% less. It's significant, Army studies show even soldiers in combat are less likely to shoot the larger calibers because of recoil, and are less accurate. The Army doesn't have the money to train them to a higher level, either. The Army choose to reduce the power level to a lesser amount for a number of other reasons, but it also gained the benefit that soldiers will fire it more. A lot more.
I don't see people posting on forums about buying another pallet of .308 to blast thru the next few months, but you will find dozens who do with AR calibers. Again, it's not about a demonstration of masculinity, it's just the facts: lower recoil is more fun at the range, and induces less overreaction when you pull the trigger. The AR hunter is being handed an incentive to shoot more accurately.
That makes it a BETTER hunting rifle. Not what people want to hear, maybe, but the lie that nobody hunts with one is exactly wrong. Millions of us DO, and for some very good reasons.
Take a long look at what is on the market, and look at who has been introducing them in their product line. AR's are the most likely new product announcement in models across the board over the last five years, and a lot of them are decked out in deer camo, for the hunter, than ever before.
Don't get sucked into the lie. AR's are for hunting.
Sylvester Stallone:
Mr. Stallone, you CAN hunt with it. Perfectly legal in most states, and in my humble opinion, a better firearm than we've ever had.
Folks, the idea that you can't hunt with an AR is another one of the lies being foisted on the public, and everyone who says it, needs to be challenged on the spot.
I know many of you do hunt with AR's - I believe the sales figures since the sunset of the AWB make it the biggest selling firearm out there. Not levers - which are dwindling away, Winchester went under, leaving Marlin nearly the only choice. Not bolt actions, which have been declining for a long time. As the boomers age, they buy less, the newer generations don't hunt as much, and the only gun they see prominently on the news is the AR15 in all it's military versions.
So, manual action guns are falling down the sales lists, and the AR15 is continuing to rise. It's a lot more about a passing of an age - the old action gun fans aren't the focus of today's market anymore. And that means they aren't at the top of the social pecking order in guns anymore.
Anyway, millions of us DO use the AR for hunting, Sly, and we DO take game with them. We DON'T go out in the woods with half a dozen 30 round magazines filled to the brim, because we are law abiding hunters and shooters. Most states have a 5 or 10 shot mag capacity for hunting already. WE ARE ALREADY HUNTING WITH RESTRICTED MAGAZINES.
There's the reality of one lie the AR haters like to repeat - "you don't need a 30 round mag to hunt." Pls inform the next "d/a" that we DON'T.
Another part of the hater talk against the AR - and we hear it from traditional gun people - is that AR hunters just like to spray ammo in the woods. What they are really saying is they can't get a second shot off accurately with any speed in comparison.
Hunter: See the shot, pull the trigger, but the deer moves, round is deflected, whatever. You have seen it happen - bad shot placement. A lot of haters will immediately claim the AR hunter is a poor shot and imply it's a lack of skill and masculinity. The reality is it can happen to anybody with any gun.
I hear them in the woods, you do too, the slow repeated blasting away as they cycle the action by hand trying to get the next shot. And you wonder if the deer is wounded, and hope it's coming your way.
The AR leaves your hand on the trigger, the sights on the game, you can immediately readjust and try again. The bolt or lever, no. You MUST move the action handle, you MUST move your face out of the way, and you then have to reacquire the sights after reloading the chamber, all of which means you cannot pull the trigger.
The average hunter cannot cycle rounds thru a manual gun as quickly and accurately as an AR hunter. Sorry, I'm not challenging their masculinity, it's just a simple fact. One that seems to be instantly taken up as demeaning, tho. It's not.
The deer? Which is more likely to get away wounded, the one being shot at by a mechanically slow repetition of fire requiring loss of sight picture and a mandatory amount of time the gun is out of battery, or the AR, which is ready to fire within a split second?
Which is more likely to be an older, larger caliber, too, with higher recoil? Most AR's aren't the -10 model, in .308, which nonetheless still offers all the other benefits of the platform. They are in calibers with much less recoil - about 40% less. It's significant, Army studies show even soldiers in combat are less likely to shoot the larger calibers because of recoil, and are less accurate. The Army doesn't have the money to train them to a higher level, either. The Army choose to reduce the power level to a lesser amount for a number of other reasons, but it also gained the benefit that soldiers will fire it more. A lot more.
I don't see people posting on forums about buying another pallet of .308 to blast thru the next few months, but you will find dozens who do with AR calibers. Again, it's not about a demonstration of masculinity, it's just the facts: lower recoil is more fun at the range, and induces less overreaction when you pull the trigger. The AR hunter is being handed an incentive to shoot more accurately.
That makes it a BETTER hunting rifle. Not what people want to hear, maybe, but the lie that nobody hunts with one is exactly wrong. Millions of us DO, and for some very good reasons.
Take a long look at what is on the market, and look at who has been introducing them in their product line. AR's are the most likely new product announcement in models across the board over the last five years, and a lot of them are decked out in deer camo, for the hunter, than ever before.
Don't get sucked into the lie. AR's are for hunting.
Last edited:
ApacheCoTodd
member
I've only seen this in text form and would really like to hear the interview.
Funny is he saying we're incapable or unable to hunt with "it" or is he saying we are not (should not be) allowed to hunt with "it"?
What's for dinner Grandma?
What's for dinner? Grandma.
Funny is he saying we're incapable or unable to hunt with "it" or is he saying we are not (should not be) allowed to hunt with "it"?
What's for dinner Grandma?
What's for dinner? Grandma.
I guess the question is, has he ever tried? Sure you can hunt with it. My cousin took her first deer with a Ruger mini 14...
I guess the more important point is that they are great home defense weapons. I usually tell people that IF there house is invaded / broken into, you (home owner) will want a bigger gun that holds more bullets. Having a gun is great, but when the SHTF, no matter what you have you will want more bullets and a higher caliber. I do not see how anyone can fault someone for taking their defense seriously.
I guess the more important point is that they are great home defense weapons. I usually tell people that IF there house is invaded / broken into, you (home owner) will want a bigger gun that holds more bullets. Having a gun is great, but when the SHTF, no matter what you have you will want more bullets and a higher caliber. I do not see how anyone can fault someone for taking their defense seriously.
scaatylobo
Member
Disgusting
I am sickened that he had ANYTHING to say negative about any firearms.
His following are 99% gun owners and shooters who enjoy seeing the fun and fantasy of his movies.
I plan on boycotting him and all that he represents until or IF he makes a retraction and says a Mea Culpa to us all.
ALL his movies would not exist without guns and us,his patrons.
let him try to get his liberal friends to see his stuff = NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
I am sickened that he had ANYTHING to say negative about any firearms.
His following are 99% gun owners and shooters who enjoy seeing the fun and fantasy of his movies.
I plan on boycotting him and all that he represents until or IF he makes a retraction and says a Mea Culpa to us all.
ALL his movies would not exist without guns and us,his patrons.
let him try to get his liberal friends to see his stuff = NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
This moronic statement is made by the ignorant and is proven over and over again to be wrong. Jim Zumbo had to be painfully schooled on hunting with AR type rifles. We should counter every claim made that ARs are not suitable for hunting at every opportunity.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
