Why are celebrities so anti-gun?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The constant swings at liberals and liberalism (so-called) here are both tedious and disingeneous. This knee-jerk behavior does not add to discussions or bolster a point of view. Yet is seems to continue unabated, as though the mere mention of the word will excoriate the bogeyman.

Likewise, the fascination with whether Rosie or Costner or Chuck Heston or some other perceived "celebrity" is pro-gun or anti-gun or something in between also is something of a puzzle. In two words, who cares? In five, who gives a good damn? The beauty of this country is that people are free to express themselves, regardless of whether they are common folk or celebrity, politician or postman, famous or imfamous. Equally beautiful is each individual's fundamental right to ignore someone else's point of view.

Which many of you will do, I'm sure, with this post.

Nothing wrong with that, either.
 
Hollywooders are afraid of losing their audience. (audience......watchers, onlookers, ticket buyers) Without an audience, Hollywooders are nothing. They feel deserted without onlookers, no pay. A manager in Hollywood wants to represent and haggle high appearance fees for a popular sight and sound (act). When a Hollywooder can`t find a loyal manager= out of work. A little insight here in what I`ve posted so far will tell you that being socialist, antiAmerican and willing to make a fool of yourself in front of others and show your butt and boobs in public will make you popular in Hollywood. Talent = the ability to dazzle with sights and baffle with bull. Bringing down Hollywood is simple. Stop watching and listening to them. Getting everybody to stop listening and watching is not simple.
 
In order to succeed in acting one must be able to portray emotions.

I am a "successful" professional actor (critical success...plenty of work...lousy money. Only movie actors make enough to actually pay a mortgage and hire bodyguards - but I digress).

I am able to convincingly portray emotions, and some of my political and social decisions are influenced by emotion and empathy for others.

For example...I get "emotional" when I think about somebody trying to violently assault innocent people (including and especially myself and/or my family). But I react to those emotions with a "logical" response, i.e., I carry a firearm and train myself physically and emotionally to use it if need be.

On the other hand, I always cringe when I see/hear Hollywood actor/celebrities sounding off as "experts" on subjects for which they have little or no practical experience.

As was mentioned earlier...why give them any credence at all?
 
This is a long shot but does anyone think that John Milius could ever be a Producer?
That would open the door to so many possiblities it makes my head spin.
 
I think celebrities are anti gun because they make action movies and tend to believe that people can actually do those types of things. A single man taking on a whole city or entire army. Inflicting so much damage with their gun. Maybe I am exaggerating a little on their stupidity... But, celebrities are a rather ignorant bunch if you ask me. Some got their head on straight but many do not. Thank goodness for the sane ones or I would be left with disliking all of Hollywood.

I hope I didn't offend any celebrities reading this....
 
While not all successful actors are liberals the vast majority are. Actors who have a different opinion about guns will usually keep their mouths shut if they want work. Notice Tom Sellik has not made many movies lately? Brad Pitt may be a shooter but he doesn't broadcast it or give interviews in gun magazines. If he did he would be blackballed much like what our side did with Jim Zumbo. Being vocally pro-gun in Hollywood could end your career as an actor.
 
I think the terms, Liberal and Conservative, have been forced into the argument to divide people and to prevent substantive and purposeful discussion about the real issues.

I harvested this from a comment string after a Mike Adams' column. Long read but kind of interesting.

"It is interesting that like the term racist, the word “liberal” has had its meaning twisted so often that it no longer is used in its proper context. Mike Adams tosses the word out quite often, but he is not really being careful about being accurate in his terminology. Contrary to the perverse re-definition of the contemporary form of the word, liberal actually defines an honorable characteristic. Liberal is akin to open and receptive, and liberal is synonymous with freedom. A liberal mind is open to new ideas. A liberal mind is receptive to alternative solutions. A liberal mind realizes that each individual has differing objectives in their lives, and a liberal mind believes men should be free to strive for varying goals. A liberal can coexist with others that disagree with him, because he acknowledges that others have had experiences and attained education that may lead them to different conclusions. A liberal mind accepts this, and though such a mind may try to persuade others to consider a new way of looking at an issue, it does not attempt to use the rule of law to coerce others to accept one preferred view of the world.

A liberal mind continues to mature as new events in life are experienced, and will alter a belief if events produce a reason to do so. A liberal mind is not afraid of being proven wrong, for it is aware that it cannot hold all knowledge. A liberal mind is open to reason, for only by doing so will the amount of knowledge that it can hold increase. A liberal mind will look at the facts, use logic to critique the content, and make a deduction that very well may be different from the initial supposition.

A liberal mind is aware that all things are possible, that new ideas can make old dreams a reality, and that the mind of man is capable of achieving great things. A liberal mind appreciates the efforts of man, and does not view mankind as being evil merely because man’s history is dotted with errors. A liberal mind knows that errors are inevitable when new ideas are tested.

Liberal means allowing speech that one finds offensive, because such words may hold a grain of truth that can grow into viable ideas. Censorship is the antithesis of liberal thinking, and those that shout down opposing ideas or seek to ban unpopular opinions are not liberal, for they refuse to even consider an opposing argument. Likewise, liberal does not mean forcing scientists to censor data in order to support an unproven hypothesis merely because the theory itself is popular. Nor would a liberal advocate teaching children what they should think, but only how to think.

Liberal does not mean creating an economic model that enslaves the ambition of men and compels them to think and act in only one way. Liberal does not mean penalizing the efforts of those that dare to achieve by mandating that they are liable for the livelihood of those that do not. Liberal is not reducing mankind into groups, thereby ignoring the magnificence and ingenuity of the individual. Liberal is realizing that each man’s effort is precious to that man, and a true liberal strives to protect that unique effort.

To be liberal means that one is willing to permit even the most radical idea to be voiced, even if it deeply offends or harshly criticizes others. A liberal is able to open his mind to opposing views, digest the differing input, and then make a decision with all points considered. And though a liberal mind is open, it is still able to deduce thoughts on its own. Hence, a liberal mind can be persuaded, but not just led. Conversely, a closed mind is easily led, because there is no input that will allow it to see a better way to go. Unfortunately, many a mind that considers itself to be liberal only accepts input that is consistent with the opinion it already holds, so such a mind is anything but liberal. An ostrich would never make a good liberal.

Finally, a liberal does not hate those that do not see things the same way as he does. Rather, the liberal mind attempts to persuade others to see things in a different light by exposing them to opposing concepts. Narrow minds are appalled when such material is introduced, for they are not liberal. A liberal isn’t afraid to voice an opinion, and a liberal knows that his particular opinion will not always be accepted. A liberal mind accepts the fact that even though logic and rationale may obviously lead to a certain conclusion, there will always be those that will never agree with him. Thus, a liberal does not force others to be tolerant of an idea that he alone holds dear.

To be liberal is a great thing, for liberal minds propelled mankind out of the prehistoric caves, beyond the Dark Ages, and out into the stars. It is just too bad that so noble of a word has been used as a label for a group of people that do not practice its true meaning."
__________________
 
To address part of the O.P's. issue, "What difference does it make if celebrities' are anti-guns?," I'll take a stab at it.

"Celebrities" have constant access to virtually all the media to express their anti-guns ideology and they usually do it parroting the lies, half lies, and disinformation spoon fed to them by the various Brady Bunch organizations and their offshoots.

That includes teeeveee, newspapers, popular magazines, and movies, and "modern" liberal radio talk shows.

Pro-Second Amendment advocates have only a few conservative talk radio shows on which to express their views, plus the various pro-gun/pro-hunting Internet blogs. I assure you, the millions upon millions of ignorant-of-firearms people are not going to go to the pro-gun blogs to find out the truth about firearms. Instead they constantly watch teeeveee and movies, read the newspapers and magazines published, edited, and written by very left wing"modern liberals," who hate, loathe, and despise the Second Amendment, the Right of self defense, and private ownership of firearms. They long ago bought into the Big Lie that only Big Brother & Big Nanny can save you. These various media outlets preach this left wing ideology incessantly, so that is all millions and millions of people hear.

If some "celebrity" says that you can't protect yourself against a vicious thug who attacks you 'cause he'll just take your gun and kill you with it... then it's written in concrete. Whatever the "Big Lie" mouthed by the "celebrity," millions take it as gospel and never, ever question it.

Were we able to answer in kind on/in the media, whatever "celebrities" say would not matter. But we worker peasants have no access to the media. We read our gun magazines, blog, and have a few pro-gun people on a few talk radio shows and that's it.

The anti-gun people have virtually the entire media (or "zombie media" as I call them).

Most celebrities, aside from being extremely emotional, gullible and easily manipulated, are also extremely insecure. Show Business is incredibly competitive and most careers are very tenuous and short lived. If it "pays" to follow the herd in order to work, they do it.

As for the writers, yes, most are very "left wing modern day liberals." Not classic liberals, but liberals in the vein of Marx and Lenin, and I don't mean Groucho and John. Virtually everything you see on teeveee and in the movies, plus the news that's written for the various news shows on teeevee, are written by members of the Writers Guild of America, west, or the Writers Guild of America, east.

So, my position is that although unfortunate, it is important what "celebrities" say publically about our Rights because millions and millions of people swallow it verbatim without question.

L.W.
 
If you will note, Mr. Rhys-Davies was not invited to take part in the new Indiana Jones film.
In the context of the screenplay, what would an Egyptian specializing in the excavation of Egyptian ruins be doing in Central America?

Were the guys who played the Shanghai gangster and the Indian village elder in "Temple of Doom" also excluded from "Crystal Skull" because they're "conservatives"?
 
In the context of the screenplay, what would an Egyptian specializing in the excavation of Egyptian ruins be doing in Central America?

If you google it, you'll notice he was in the earlier draft of the script but was later written out, ostensibly because he didn't appeal to the "youth market." I admit I have no proof. The proof would be virtually impossible to find, esp. since their production had more security than the President and even sent one rogue extra to prison for stealing an early draft. It does strike me as interesting that he was removed from the script at the same time he was becoming an outspoken proponent of various conservative causes. I can also tell you that George Lucas in particular is a hoodoo nutjob with a long track record of blacklisting people for personal reasons (banning them from his ranch as they say). Smart actors will toe the line, support the PC causes and keep any conservative personal views to themselves.
 
Why is celebrity opinion so important?

Have you looked at the level of ignorance and stupidity that runs rampant in our society these days.

CNN Headline news has an entire hour show dedicated to following the crap that "celebrities" do on a DAILY BASIS!!!

This is news? While I doubt many here watch that crap, when you look at the sheer number of people in our country that are spoon fed by the media and liberal elites, THAT IS WHY CELEBRITY OPINION IS IMPORTANT.

Do you really think the NRA would be where it is at today without Charlton Heston? When he spoke, he had the persona and image of 40+ years of being in the psyche of everyone. It wasn't just Chuck Heston, it was Ben Hur, Moses, etc...

When you look at the sheer volume of media in all its forms dedicated to the happenings of "celebrities", and the sheer volume of people that drink it all up, that is why "celebrities" opinions matter.

Is it right? Are you kidding. Is it reality? Yes. When a person gets 95% of their info from "reliable news sources" like celebrities (yes that is rich irony), you have a major problem.

Think about the different "celebrity" causes that get lots of people all up in a roar: Global warming, gun control, gay marriage, the Iraq war, healthcare, etc... Most of these people don't have a single logical or provable argument, but it doesn't stop them from spewing their crap and influencing millions and millions of ill-informed sheep.

Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

(Yeah this one bugs me!)
 
camslam, you are forgetting that the desire to be rich and or famous is a very powerful elixir. Look at 'American Idol'. I cannot stand that show. I want to hear good talent not bad attempts. The good thing is that Simon Cowell gives people the cold wet rag of reality upside their head that they sorely need. Sometimes I think he goes overboard but he's doing them a veiled favor overall.
Stay in the publics mind. Take up a worthy cause. Be a humanitarian. Maintain your "star currency" quotient. You guys can't see that? Ever wonder why they go adopt kids from Timbuktu instead of the Ozarks??
The networks care about ratings, in other words ad revenue. Hey the bottom line is the bottom line.
I am sure show business is a neat business to be in. But a lot of people look at it as a lifestyle. Whereas you or I and many of us here would look at it as just another way of making a living.
 
I think it's even simpler than your explanations.

When you can afford to pay a "professional" to handle your security, the need for an individual to own a firearm is obscured. Most celebrities don't have issues with "professional" security guards having firearms, just with individual ownership. It's a kind of "Let them eat cake!" situation and I think that the celebrity point of view is a mixture of two things:

1) "Why would a "normal" person need protection? Only celebrity like me needs to worry about someone wanting to harm me. No-one targets a nobody."

2) "If someone really wants protection, that person can just hire bodyguards like I have."

Remember that most celebrities live in a fairly isolated world and don't comprehend the idea of random violence. The only personal security issues they face are people targeting them very specifically because of their fame. This results in a celebrity downplaying the potential for random attacks. Also, because of their isolation, private security becomes a "normal" thing to them and I don't think they properly understand that an average person does not have access to paid bodyguards. Even if they do understand that, their ignorance of truly random violence means they cannot grasp the reason why an average person would need paid bodyguards.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top