Friday, December 28, 2012


In case you missed the irony, this from the people who showed us HOW to glorify gun violence.

Every actor and actress in this video is shown in the movie in which he/she appeared that featured and/or glorified gun violence.

If they are sincere, and I have no reason to believe that they are, let them to a man/woman refuse to have any part in a movie that features gun violence of any kind.

No more James Bond, "license to kill," no more Terminator, no more Rambo, no more "ah'll be bach," no more Bonnie and Clyde, Boyz N the Hood,  Godfather (I, II, III IV,  V...XX), no more Gunfight at the OK Coral, no more Gone with the Wind.

No more movie theater patrons.

There is nobody that I care any less about than movie actors and actresses. There is nobody who has any less right to lecture me than this group of magna-hypocrites.

Let them take a stand for what they pretend to believe.

Go ahead...I'll wait.

While we're waiting, check THIS out.


Ducky's here said...

If this means no more Tarantino I'm all for boycotting that no talent clown.

I do get a kick out of Jamie Fox preaching and then showing up in L'il Quentin's latest gore fest.

Xavier Onassis said...

How is it perfectly acceptable to heavily regulate the ability to own, tax, license and drive a deadly weapon like a car but not guns?

We recognize that a quarter ton of steel and glass hurtling down a concrete road at 70 MPH just inches away from other people doing the same thing in the opposite direction is a potentially deadly weapon.

So we require that drivers be of a certain age.

We require that drivers demonstrate a level of knowledge and proficiency before being granted a license to drive,

We require that licensed driver's carry liability insurance.

We require that licensed driver's pay annual taxes on their vehicles and regularly renew their license to drive.

We know the name, address, phone number, employer, insurer of every single car owner and which cars they own.

The number of people owning and driving unregistered, uninsured cars are relatively small and easy to police.

Yet you advocate that any idiot should be able to buy any firearm, stockpile them in any quantity, buy any man-killing level of ammo in any quantity, without any supervision, licensing, training or control.

Please explain how that makes any rational sense.

And if all you have is to quote the 2nd Amendment which SPECIFICALLY restricts firearms to a "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" in a time when a "firearm" was a breech-loading muzzle rifle, then don't embarrass yourself by trying to defend your position.

The 2nd Amendment needs to be amended.

Every gun owner should be over 21.

Every gun owner should take and pass a certified gun safety course.

Every gun owner should take and pass a justified use course based on their state laws.

Every gun owner should have to register every gun they own.

Every gun owner should have to carry liability insurance on every gun they own.

Every gun owner should have to sign for and register every ammunition purchase they make.

Every gun owner should be held liable for any crime committed by a gun that can be linked to them that didn't meet the previously stated regulations.

Any ammunition sales above "target shooting" or "sport hunting" caliber should be HEAVILY regulated and restricted to law enforcement.

Nothing violates the 2nd Amendment.

That's a start.

Xavier Onassis said...

I'm sorry. I may have commented on the wrong post. My response was off topic when it comes to movie violence. I'll transplant it to a more appropriate post.

Lone Ranger said...

Driving is not a constitutional right. Considering the outcome of the last election, maybe we should ban the right to vote. Why should one constitutionally-guaranteed right be more important than another? Even shooting a person by accident isn't as harmful to the country than election a bad president. This country will be suffering decades, and perhaps generations after Obama leaves office.

Joe said...

Ducky: Fox is a faux.

XO: You're forgiven if, and only if, you realize that we don't have a right to drive a car. We have an inate right to self defense, and there are few restrictions needed on that right. Specfically we need to assure that those carrying are not mentally ill, emotionally unstable or who exhibit marked anti-scocial behavior.

All of these gunmen showed one or more of these attributes and nothing was done about it.

Therein lies the shame.

Adn the Second Amendment need no adjustment.

LR: "Driving is not a Constitutional right"

That is right, it is not a right. It is a priviledge granted by the individual states, not the federal government.

Mine is a Florida License. I'm sure XO would prefer it to be a federal license.

The Debonair Dudes World said...

That video said it all Joe....

Joe said...

TDDW: It said it all, but liberal/leftist/progressives aren't hearing.

They have a brain warp.

My Conservative Thoughts said...

Don’t fall for the conspiracy, it wasn't Adam Lanza who killed all of those kids, nope, at least according to all the Progressive Press . It was an Israeli death squad, incognito that did it! Of course, the never mind how but it was done and witnessed by a group of Government Officials sitting in the War Room watching it in Real Time. YES!. The Jews did it.. The anti gun advocates can prove it. Yes, these bizarre people would rather believe
theories such as this then to believe those eveil Republicans.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Liberals - oops, I mean progressives - never live their professed philosophy.

Joe said...

MCT: Jews? Hmmmm.

GEC: They are experts at telling others how to live, but not themselves.

Ducky's here said...

You've let in the hoi polloi again. Joe.

Joe said...

Ducky: Merriam Webster definition of HOI POLLOI: the general populace.

Tell me, Ducky, are you a member of the general populace?

Ducky's here said...

So I ask a serious question, Joe. It would be difficult for an actor to avoid appearing completely being in a film with some violence.
Violence has been an aspect of art since the beginning. A critical aspect of the Bible for that matter.

But when has a film or an actor gone over the line and what are the determining factors.

Ducky's here said...

hoi polloi (ˌhɔɪ pəˈlɔɪ)
— pl n
derogatory often the masses

Joe said...

Ducky: I hate it when you get serious. I can't tell what you are talking about.

Ducky's here said...

It's quite simple Joe. You post a clip of actors who have appeared in films with scenes of gun violence.
Do those appearances constitute some kind of advocacy that nullifies their call for gun control?

Or is it just a snarky clip trying to abrogate serious discussion.

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe / Ducky - OK, let me try to intercede.

I think what Ducky is asking is, what is your hypocrisy threshold on actors advocating for gun control.

Can they shoot one gun one time in one movie and still be taken seriously?

If they are the good guy in the movie do they get more bullets to their credit than if they are the bad guy?

If they use a cowboy six-shooter as a good guy in a western are they allowed to take a firmer stand against guns than someone who was in a movie where they were a terrorist who used an AK-47 or a bazooka?

At what level of movie violence is an actor who is paid to act and entertain get to express their own opinion and be taken seriously on
important civic issues?

Can Peter O'Toole not express his personal opinion on Middle East matters because he portrayed "Lawrence of Arabia" in 1962?

Should a person's employer dictate what opinions they can espouse?

Really? Is that a Conservative Value?

Anita Davis said...

I try really hard to avoid the Hollywood idiots.
The list of Hollywood morons is incredible from Michael Moore, Oliver Stone, De Niro, Damon, Will Smith,
Streisand, Alec Baldwin, Clooney, Samuel Jackson, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Wanda Sykes,Rosie O’Donnell, Whoopi Goldberg, and lets not forget the racist's racist's Danny Glover, and Oprah etc.
The bottom line is and what I just can't understand I do not understand is the fact that the public's idea's are that celebs are the most intelligent people available. These people are actors and only actors, some are bad and some are good ones. However they are no different than anyone else that has an opinion! Why do some people put these dolts on a pedestal?

On another note.
We simply cannot afford four more years of the out of control spending and redirecting the US economy toward a socialist dictatorship! Obama is a Socialist and intends to remake the USA into this form of government.

Joe said...

Ducky: There are some actors who won't accept some roles because of their convictions about the subject. I have slightly more respect for them than for the others...not much, but some.

XO: "Should a person's employer dictate what opinions they can espouse?"

Absolutely not! But if they're too dense to realize that the entertainment industry influences styles, thinking and behavior, then their opinions are of no inteest to me.

They are entitled to have them and to express them.

I am not required to think they are wise or intelligent. Most aren't.

AD;"These people are actors and only actors..."

And most of them, like most liberals, can't tell their faces from their fannys.

They run around using the very rights afforded them by this country to cast aspersions on it for being one that affords them those rights.

Your list starts with the right guy, Michael Moore, who is the poster child for "unpatrioticism" and thinks we should follow his "wisdom," of which he has none.

These people are, in most cases, small, mindless, petty, self-oriented, insecure people whose livelyhood depends on their being fakes.

I want that person's opinions. Sure I do.

Ducky's here said...

Well Joe, that didn't get very far.

"These people are, in most cases, small, mindless, petty, self-oriented, insecure people whose livelyhood depends on their being fakes.

I want that person's opinions. Sure I do."

No, you prefer Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Pat Robertson, The Family Research Council and Allen West.

Still, the question of what effects film has on the wider culture is open. I don't believe films "leave the theater" too often these days but your mileage may vary.

I like Moore. Very good editor. The guy knows how to cut film.
I don't know when free expression became unpatriotic but I do know that film makers with sound ideas are far less likely to fall back on mindless violence.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Because it is a cult of personality, the hollywood people are given credibility for expertise in every thing they talk about.

Those people in Hollywood are no different than the average man on the street - they are not experts in anything they blather about and yet the ignorant and liberals (wait, isn't that redundant?) hang on their every word.

These are people who earn a living pretending to be something they are not, while corrupting society with their constant portrayal of violence and immorality as being something good! They are paid to be liars.

Joe said...

Ducky: Rarely listen to Rush, don't like Beck and despise Pat Robertson.

"I like Moore. Very good editor. The guy knows how to cut film."

Sorry, but his skill level is not at issue. His hatred for America is.

He loves Cuba, especially their medical system...which is a propoganda crock.

GEC: They are the great pretenders, as are ALL of those involved in that industry.

Radical Redneck said...

Michael Moore is not as stupid as he appears to be, it's his audience and his fan base who are actually the idiot. You have to be an idiot to listen and believe any of the BS this jerk says. But as long as he has a stupid audience--he laughs all the way to the bank. So the joke is on you liberal fools who watch, or listen to him.

The Debonair Dudes World said...

The Republicans seem to think that Michael Moore is a big, fat, stupid, Idiot, guess what! They are right.