Unfortunately, yet disturbingly predictable, celebrities engage in what I call “conspicuous endorsementism” for liberal causes (yes, I believe I made that term up). Yet another is their clamoring to be included on the National Rifle Association’s list of organizations and individuals who are anti-gun. Even Rainman wants a part:
“Actor Dustin Hoffman was so dismayed to find his name missing from the NRA’s shadowy 19-page list of U.S. companies, celebrities, and news organizations seen as lending support to anti-gun policies that he wrote to the powerful pro-gun lobby group begging to be included.”
People who support “anti-gun” policies created a nifty looking website to get people to sign up. They plan a major advertising campaign soon. The list of celebrities is enormous. It makes me wonder how anyone from the NRA can watch television or see a movie or read a magazine if they choose to boycott all these people.
Not surprisingly, I am pro-gun-control, but not anti-gun, as the guns are not to blame. I believe the vast majority of Americans are, at present, too stupid to own a gun. I don’t think guns should be banned, but it should be incredibly difficult to get one (yes, I enjoyed much of Bowling for Columbine, and am looking forward to seeing Michael Moore when he visits my University today). I believe there should be draconian restrictions on gun ownership. Of course, there’s the whole issue of “well, the CRIMINALS have guns!” which is true, but I doubt that if such restrictions were in place, that the vast majority of these criminals would have guns. Most criminals with guns are not part of some organized criminal cabal. They are everyday folks (as scary as that may seem…) who have access to guns and use them in criminal acts. I believe the police and other publicly sanctioned organizations should have access, but everyday folks should have restricted access. Where do we draw the line, you ask? Let the police have them, and let the insurance broker have a difficult time trying to obtain one. Let the national guard have them, and let the construction worker have a difficult time obtaining one. And no, I don’t believe that if citizens give up their weapons that the government will become fascist and rip up the Constitution. The government will work as it does today, the rich will still get richer, the poor will still get poorer, and all else would be the same, just as it is in countries with more stringent gun-control laws.
I still think celebrities engage in conspicuous endorsementism. They may even come to believe in the values/products/both that they endorse, but they do so to “fit in” and be part of an “in crowd.” Let’s face it: Rainman isn’t exactly going out on a limb by wanting to be a part of the NRA blacklist.
While I disagree with the vast majority of your arguments regarding the rights of gun owners, I must say that I concur with your statement that “Rainman isn’t exactly going out on a limb by wanting to be a part of the NRA blacklist.” It’s very easy to show how much you “care” by being against the NRA. Most Hollywood political positions don’t seem to be thought out very well.
If you found Michael Moore’s most recent movie efforts to be entertaining, I have no problem with that. However, it was as dishonest a piece of documentary filmmaking as has ever won an Academy Award. Check out this site:
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
Me, I believe that the vast majority of Americans are more than intelligent enough to own and use firearms responsibly. Quoting Master-At-Arms James Keating, “Don’t judge the world by your own shitty standards.”
Belief in private firearms ownership for law-abiding citizens and the fact that criminals can and do obtain firearms illegally doesn’t predicate the notion that I also believe in an organized criminal cabal, Moriarty-style.
Joshua: Do you admire Bowling for Columbine as “documentary” or as “satire”? I’m asking because Moore won the award for “documentary”, but when confronted with it’s many lies and misinformation, he claimed it to be “satire”. Considering your statements, I’d guess you believe it to be basically true.
By the way, when you see Mr. Moore, perhaps you could ask him why, considering his luxury home on Fifth Avenue and his daughter’s enrollment in an exclusive private school, he works so hard at looking like a slob. Is that his image of “Joe Everyman”? Isn’t that insulting?
I read most of the link that David provided and, I admit, it provides much food for thought. Misleading documentaries are dangerous business. However much criticisms are warranted in some of what Moore “documented,” his larger point is clearly made: gun control helps to control gun related violence. So yes, some of what Moore did is satire. His larger point is much harder to write-off as inconsequential. And, if it gets more than a few people to think critically about these issues, then Moore deserved that Oscar (think of the thought provoking “Titanic” and its dozen Oscars and you’ll get my drift).
As for Moore dressing like a slob, I think your’re right on the money (pun intended). People should do their best to present themselves in a respectable manner. I believe people do a disservice to others by dressing like a slob and not taking care of themselves. It is disrespectful to his profession to look like he just rolled out of bed.
Unfortunately, I didn’t get to see Moore (I would have loved to send David a signed copy of Moore’s new book!). The place where he spoke filled up in a matter of minutes so they didn’t let anyone else inside.
Thanks for writing!
Actually, the problem is that gun control laws don’t curb gun violence; they simply make it easier for a better-armed criminal to engage in violent crime.
The truth is that gun laws only affect those people that follow the law. The criminals will always be able to get guns whether they are stealing them from honest citizens or smuggling them across our porous borders.
Where I currently live, the houses can has much as a quarter mile between them. A gang of thugs could walk up to one and no one would ever hear them. Why doesn’t this happen? The criminals know that every one of those houses has at least one shotgun ready for use.
Bowling for Columbine was entertaining, but it stretched the truth at least a dozen times for effect. Having the victims from the Columbine shooting buy all of the bullets in the local Walmart was truly inspired, but do you honestly think that it prevented one crime? This is just another instance of liberal symbolism over substance and has nothing to do with reality.
Good column and comments one and all. It never does cease to amaze me how people cry “Bill of Rights!”, “It’s my Constitutional Right!”, when the right they are talking about suits their ideological views. However, when it comes to the 2nd Amendment’s right to bear arms, and enumerated and therefore fundamental right, they say, “times have changed, etc….” Ok, I’ll turn in my gun (don’t have one, but work with me here) if libs turn the other cheek when it comes to the Constitutions proscription of cruel and unusual punishment so HEROES like Lt. Col. West don’t have to hear you sqwak like babies when he, ahem, “attains” info from terrorist scum-bags that prevents deaths of our soldiers. Deal?
Josh, while your comments about Dustin Hoffman’s efforts to make his clique happy are amusing, your others seem a bit naive.
“I believe the vast majority of Americans are, at present, too stupid to own a firearm.”
Besides being an incredibly asinine and arrogant remark, what exactly do you base this belief on? The vast majority of people who obtain their firearms -legally- also abide by other laws, including laws against murder. Besides, if you really believe Americans are so dumb, then shouldn’t cars and kitchen knives and other such things be illegal too?
“Of course, there’s the whole issue of ‘well, the CRIMINALS have guns!’ which is true, which is true, but I doubt that if such restrictions were in place, that the vast majority of these criminals would have guns.”
To paraphrase another blogger… ‘I wish land-mines would magically be transformed into flowers and fuzzy puppies, but I don’t expect that to happen any time soon’. People who are willing to commit rape or murder WILL find ways around gun-control laws, whether or not they’re part of the Mafia or Al-Qaeda or whoever. They do right now with our current laws.
“I believe the police and other publicly sanctioned organizations should have access, but everyday folks should have restricted access.”
Sorry, but all of the items in the Bill of Rights are for private citizens, not some special elite. One does not have to be Navy SEAL or a SWAT officer to learn basic rules of gun use, any more than you have to be a brain surgeon to learn CPR or first aid.
Hello Michelle! And thanks for commenting!
Sorry to be arrogant and asinine. I understand I made a flip remark, but I see the world as run by morons, for morons. Of course, this is merely an attempt at amusing anybody who cares to hear what I have to say, but here is the colonel…er…kernel of truth: It’s not that Americans are too stupid; the WHOLE WORLD is too stupid to own guns. Human beings clearly are not able to handle such a technology of violence. We do very well with things like computers, and printing presses, and other non-violent technologies. But as soon as we build weapons such as guns, people use guns for bad ends. I think countries such as England and Canada were smart enough to realize that they’re too stupid to own guns, and sensibly try to control gun ownership. Let’s face it (again); the government monopolizes the means of violence, and our puny arsenal of guns won’t stop an organized army sent by the government from trampling over our civil rights. If we had draconian gun laws, the “right to bear arms, for a well-regulated militia” would still be there. But the government can, and does, do what it likes. We gave them the power to monopolize the means of violence. The only thing our gun ownership seems to do is give folks a false sense of security and make it relatively easy for potential and current criminals to own guns. So, yes, Americans are too stupid to own guns. But so are the French, the English, Easter Western Central Europe, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Tibetans, and Australians and everybody else. Including me and all my fellow countrymen.
Please don’t ban kitchen knives, though, else we’ll have a country of poor cooks (there’s a difference between guns and cars, too, but that’s obvious).