Actors and guns..
- Thread starter Northern Sod Breaker
- Start date
It seems there is a tougher standard for actors than politicians. Those quotes from the actors about AK-47's and keeping guns out of the hands of criminals or mentally ill people, could just be support for the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1968 Gun Control Act. How many politicians would still be considered pro-gun even though they wouldn't vote to repeal these laws. What I absolutely abhore is they elitist double standard of many actors and politicians when they have armed guards following them around everywhere but then say that we shouldn't be arming ourselves.
As I was writing this, Jodie Foster was being interviewed about her new movie where stops being a victim and stands up to her attackers. She never said anything really anti-gun. The film clip shown had her meakly going into a NCY gun shop and asking about buying a gun. The guy in the store ask for her license. She doesn't have one so he tells her she'll have to fill out the form and it will take about 30 days. "I might not survive thirty days." "There's nothing I can do for you". So then she walks out to the sidewalk where a man approaches her and tells her for $1000 he can help. She also mentioned in the interview that NYC has some of the toughest gun laws in the country, but she never says that's a good thing. She also says that carring a gun changes a person; I agree. I say it's a good thing, but Jodie never said good or bad. Maybe she's closet pro-gun and this is a subtle way to get the message across. I'd like to see the movie. My siter should see it because she lives in NYC.
As I was writing this, Jodie Foster was being interviewed about her new movie where stops being a victim and stands up to her attackers. She never said anything really anti-gun. The film clip shown had her meakly going into a NCY gun shop and asking about buying a gun. The guy in the store ask for her license. She doesn't have one so he tells her she'll have to fill out the form and it will take about 30 days. "I might not survive thirty days." "There's nothing I can do for you". So then she walks out to the sidewalk where a man approaches her and tells her for $1000 he can help. She also mentioned in the interview that NYC has some of the toughest gun laws in the country, but she never says that's a good thing. She also says that carring a gun changes a person; I agree. I say it's a good thing, but Jodie never said good or bad. Maybe she's closet pro-gun and this is a subtle way to get the message across. I'd like to see the movie. My siter should see it because she lives in NYC.
First posted by Fossten in the General forums thread about The Brave One:
Jodie Foster: Cheering in Her Payback Movie 'Shameful' and No One Should Own Guns
By Lynn Davidson | September 3, 2007 - 07:19 ET
In an Entertainment Weekly interview, Jodie Foster explained her views on guns, “I don't believe that any gun should be in the hand of a thinking, feeling, breathing human being.”
She also said it is “shameful” that the “unsophisticated people who see a sophisticated movie” will cheer when she goes after the bad guys who kill her fiance in her new vigilante movie “The Brave One”
ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: There's a rallying moment in The Brave One when you stick a gun in a bad guy's face and say, ''I want my dog back.'' How are you going to feel about the audience cheering on your character as she starts hunting people down?
JODIE FOSTER: It's shameful, but that's human and that's who we are as human beings. There will be unsophisticated people who see a sophisticated movie. Just like there were in The Accused. And thank God I only went to one screening of that movie with an audience.
She really equated the idiots cheering the rape in “The Accused” to the people who cheer a heroine getting revenge in a payback movie? Poor Jodie; all of those “unsophisticated people” sullying her movies. Maybe they should stay home until they learn to ignore those adrenaline-pumping, feel-good parts where the writer and director deliberately try to get the audience to react.
Foster, who was protected by bodyguards while would-be Ronald Reagan assassin John Hinckley harassed her and said in 2002 that she does not have security now, addressed the issue of guns:
EW: What do you think is the larger social commentary of The Brave One, which in some ways plays as a straight-up Dirty Harry revenge movie?
FOSTER: Here's my commentary: I don't believe that any gun should be in the hand of a thinking, feeling, breathing human being. Americans are by nature filled with rage-slash-fear. And guns are a huge part of our culture. I know I'm crazy because I'm only supposed to say that in Europe. But violence corrupts absolutely.
Original Story here
I think its safe to say she is not a closet pro-gunner.
The comment about AK 47s was made by the revered president of the NRA
His other comment by was made in support of the GCA. Actually it was an attempt to make it more restrictive
Talk about your elitist double standards
Clint's comment was posted to show the difference between what some were calling anti gun sentiments and what our esteemed leader in the fight actually thought about private ownership
Huchahucha
New member
HA! That is hilarious. I'm sure her new movie is the Citizen Kane of the vigilante justice genre.
CGSteve8718
New member
Hmmm
Wow joab, I never knew that about Heston. Of course I'm going to look more into it, but it definitely is the other side of "cold, dead hands".
Although, I don't remember the whole interview with Clint Eastwood, that one statement does make sense. Some kind of gun control, not to control guns per se, but to make sure they don't get in the hands of the type of people he mentioned. In most instances, we do have those kind of restrictions.
Wow joab, I never knew that about Heston. Of course I'm going to look more into it, but it definitely is the other side of "cold, dead hands".
Although, I don't remember the whole interview with Clint Eastwood, that one statement does make sense. Some kind of gun control, not to control guns per se, but to make sure they don't get in the hands of the type of people he mentioned. In most instances, we do have those kind of restrictions.
How about this...Wildalaska said:
The 28th Amendment to the Constitution:
There shall be no such thing, past, present, or future, as a non-violent gun-related crime. This amendment shall repeal all United States laws which regulate the sale, ownership, trade, transfer, and use of all firearms. All convictions previously obtained by any United States law so nullified by this amendment shall be stricken from the record, and all sentences shall thus be vacated. All state gun laws shall be subject to this amendment.
Since you're in law school, I leave it to you to come up with the best, most bulletproof (pardon the pun) wording.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Well work to get it passed then. I'll be one to oppose it though, as will probably most others on theis Board.
I haven't seen the inside of an instituion of higher learning since 1981
WildcodgerAlaska TM
i dont believe there should be any gun control. multiple studies done by the NAS, CDC, and the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, to name a few, have all concluded that gun control has no effect on violent crime. so why put it in place if it doesnt work? because it makes people "feel" better, even if it does infringe on our rights as citizens. its rediculous.
ive never paid attention to what actors say or believe, they are meaningless props for my entertainment. nothing more. why anyone listens to someone who literally lies for a living, is beyond me.
ive never paid attention to what actors say or believe, they are meaningless props for my entertainment. nothing more. why anyone listens to someone who literally lies for a living, is beyond me.
Regarding "Moses" Heston's seemingly anti-gun testimony, I think we have all
made mistakes and said things we later wish we hadn't. None of us are infallible, but we do have the right to learn from ourmistakes-cf the popular phrase "A neo-conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality." I recall the late columnist Mike Royko became more conservative as he went along and eventually endorsed the RKBA, no doubt as a result of bad experience in an anti-gun city.
With regards to these Hollywood types, who pays attention to them. I recall
a letter in the letters column of either Life or Look magazine years ago, the subject was an interview with Mia Farrow, the letter writer said "Why must we be bored with her lunatic observations on life?"
made mistakes and said things we later wish we hadn't. None of us are infallible, but we do have the right to learn from ourmistakes-cf the popular phrase "A neo-conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality." I recall the late columnist Mike Royko became more conservative as he went along and eventually endorsed the RKBA, no doubt as a result of bad experience in an anti-gun city.
With regards to these Hollywood types, who pays attention to them. I recall
a letter in the letters column of either Life or Look magazine years ago, the subject was an interview with Mia Farrow, the letter writer said "Why must we be bored with her lunatic observations on life?"
Harry Callahan
New member
Kind of like when your Dad went to the store for a carton of smokes when you were a kid and then says "I don't ever want to catch you smoking these things!" Hollywood knows what's right for us, just ask them. Like Rush was saying the other day, something like " Politicians are the ugly people who couldn't make it in acting". Dianne Feinstein carries and is one of the biggest antis in Congress. I'm sure her being able to carry is MUCH different than allowing us common folks to have something to say about our own personal protection.
redworm said:
no...its not. an example:
on dateline when they do that "to catch a predator" thing. they have "actors" play the role of young children who want to meet up for not very decent reasons. are you trying to say that these actors are not lying? they are not children, and they do not want to do indecent things, but they are telling someone that they do...sounds an awful lot like lying to me. if they are, then what they do, by definition, is lying. am i saying that lying in these circumstances (acting in general, not just the "catch a predator" roles) is a bad thing in and of itself? no. what i am saying, is that these people have perfected the art of lying. on top of that, they have to be very free with their emotions in order to be convincing. i believe that these two "conditions", if you will, can be a very disastrous mix when brought into the field of logic and reasoning.
Those aren't actors. Acting implies a performance for the purpose of entertainment. What that show does is is the same thing that law enforcement does.
Acting is not lying because lying implies intent to deceive. Edward James Olmos isn't actually trying to convince people he's the commander of a battlestar; we know he's acting. It's a performance, not a lie.
The art of acting and the art of lying are two different things. Spies, cops and politicians lie. The first two as a part of their job, the latter as a way to remain what they are. I'm sure actors lie as well but their job is to perform. There is a significant difference between an art form and an intentional deception for nefarious purposes.
Entertainers are just as capable of logic and reason as anyone here. Just because they know how to put on a performance for the purpose of entertaining willing audiences does not reflect on their personality or their honesty.
Most people who have had a change of heart will not defend them in later years.
They will at sometime or another explain this complete 180 turn around
hey also will not make similar statements thirty years later while coveting the position of the top officer in the organization that supposedly rejects that very sentiment
redworm said:
lol then why do the literally call them actors? because they are "acting" the part of a teenager.
redworm said:
if hes doing his job right, then yes he is. its his job to try to convince people that he is a commander of a battlestar. just because people know that he is not, does not change his intent.
its not as complicated as you are trying to make it seem. lying is a part of acting. you seem to have a huge negative stigma attached to lying. if a woman ever asks you if she is fat, you ALWAYS say no. sometimes this might be a lie, but its definitely not a bad one. your interpretation seems to say that its not lying if the audience knows its false. so if a small child grabs a cookie from the cookie jar, eats the cookie, and has chocolate and crumbs all over his mouth and his mother asks him if he ate a cookie and he says no, thats not lying? the mother knows hes not telling the truth. so his mother has to punish him for acting? no, its a lie. just because the audience knows that its not true, does not negate the fact that its a lie. and once again, its not necessarily a bad thing.
redworm said:
acting is necessarily a part of lying (lying well, at least). if you lie about something, but dont make it believable, people are going to realize its not true. politicians are definitely actors as well as liars.
redworm said:
they are, but i dont think most of them use that part of their brains as much, or at least are able to disconnect the emotion from a situation.
Sounds like I was wrong about her in my earlier post.
Is she then okay with guns in the hands of someone who's not thinking, or not feeling, or not breathing???
I could care less about the not breathing (dead) people with guns. The not thinking or feeling people with guns is who I'm protecting myself against.
On a more serious note: either she is just thinking out loud about a fantasy she has where there are NO guns in ANYONE'S hands, as in don't exist, (as if there were no assaults or homicides before guns were invented), or she's being dishonest. I'd bet she's fine with certain people having guns; like some one who's protecting her.
Here's my ultimate question to those who wish remove guns from us regular people. How are you going to do it? blah, blah...pass new laws...blah,blah. No, I mean how are you going to take our guns from us? Let me guess, you'd send out men with GUNS to do it. You'd send out others to do your dirty work. So you don't really hate guns as much as you really desire to dictate how they get used.