More nonsense and hypocrisy from Hollywood

He shouldn't own firearms anyway.
Click to expand...

Actually, you are on to something. Let's look at the record a sympathetic article recounted:

The marriage proceeded in similarly tempestuous fashion: while the couple were shooting their 1986 turkey Shanghai Surprise together in Macau, Penn came across a photographer snooping in their hotel room, dangled the man from a ninth floor balcony by his ankles, and was arrested for attempted murder. He escaped from jail and fled the country on a jetfoil. In 1987, he was sentenced to 60 days in jail for assaulting one of his wife's more ardent fans. The couple divorced in 1989, when Penn was charged with domestic assault, after tying Madonna to a chair and beating her.
Click to expand...

That last bit alone should have been a lifetime disqualifier.
 
I suspect Hollywood executives are praying that stars will simply shut up and act/sing. I’ve got to assume that many fans of action movies are also most likely fans of firearms. Call me crazy, but it seems like demonizing your fans is bad business.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, "All publicity is good publicity." :cool:
 
1989, when Penn was charged with domestic assault, after tying Madonna to a chair and beating her.
Click to expand...


That last bit alone should have been a lifetime disqualifier.
Click to expand...

If he had been convicted then under existing law (Lautenberg) he would have been "lifetime disqualified" from owning any of the "cowardly killing machines", as he recently described them.
 
I'm wondering how this works from a legal ATF perspecive. If I have a firearm, and decide to do whatever to it, even if I make it non-functional, is not the reciever still legally a firearm, with all the same applicable laws?
 
If I have a firearm, and decide to do whatever to it, even if I make it non-functional, is not the reciever still legally a firearm, with all the same applicable laws?
Click to expand...
If it's been rendered inoperative, like being melted down or cut into pieces, it's no longer under the notice of the ATF.
 
If it's been rendered inoperative, like being melted down or cut into pieces, it's no longer under the notice of the ATF.
Click to expand...

I was asking in terms of less drastic methods that might be considered potentially reversible. It's unclear as to what this goofball considers to be "art", but if they just weld these together in some fashion without destroying the receivers by such means as you mentioned, I would think they are still firearms. Its been alot of years since I had an FFL, but I seem to remember that welding things in place did not meet the legal criteria to be considered "inoperable", at least back then.
 
If Penn actually had 65 guns to give away, he's completely lying about giving ALL of his guns away for this purposes. Anyone who has amassed 65 guns through out their lives that they are willing to give away (regardless of net worth) is holding back on the really good stuff. I don't believe for a second that Penn has no more guns. He's not known for telling the truth - I sure don't believe him now!
 
I'm not seeing the problem with Penn.
Penn collects guns for whatever reason over time. Penn starts dating a girl who has a strong phobia about guns. Penn decides that he likes girl more than gun. Penn, what's the IRA term? "puts guns beyond use" and in doing so makes money for Haiti.

He's got strong opinions, loosely held. Lots of people do. Sometimes those opinions change when you meet the right/wrong person.
My wife was nervous about firearms as she was almost shot as a child when her brother was fiddling with a loaded shotgun in the house. I get it. If I had to choose between the two, I would choose her. Luckily, she's gotten over her fears.

Liam, well.... I'm sure that he's already making plans to donate his income from the Taken franchise to Green Peace and PETA. You know, so his conscious can be clean for his sins of inspiring gun violence through his work.
 
He can do what he wants with his personal property, I neither care, nor have any rights about that. He could have 17 corvettes welded together to make "art" if he wants. Its fine with me.

On the other hand, if he was making publicity about giving up his "cowardly driving machines" to make the world a better place, I would have issues with that, too...
 
Looks like Bryant Gumbel has decided to join in the civil debate about the Second Amendent when in a Rolling Stone interview he stated, “There are a few things I hate more than the NRA. I mean truly. I think they're pigs. I think they don't care about human life. I think they are a curse upon the American landscape. So we got that on the record.”

Yawn, I can truly say I never liked the pretentious jerk in the first place and these statements come as no surprise.

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/real-talk-bryant-gumbel-on-the-nfl-the-ncaa-and-the-nra-20150120
 
The arrogance of the media, Mr. Gumbel in this case, is always so egregious.

Like, the man made his fortune as an NFL commentator, seriously.

How much overlap would there be on the Venn Diagram between "gun owners" and "NFL fans"?
 
How much overlap would there be on the Venn Diagram between "gun owners" and "NFL fans"?
Click to expand...

I suspect a good bit which is why I commented several posts back about these folks alienating their audience. I realize everyone has freedom of speech, but one wonders if they are so narcissistic that they feel regardless of what they say we’ll still flock to watch them.
 
RE: Gumbell
From the article:
PHP: 
Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel is arguably the most important sports program on television.
A. Consider the source. Here is a guy who makes his living deep diving on an entertainment industry. He lives, breathes, thinks "entertainment" and espouses opinions on it.

If you needed any more proof, I hope you saw the episode which covered 'eat what you kill' hunting. Steve Rinella is butchering a hog and Gumbel is standing there looking ill. He has never gotten his hands dirty; he just talks about ideas. Ideas which he doesn't have the focus to present coherently. Gumbel says the above quoted nasty things about the NRA and then says "So we got that on the record. That said, I'm willing to separate that this story had nothing to do with that." Um, but if you said it on the show, you officially DID NOT separate the two even though you're claiming you did...

He's entitled to his opinion. But consider the source and his inability to articulate a coherent position. It's entertainment. But thank you for bringing it to our attention, b/c it is entertaining (to me, anyway).
 
Last edited:
.. is arguably the most important sports program on television.
Click to expand...

opinions vary, but to me there are NO important sports programs on television. They are entertaining, but missing a game doesn't send my life into a tailspin. And I particularly avoid shows where they simply TALK about the games.

I think the point is being made that these entertainers shooting off their mouths (or maybe their foot) is because they are entertainers. And I include sports and talking heads in that group as well.

We have gotten so wrapped up in entertainment shows and the people who are in them that we even have shows about the shows...

If you make your living playing a game, fine. If you make it talking about people playing games, fine. If you make it pretending to be someone else (acting) that's fine too.

But don't think your success in your chosen field gives you any moral authority to tell me, or anyone else how to live our lives. It does not.
 
If you align yourself with Michael Moore, and then call someone else a "pig", is that an insult or a compliment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top