We all know that a majority of Hollywood elites are in favor of gun confiscation and pushing more unlawful gun legislation despite the fact that they appear in movies the often glorify the unlawful use of guns. In a recent piece by Peter Suciu for Gunpowder Magazine, he provides video evidence of the hypocrisy as these actors and actresses calling for more gun confiscation legislation due to school shootings while they promote unlawful gun violence on film.
“A new coalition of celebrities and activists…announced plans to take on the National Rifle Association and elected officials who accept money from the powerful gun advocacy group,” Time magazine reported last week.
“Your time signing checks in our blood is up,” NoRA members wrote in letter to the NRA. “We’re coming for your money. We’re coming for your puppets. And we’re going to win.”
But where would these movie stars be without the “blood,” guns, and violence they purportedly are so against?
A public service announcement video made the rounds in 2013 in which Hollywood elites called for an end to gun violence. Soon after, some clever person intermixed the calls of “enough” with footage from movies and TV shows featuring the same actors and actresses in violent gunplay, exposing their audacious hypocrisy.
Remember, these are the same people who can’t keep their marriages together, but want to tell you about marriage. They want to tell you not to do drugs while they get stoned out of their minds are become drunkards. And the list goes on and on, but in the area of guns, the video evidence abounds.
Frankly, I enjoy a good action film with guns blazing as the good guys seek to stop the bad guys.
However, to be lectured by those whose careers are often dependant upon a portrayal of violence that involves guns, and often those portrayals are lawless, is a bit more than I can stomach.
From The Great Train Robbery in 1903 to the action films of today such as The Matrix series, the Taken series and others, violence with guns have been an integral part of Hollywood films. That’s not to say they are necessarily bad, it’s just a reality that they are a part of the storyline.
However, it’s when these people are paid millions of dollars to play their roles in these films and then come out against the very violence they promote is the height of hypocrisy.
Consider the amount of senseless violence that occurs in recent movies where someone goes to extremes to “clear his name,” such as Liam Neeson’s character in Taken 3. (Neeson is very anti-gun, by the way. He once said, “It is the right to bear arms which is the problem. I think if the Founding Fathers knew what was happening they would be turning in their graves with embarrassment at how that law has been interpreted.”) Even if Neeson’s character had managed to get the bad guys who killed his wife, he should have ended up in jail for the pointless accidents he caused on the L.A. freeway!
That’s not all. While I have enjoyed a host of Clint Eastwood films and have appreciated some of his commentary, when it comes to guns, Eastwood is about as hypocritical and anti-American as they come, but he was lauded during the 2012 Republican Convention to coronate Mitt Romney as a “great conservative.”
To that, Suciu writes:
Clint Eastwood, a star who has spent a lot of time over the years wielding a firearm for film roles, not once, but twice showed a good story doesn’t need a massive shootout. He played a reluctant gunslinger-turned-cowboy-turned-gunslinger in Unforgiven (1992), making the point that to be a great western, a movie doesn’t need an intense shootout à la The Wild Bunch. Eastwood’s character in Unforgiven – which won Oscars for Best Picture and Best Director – wasn’t even a good shot! Likewise, in Gran Torino (2008), Eastwood’s character fires a gun only once, and instead of a Hollywood reckoning, the film ends with a short “shootout,” if it can even be called that.
It’s ironic, and downright hypocritical, that Eastwood, who is considered to be conservative by Hollywood standards (he was once quoted as saying, “I have a very strict gun control policy: if there’s a gun around, I want to be in control of it.”), doesn’t feel the need to include over-the-top gun violence in his films, but radical, left-wing ideologues seem to relish doing so.
That’s exactly right, it is ironic and hypocritical.
Still, we should not be surprised that these people have a double-minded standard when it comes to guns and the people’s rights. For someone like Neeson to claim the founders would turn over in their graves because over 100 million people in America are armed is ridiculous. However, they would roll over in their graves at the hypocrisy of actors and actresses who do one thing while saying something else in order to attack the very words the founders wrote.
Our founders experience tyranny first hand and they placed their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor on the line to be free of it. A big part of that quest for freedom was the use of arms, and the ideology from it all came from the teachings of the Scriptures.
Perhaps, if these Hollwood elites would do a little reading of their history, they might conclude that they are completely on the wrong path and that their ideology is anything but American, until then, it appears they are only firing obvious blanks when it comes to their attacks on the Second Amendment.
On a final note, there are Hollywood actors who promote the rights of gun owners such as James Woods or Keanu Reeves. In fact, while Woods has been very outspoken on the Second Amendment, Reeves is actually very efficient with weapons, even though in many of his films he uses them in a lawless manner. Take a look at his skills.
Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty MediaDon't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com.