66ème Festival de Venise (Mostra)

Hollyweird, Journalists, and Their Firearm Double Standards

Yes, I’m still talking about guns. Because so long as there are politicians and celebrities out there (likely protected by armed guards) who are hell-bent on unconstitutionally taking away my right to defend myself against those who would want to harm me, I find the topic relevant.

Journalists and illustrious members of the Hollywood elite have taken advantage of the firearm debate to purport their anti-gun beliefs. Fine, you don’t agree that Americans should have the right to lawfully keep and bear arms. We disagree, but I can certainly—and willingly—accept a political disagreement.

What I cannot accept are journalists, actors, and fat movie directors in baseball caps displaying a blatant, glaring and at times disturbing double standard when it comes to guns and gun control. While calling for less gun violence, they promote violence against gun owners and the NRA. Hollywood “demands a plan,” and calls for gun control, while in the same stride they make millions from their own violent movies.

Django Unchained contains sufficient violence (with guns) that is to be expected from a Quentin Tarantino movie. Jamie Foxx stars in Django, but he was also in the “Demand A Plan” PSA video that featured big names from Hollywood “demanding a plan” on gun control. For being so in favor of gun control as a method of reducing violence, Jamie Foxx also joked in an SNL skit about the movie, “I kill all the white people in the movie. How great is that?”

But Mr. Foxx…I thought you were pro-gun control? But maybe that doesn’t apply when your movie containing gun violence grosses over $100 million.

Director Michael Moore, ever the liberal-mouth piece, also demanded more gun control after the tragedy in Newtown. Yet he too was enamored with Django Unchained and endorsed it.

(Please note that I am in no way blaming movies, video games, actors themselves, nor directors for mass shootings. As I’ve said before, it’s the sick, twisted, broken soul behind the gun that pulls the trigger and is thereby ultimately responsible. But I can hardly believe the sentiments of those who profit from the use of firearms one minute, but then demand that my right to a means of defense be limited or taken away the next.)

The “Demand A Plan” PSA is, in itself, a lesson in Hollywood hypocrisy. In it, celebrities like Jennifer Aniston, Chris Rock, Beyonce, Steve Carrell, Will Ferrell and others implore viewers to “demand a plan” for gun control from lawmakers. Ironically, most of the celebrities that appear in the video have, like Jamie Foxx, also appeared in movies containing gun violence. The rebuttle to the original “Demand A Plan” video is graphic, but points out this hypocrisy. Watch it here.

Does “demanding a plan” mean actors and actresses renounce support for Hollywood’s own gun-toting movies? Does “demanding a plan” mean Hollywood’s elite giving up any and all armed security guards? Or does “demanding a plan” mean exploiting tragedies while profiting from that which you claim to revile?

There’s the generally hypocritical, and then there’s the disturbingly hypocritical. When I say “disturbingly hypocritical” I mean those who demand an end to “gun violence” while purporting violence.

Take CSI actress Marg Helgenberger and author Joyce Carol Oates. In response to a tweet by Oates stating, “If sizable numbers of NRA members become gun-victims themselves, maybe hope for legislation of firearms?” Helgenberger replied, “one could only hope.” So their response to violence is…more violence? Don’t worry, Helgenberger later jumped on the “Demand A Plan” bandwagon, too.

Perhaps most disturbing of all is the supposed piece of “journalism” written by Donald Kaul titled, “Nation needs a new agenda on guns.” It reads much like a terrorist manifesto, and in it, Kaul blames just about everyone for the Newtown shooting (gun owners, the NRA, the guns) except for the individual who pulled the trigger. Kaul says the “anger” is missing from the gun control debate, and proposes his own “’madder-than-hell-and-I’m-not-going-to-take-it-anymore’ program for ending gun violence in America” solutions. And here, I quote:

“-Repeal the Second Amendment…it’s badly written, confusing, and more trouble than its worth…

-Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. Hey! We did it to the Communist Party, and the NRA has led to the deaths of more of us than American Commies ever did. (I would also raze the organization’s headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth, but that’s optional.) Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that ‘prying the guns from their cold, dead hands’ thing works for me.

-Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control.”

To read this kind of “journalism” is, to me, quite gut-wrenching. From the liberal crowd that is usually so enthused about promoting “human rights” and “tolerance” it’s quite shocking to hear Kaul respond with more violence as a response to the initial violence in Newtown. Kaul is literally promoting killing and torturing those who do not see his way. I’d like to ask this “journalist” (and I use that term loosely) why he is blaming “gun violence” on the NRA and gun owners, instead of the mentally deficient individuals who make the decision to commit mass murder.

As a sidenote, liberals often become enraged when folks judge entire demographics on the actions of a few. For example, liberals are often boisterously against judging the entire Islamic religion based on the actions of the radicals that committed acts of terror on September 11. If you don’t want entire populations to be judged on the actions of a few, then why are all gun owners—especially legal, law-abiding gun owners—being unfairly and unreasonably judged on the actions of a handful of irresponsible and imbalanced people?

To those who wish violence or death on legal gun owners, I do hope you stop and consider the double standard and the travesty in responding to violence with violence. Honestly, I will pray for you.

Enough of the double standards. If you’re really that anti-gun, then BE THAT ANTI-GUN. Stop profiting from movies with gun violence while at the same time demanding restrictions on legal firearm ownership or purporting violence against law-abiding gun owners.

Be aware of this double standard, and be aware that this debate is getting heated to the point that liberals seriously suggest murder of fellow Americans as a response to murder, and pass it off as journalism. This is not fiction, this is not a movie; this is real and it will affect you regardless of whether you’re a gun enthusiast or not.

I really want to believe that these folks have honorable intentions in wanting to make our country and world a safer place. Newtown affected us all in some way, and to want preventative measures to ensure it never happens again is understandable and natural. But when the double standards are so glaring, the celebrity and journalist response so shockingly violent, it seems to me that the likes of Jamie Foxx, Michael Moore, Marg Helgenberger, Donald Kaul and others are not well-intentioned, but hypocritical.

Sarah Hinds | Lindenwood University | @Sarah_Hinds76

Related News

One Response

Leave a Reply
  1. Christopher Rushlau
    Jan 14, 2013 - 07:37 PM

    “Hypocrite” meant, to ancient Romans, a stage actor. Thus the Christian bible condemns “hypocrisy” because it replaces faith with “standing on the mark and reading the line”, as Jimmy Stewart defined acting.
    Politics could be defined as getting people with whom one is in a dispute to leave off enacting skits and to engage with what is going on outside their imaginations. Politics thus happens in healthy but conflicted families, among (likewise) tenants of dorms and apartment houses, and on sidewalks among (likewise) passers-by.
    The intended topic of your essay might be violence in the US, the Constitution, Hollywood, or racism. If it is merely hypocrisy, you must be judged by your own standard and asked if this is the greatest example of hypocrisy you could find or stumbled over. “Gut-wrenching”? “Disturbing”?
    The movie “Zero Dark Thirty” apparently endorses the shooting dead of Osama bin Laden while he was in custody. Time Magazine took that view in its one-anniversary retreatment of the event last year. Obama bragged of the “take-down” in the foreign policy debate with Romney, and specified that a relative of a fatality of the WTC bombing had said the killing brought her some psychic relief.
    Now, according to a self-described Jewish writer in the LA Times, the eight major studios are run by Jews. (Google tells you that “Jews” is considered offensive while “Jewish people” is not, but if you talk to Jewish people you find they often refer to “Jews”.) His point was, why don’t people make notice of this fact, for better, worse, or just for fun?
    So the industry is endorsing ritual murder. Never mind the loss of intelligence value, the decay of military discipline (“take prisoners”), the disrepute internationally of such ritual killing, or, most of all, the immorality of killing a helpless person without due process.
    The Jewish connection, if this is that, is that Israel has unprecedented influence in the US (according to former Maine Senator George Mitchell in 2011, himself no enemy of the Israel lobby), for one thing, Israel is facing its ultimate confrontation with right and reason as the Arab Spring comes up over its fortified frontiers with a message, “Arabs are people”, for another thing, and the Jewish public in the US is facing the defining issue of this generation, to quote J Street, a supposed liberal alternative to AIPAC, the America-Israel Political Action Committee. To J Street, a two state solution is necessary for the survival of Israel as a Jewish state. AIPAC has no such concerns. In either case, what happens to the Arabs who were there when the Jewish settlers showed up? Poof? I mean the whole idea of modern Israel is an absurdity, a ridiculous movie plot, which nevertheless directs the US killing machine to, so far, encompass the deaths of millions of innocent persons (between hostile fire and economic blockades) and the terrorization of billions. I mean most of Africa and most of Asia, where the normal attitude to the US must now be, “Is there a drone up there with a Hellfire missile with my GPS coordinates programmed into it?”
    And this is a world interconnected by cell phones, remember, from Somalia to anywhere you’d care to mention.
    There is an hypocrisy toward oneself in which one overrules one’s conscience–commits intellectual suicide–so as to pretend to be normal, lest one have to explain oneself to the authorities. Marianne Williamson says it very well.
    “Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won’t feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It’s not just in some of us; it’s in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.”

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyrıght 2014 THE COLLEGE CONSERVATIVE.

Facebook

Twitter