New movie will make NRA ‘wish they weren’t alive,’ says Obama backer Weinstein
Source: Yahoo News
Famed Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein is no stranger to controversy. But Weinstein says hes turned his sights on his biggest target yet: the National Rifle Association. I shouldnt say this. Im going to make a movie with Meryl Streep, and were going to take this issue head-on and theyre going to wish they werent alive after Im done with them, Weinstein said during an interview with radio host Howard Stern Wednesday.
I think the NRA is a disaster area, Weinstein added, saying, I dont think we need guns in this country. Deadline Hollywood says the movie is currently titled The Senators Wife and will focus on the NRAs successful attempts to lobby federal lawmakers against voting for gun control legislation.
Yahoo News has reached out to the NRA, which says it has not yet issued a public statement responding to Weinstein's comments. Yahoo News also reached out to the Weinstein Co. for comment. Weinstein told Stern the film will not be a documentary, but rather a big movie like a 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,' which he believes will affect the national debate in ways lawmakers have so far been unable to do.
I think we can do something, he said. Weinstein has been involved in politics for years and helped raise more than $500,000 for President Barack Obama during his re-election campaign.
Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/hollywood-obama-donor-says-new-movie-will-make-nra--wish-they-weren-t-alive-213902316.html
Excellent. Small penises everywhere shrivel more...
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)but I won't hold my breath. I think the only way might be by raising the next generation to feel that they don't want or need guns.
billh58
(6,635 posts)in order to frame following generations' thinking, we need all of the help we can get to counteract the lies and misinformation that's been spread by the right-wing for decades through the NRA and its supporters and apologists. If this movie exposes the raw political corruption brought about by the NRA, ALEC, and the Koch Brothers, it will be a giant step in the right direction.
SolutionisSolidarity
(606 posts)I can't even play most first-person shooters anymore; they're so militaristic that I overdose on the jingoism. I shudder to think of the millions of kids playing Call of Duty and its brethren. When I was growing up the "must play" games had us shooting aliens or demons. Now they turn the player into the American Super-Soldier, wading through the endless barbaric hordes to safe-guard Lady Liberty.
Playing games like this is fairly ubiquitous among young men. I wouldn't expect the next generation to love guns any less than the last. I just hope they are a little more reasonable about sensible gun regulations than the last generation was.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)While there certainly are militaristic games like Call of Duty out there, there are also a good number of games that are quite critical of militarism as well. Many people don't realize it but the Grand Theft Auto series is actually satire and it mocks American militarism, the Bioshock series may be shooters but they are very focused on social commentary that is most certainly not militaristic. Even some games that appear militaristic at first glance such as the Metal Gear Solid series actually contain anti-war messages in the story.
I play games and I hate guns in the real world. Many of the games I play do have guns in them, but few if any of them could be accurately described as militaristic. I avoid games like Call of Duty and Battlefield, but there are lots of games even within the shooter genre that do involve the aliens or demons as you mentioned rather than military targets.
klook
(12,154 posts)go west young man
(4,856 posts)Republican Space Rangers is a show that plays on the TVs in the GTA 4 and 5 games and it mocks Republicans so much it is fall down funny. GTA is made in Edinburgh, Scotland I believe, so they have a pretty good outside grip on what really plagues America. Most of it is making fun of the bombastic me me me lifestyle. They even have "Weasel News" which mocks Faux and a bunch of over the top radio personalities that are insane in the game but would be considered normal in America today. It's funny stuff.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)I'm 43 and have been a computer gamer since the Zork text-based games days. I've observed the evolution of video games to such a point that I am just plain appalled by shooters. I've got 4 young nephews who have been growing up on this stuff, and I remember the day one of them was playing Call of Duty - something - and he said 'I wonder what it would be like to do this for real?' He was completely serious, and it was one he imagined a very positive answer to. We talked....
So, I'm afraid I don't see any serious moves toward sensible gun regulations coming from the future generations I've seen...
olddad56
(5,732 posts)billh58
(6,635 posts)Fact-check: So said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre after Newtown. So what's up with Japan?
Per capita spending on video games: (USA) $44 (Japan) $55
Civilian firearms per 100 people: (USA) 88 (Japan) 0.6
Gun homicides in 2008: (USA) 11,030 (Japan) 11
Same games, but very different cultures...
olddad56
(5,732 posts)And by the way, the gun laws in Japan almost prohibit having guns. When I lived in Japan, long ago in the early 70s. You could own a gun, but you had to store in in an armory. You couldn't legally keep one in your home.
And our culture is more being rich, at the time I lived there, theirs was more about being honorable.
Big difference.
Titonwan
(785 posts)Big difference.
Shemp Howard
(889 posts)In Switzerland, every reservist has a government-issued assault rifle in his home. And since almost every man between 20 and 30 is in the reserves, there are thousands of assault rifles in private hands.
And yet shootings in Switzerland are rare. Should we use this "fact" to say that the American government should be issuing home assault rifles to every reservist?
Of course not. Switzerland is not the USA. It is difficult to compare "facts" across cultures. olddad56 is correct.
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)they may have assault rifles, but they can't have ammo, right?
billh58
(6,635 posts)out the differences in the two cultures in my original post: "same games, but very different cultures." Your Switzerland example is often used by NRA apologists, but a few facts are usually left out of the comparison:
"The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30 (or age 34 for officers). Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home.
When their period of service has ended, militiamen have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment. In cases of retention, the rifle is sent to the weapons factory where the fully automatic function is removed; the rifle is then returned to the discharged owner as a semi-automatic or self-loading rifle.
To carry firearms in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a permit, which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security."
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/switzerland.asp#8LK4MBRe0Pkpce6L.99
My post was in response to the myth that video games are responsible for gun violence in America -- they are not. The American gun culture is responsible for the preponderance of guns and gun violence in this country, and contributes to the USA being number one (by many thousands) in gun deaths and injuries year-after-year. The comparison between Japan (and Switzerland too) and the USA shows what is possible given the right set of guidelines and regulations, and should serve as a goal for Democrats in the reduction of gun violence in this nation.
Yes, you absolutely have the right to your opinion, and I respect that.
Titonwan
(785 posts)That country is 99.9 percent white. There'd be a whole lot more cappin' folks if black people decided to move there. (Unless they're stinkin' rich, of course). The only reason countries avoid war in Switzerland is it's not worth the trouble. You can hold off a battalion with an empty wine bottle and a hunk of cheese at them altitudes.
It'd be about as smart as invading Afghanis... oh shit, wait.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)Shemp Howard
(889 posts)It is almost meaningless to compare statistics between countries without taking their cultures into account.
Gore1FL
(21,132 posts)I don't own a gun. I've played every PC available GTA. My son played GTA from his mid teens. He doesn't own a gun.
I realize this is anecdotal, but I'd need to see some evidence of a cause/effect before I'll believe that video games have such an effect.
reACTIONary
(5,770 posts)... just ask my son ... but zero credibility shouldn't stop anyone from having an opinion.
I don't think video games have any affect on REAL gun lust one way or another. I think they can work as a substitute for the real thing and make restrictions more palatable.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)Though there may be some people who can't differentiate the real from the make-believe, I suspect their problems don't stem from video games.
--imm
WcoastO
(55 posts)but the NRA is backed by people who can generate hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars to support their bloody cause......and also, I am not going to hold my breath on this issue.
Kablooie
(18,634 posts)Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Loudly
(2,436 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)Response to onehandle (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
RockaFowler
(7,429 posts)Response to RockaFowler (Reply #8)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)Response to Name removed (Reply #5)
onehandle This message was self-deleted by its author.
billh58
(6,635 posts)that the Holocaust was a result of the confiscation of guns? Really?
Response to billh58 (Reply #16)
Name removed Message auto-removed
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)billh58
(6,635 posts)"suggested" that gun confiscation by Hitler led to the Holocaust, which is a right-wing premise that has been totally debunked. Guns would have made a better movie? The countries that Hitler invaded had guns didn't they? The Holocaust was real, and Schindler's List was based on the heroic actions of an individual at the risk of his own life.
Neither the Holocaust, nor the movie has any connection to the gun violence happening in America today, or the USA's ranking as the number one country in the world for gun deaths (many times over). But you knew that before you signed up today to post your little disruptive piece, didn't you?
erpowers
(9,350 posts)The post you are responding to has been deleted. Can you tell me what the post said?
billh58
(6,635 posts)post is explained in my response (confiscation of guns by Hitler caused the Holocaust). I alerted on his(?) first post, but a jury decided to leave it 3-3. Thank goodness for MIRT's ability to detect gun trolls early...
erpowers
(9,350 posts)Your post also mentioned Schindler's List. What did the post say about Schindler's List?
onehandle
(51,122 posts)And how even 'Schindler couldn't save us.'
Just your average gun show/McVeigh type propaganda.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Wait... That wasn't a movie.
So is Obama your Hitler in your fantasy?
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)well said
Response to onehandle (Reply #17)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Ecumenist
(6,086 posts)Cheeky & heartless to say the least.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)And Gooooodbyeee...
pizza came early...
Cleita
(75,480 posts)guns sexy, from westerns, through detective stories and spy thrillers, maybe it's good they take a part in showing them for what they are, instruments for killing and nothing more.
Tumbulu
(6,278 posts)I hope that this begins their redemption.
Archae
(46,327 posts)Especially since this is the same idiot (yes, I said idiot,) who is making "Amityville Horror: The Lost Tapes," and a "Knight Rider" movie.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Would like to see him pull it off though.
Archae
(46,327 posts)He's already said it won't be a documentary, so it'll be one of those asinine "docu-dramas" like they show on the Lifetime Channel.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Archae
(46,327 posts)And "docu-dramas" are notorious for bending or shattering the facts.
Just look at Oliver Stone's "JFK."
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Archae
(46,327 posts)It doesn't matter if Meryl Streep is in the upcoming movie or not, if it's going to be a docu-drama.
As to Streep herself, she was in one.
"Silkwood."
Certain liberties were taken with the story.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)The requirements for making a movie that people will actually watch include telling a good story. Was "Rendition" factually true or was it essentially true? Does it show the dangers of the surveillance state, does it make you think, does it make you aware of the downside of all the claptrap surrounding the War on Terra'?
How do you know about the "liberties" taken in "Silkwood"? Did you know the story before, or did you learn about it after? For most, I'd guess the latter.
Another requirement for a movie that will be seen is a big name, and Meryl Streep is one, with a boatload of integrity. That's why I keep bringing her in, as did Weinstein in the referenced story.
So you weren't impressed with "JFK"; I wasn't either although there were some interesting things. How do you feel about "Platoon"? Did it tell a compelling story, did it make you think?
I guess I don't get your disdain for docudramas, or where you draw the line, or why you suppose this project will be one. But I'm totally in favor of a movie or docudrama or whatever that shines a bright light on the NRA and the destruction they leave in their path. If it grabs the heartstrings and rips them out of one's chest so much the better.
Cha
(297,205 posts)Rapid.. needs to be taken down.
Thanks Harvey and Bob!
NickB79
(19,236 posts)And the same thing was said after "Runaway Jury" in 2003:
http://movies.about.com/cs/therunawayjury/a/runawayintgh_3.htm
Over a decade later, and the power of the NRA and other gun lobbies doesn't appear to have diminished in the slightest.
Everything old is new again.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Anything left of the Koch Brothers is dead before it hits the first screen.
doc03
(35,332 posts)become the enemy of the rabid right. Like all such movies they will probably have limited screenings. I always have to travel to Washington PA (35 miles) to see any movie the right wing doesn't approve of. I hope they stick to facts unlike the so called documentaries Micheal Moore makes.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)ARE YOU SERIOUS?
Has MM ever been sued successfully for slander? No.
He tells the truth and has the best libel lawyers at The New Yorker magazine fact-checking single word and image he produces.
Truth is an absolute defense to slander. Slander and libel are torts. I earned my law degree from South Texas College of Law. Where did you get yours??
Conservatives don't like Michael Moore because he tells the truth and they don't like it at all. Is that what your problem is? You don't like the truth??
More info about the fact-checking process:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/fahrenheit-911-facts/faq-about-the-facts-of-fahrenheit-911
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)bitchkitty
(7,349 posts)I'm sure that you won't object to being more specific. What facts in Mr. Moore's movies were wrong? Which movie? Which fact?
I don't think you can answer that.
doc03
(35,332 posts)same tired old stunts like talking from a bull horn in from their office in every one of them. I can't give any examples, it has been several years since
I saw one but they are evident when you watch them. I can't give you many examples of Fox News lies but you recognize them
at the time.
valerief
(53,235 posts)bitchkitty
(7,349 posts)Or you would give one. As I thought, you have no proof of your accusation.
You don't like Michael Moore. That's fine, but you don't have to spew right wing talking points to try and discredit him.
strikeforce
(70 posts)i didn't like the hit he did on charleton heston. the man was out of it.
moore taking advantage of a sick man is disgusting !
his love affair of fidel castro makes me want to vomit also.
he ranks up their with oliver stone and his fantasy movies (jfk and the doors).
i think moores wife has had enough of him too.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)chknltl
(10,558 posts)You got anything on what Mrs. B thought about him?
LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)And just look at what he does. Half truths? What is the untrue half you speak about? You can't give examples.
And you don't like him because he used a bull horn in one of his docs? If I recall, it was because some Wall St. company refused to talk to him and answer to the American public for what they did, so he took to using a bull horn from the street to their offices above. And you have a problem with that???
elzenmahn
(904 posts)While Michael Moore certainly has a bias, his films are well-researched and well-sourced. He had teams of people doing the research for those films, and to say that they are not fact-based is laughably false. As another post here states, he has never been successfully sued for libel. And he's target #1 for the right wing - you can bet your final dollar that the Right would have pounced at the first semblance of inaccuracy in his work with a lawsuit.
So from which so-called orifice did you pull your so-called comment about Mr. Moore's "so-called" documentaries?
indepat
(20,899 posts)giving up their citizenship and becoming expatriots. Good riddance.
elzenmahn
(904 posts)...there are already people in this country doing just that - the "sovereign citizen" movement.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)And it is defined as living outside one's native country, not giving up citizenship. That said, I'd love to see the loops and twirls required for NRA members to find a better milieu for their insanity.
Signed: An Expatriate.
indepat
(20,899 posts)the northern and southern borders: my ignorance is bliss.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)All the movie will accomplish is to increase the sales in firearms to new record levels. Many gun owners will fear their firearms will be confiscated and run out to clean gun stores out of firearms and ammo just like happened during the last push for gun control.
Sandy Hook Gun-Maker Profits Up 52 Percent In Year Since Massacre
Posted: 12/13/2013 5:26 pm EST | Updated: 12/13/2013 5:28 pm EST
The past 12 months have been unimaginably horrible for the loved ones of the victims of the Sandy Hook massacre a year ago, but they have been just fine for the maker of the gun used in that mass killing.
Freedom Group, also known as Remington Outdoor Company, announced this week that its profits have risen by 52 percent in the year after the tragedy, in which 20 school children and six staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., were killed with a Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle made by Remington.
The company expects profits in 2013 to reach $235-240 million, up from $156.5 million in 2012, according to an annual financial report released on the company's website.
***snip***
It's been a great year for gun makers generally. Sturm Ruger, the largest US gunmaker, will report earnings up 52 percent and sales up 39 percent over the past year, according to the Financial Times.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/13/sandy-hook-gun-profits_n_4442034.html
Ammo Suppliers Everywhere Are Reporting Shortages From A Huge Surge In Demand
BRETT LOGIURATO
DEC. 26, 2012, 12:25 PM 8,679 25
The threat of the possibility of new regulation and gun control laws has sent customers scrambling for guns, ammunition and accessories in the wake of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
Brownells, which describes itself as the world's largest firearm accessories supplier, said it had sold more than 3.5 years' worth of magazines in a 72-hour span. Its president, Pete Brownell, wrote an apology to customers on gun-owner forum AR15.com after complaints arose over a delay in orders placed on the company's website.
http://www.businessinsider.com/ammo-sales-newtown-ct-shooting-sandy-hook-school-brownells-2012-12
200813 United States ammunition shortage
The 2008-2014 United States ammunition shortage refers to a shortage of civilian small arms ammunition in the United States that started in late 2008[1] and continued through most or all of 2010, with an additional shortage beginning in December 2012 and continuing throughout 2013. As of September 2011, ammunition for the most scarce calibers, .380 Auto.[2] .45ACP, and .40 S&W pistols once unavailable at retail stores and gun shops were again available, but usually with only a few brands or types available.[3] Both firearms and ammunition began selling at a record pace after the 2008 election of President Barack Obama.[4] Cartridge shortages were also experienced for many other popular semiautomatic rifles and pistols.[5] In addition, primers for handloaded ammunition were also in short supply. USA Today reported that in Wyoming, the "run on bullets and reloading components" reached such a "frenzy" that a Cheyenne retailer began rationing sales, and said she was also selling semiautomatic rifles as fast as she could put them on the shelves.[5]
After the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in December 2012, and the perceived likelihood of new firearm control laws being passed by Congress and state governments in response to the shooting, ammunition and firearms were purchased by consumers in large numbers in a pattern often termed "panic buying".[6] This led to a severe shortage of ammunition for most handgun calibers and some rifle calibers (especially the previously easy-to-find and cheaply-priced .22 LR), prompting many manufacturers to drastically increase production rates at their factories.[6] These purchase patterns continued to occur for some time after the failure in Congress to pass the aforementioned firearms laws, and as of August 2013, the rate of consumer purchases of most types of ammunition is slowly receding, but prices continue to be above those found before December 2012 and ammunition for some calibers continues to be difficult to procure.[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/200813_United_States_ammunition_shortage
mountain grammy
(26,620 posts)as depressing as the killings themselves. Our world is full of crazy people arming themselves.
spin
(17,493 posts)The shortage of ammo did hinder me from going target shooting as often. I've enjoyed target shooting handguns for well over 45 years.
NickB79
(19,236 posts)It's amazing how much fun it can be to shoot a modern, high-quality air gun. Hell, I even used a .22-cal air rifle for small game hunting this fall, to the detriment of the local squirrels and rabbits.
Titonwan
(785 posts)It's cheaper. Quieter- I own a suppressed sound, single cock, high velocity air rifle. I don't hunt with it as squirrels (or anything else but Starlings) isn't on my food list. Killing for anything but for sustenance is sick. Except for Starlings shitting on my bike in the shop...
On proof reading- I want to clarify I don't eat Starlings.
spin
(17,493 posts)I found a recipe online that does sound interesting.
Animals: Love them or hate them, we also eat them. And nothing better illustrates just how many of them we eat (and how thoroughly) than Calvin Schwabes giant compendium of recipes from every corner of the world, excerpts of which are appearing in Salon this week, Monday through Friday one recipe each day on the Life and People sites by kind permission of the University Press of Virginia. This one comes from Turkey where its known as Karatavuk yahnisi.
Fry some chopped turnips and carrots. Add a little stock and a glass of red wine. Place some starlings or other small birds in the pan. Add a thin purée of boiled potatoes mashed with beaten eggs, dry mustard, and some stock and a little beer. Cover with stock and cook for about 30 minutes, adding some ripe olives near the end.
http://www.salon.com/2002/03/08/recipe_birds/
Titonwan
(785 posts)If I'm to eat Starling it'd have to be A LOT of beer!
spin
(17,493 posts)Just like drink enough beer and any man/woman looks good.
spin
(17,493 posts)Doing so can vastly improve your target shooting ability with a firearm. It's also inexpensive once you get past the initial cost of the weapon.
billh58
(6,635 posts)A great many good Americans are indeed shamed by this country's abysmal gun violence rate, and the apparent vulnerability of a few gun zealots to the NRA's scare tactics.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)But I'm also happy to know that a growing number of progressives are catching on to the idea that we can have both: we can have a safer society and remain armed in a safe and responsible manner. It's going to take a bunch of adults in the room from both sides of the debate, but we are moving closer and closer to that point in our society where the fearmongers are overshadowed by the voices of reason.
Your contributions are always appreciated as part of the context of the great debate, billh58!
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)about running out to buy a gun similar to that used at Sandy Hook.
Who can forget the Bushmaster advertising campaign aimed at these low IQ/testosterone gun fanciers? Bushmaster knows it's market.
spin
(17,493 posts)It's easy to assume that it appeals to "low IQ/low testosterone gun fanciers" as you suggest and in some cases that is true. There was a craze to buy a .44 Magnum revolver after the Dirty Harry movies hit the screen. Prior to this series of movies few people with the exception of big game hunters had any desire to own this weapon as the older .357 Magnum was known as the most powerful handgun that the average person could handle and accurately shoot. The .357 Magnum had the reputation of being very adequate for home defense and for hunting game such as deer or hog. ("Shall issue" concealed carry was not common at that time.)
Many of the gun fanciers watched the movies and decided to buy a .44 Magnum revolver. Most found it to be a difficult firearm to master but the experience was challenging and somewhat exhilarating. Even so it never became a popular home defense weapon and even when concealed carry laws swept across our nation, this handgun was too large and heavy to gain popularity among this group of shooters.
Of course many people who had little or no experience with shooting handguns also bought a .44 Magnum and most regretted that decision. Some even ended up injured when they first tried to fire this handgun as they were not prepared for the recoil and ended up with a nasty gash on their forehead. Still it was great fun to own "the most powerful handgun in the world" as advertised in the Dirty Harry movies.
Of course movies can and do influence people. In many movies the AR-15 or the fully automatic M16 are used by the both the heroes and the villains. Obviously this is a prime factor in the sale of the AR-15.
Prior to the assault weapons ban the AR-15 was largely viewed by the shooting community as an inaccurate, underpowered and unreliable rifle. One way to create a demand for any item is for the government to "ban" it. Our nation banned alcohol and drugs and both became even more popular after the ban. The sad reality of the assault weapons ban is that it didn't ban semi-auto rifles like the AR-15 but merely items like flash suppressors or bayonet lugs on these weapons. The manufacturers simply stopped making AR-15s with these cosmetic features. AR-15s and even high capacity magazines were always readily available during the "ban." The companies that manufactured hii-cap magazines went to a 24/7 schedule to make as many as possible before the cut off date and made a fortune selling them during the ban.
A few shooters decided to see what all the fuss was about and bought an AR-15. They reported to other shooters that the current models were accurate and reliable and fun to shoot. Shortly after the demand for the AR-15 increased dramatically and other companies began to market aftermarket parts for the AR-15.
Today the modular design of the AR-15 makes it the "swiss army knife" of rifles. An owner can order parts on the net and be able to quickly modify his AR-15 without the services of a gunsmith. One day he can take it out for some fun plinking cans and the next complete at a match with a highly accurate target rife. He can easily modify its length so it will be suitable to teach shooting to his children or for his wife to use. He can hunt varmints one day and the next swap out some parts and modify the weapon to fire a much more powerful round suitable for hunting large deer, mouse or bear. One rifle can do a number of tasks and may well prove cheaper than owning several.
Of course many gun owners are mechanically inclined and therefore a weapon that is so easy to modify appeals to them.
I don't yet own an AR-15 as I have no real use for one. I rarely shoot a rifle as I am a handgunner. I don't hunt. The AR-15 may be an excellent choice as a home defense weapon in a rural area, but I live in a small city. (That may change if I move to a rural area with enough room to set up a target range.)
It's not surprising to me that Bushmaster published the advertisement you showed. Other companies often do the same. Just watch many of the car commercials broadcast on TV.
For example this one:
http://m.
harry's magnum is most enjoyable good toy
one day an owner can leave the ar15 propped in the corner
was it loaded? surely not
cause the kids know better than to play with the totally safe toy he showed them how to use
the next day he can outfit it to destroy all his enemies
for the challenge and exhilaration
[url=http://postimg.org/image/m7x3sxx6b/][img][/img][/url]
spin
(17,493 posts)The absolute overwhemling number store their weapons properly and do not run around committing mass murders. If my statement was incorrect we would have far more children dying every year from firearm accidents and many more mass murders.
In the last several decades the number of children killed in tragic firearm accidents has dropped significantly. This is undoubtedly due to the public attention this issue has caused. Still we can do better.
A top quality gun safe is quite expensive but a good locking gun cabinet or a locking gun box can easily be afforded by almost all of our citizens.
For less than $30 a gun owner can buy a electronic lock box from Amazon.com that will secure handguns from access by young children yet the owner can quickly open it in an emergency. It makes far more sense than hiding a handgun under your mattress or in a dresser drawer.
http://www.amazon.com/SentrySafe-ESB-3-Electronic-Security-Cubic/dp/B003ELKOOO/ref=sr_1_13?s=sporting-goods&ie=UTF8&qid=1390242509&sr=1-13&keywords=gun+lock+boxes
Amazon.com also offers a locking gun cabinet that will hold 8 rifles for shotguns for $109.99.
http://www.amazon.com/Stack-On®-gun-Security-Cabinet/dp/B000W1QKUG/ref=sr_1_24?s=sporting-goods&ie=UTF8&qid=1390242777&sr=1-24&keywords=gun+cabinet+for+rifles
It might save the lives of some children if public service announcements were run on TV to show how inexpensive and easy it is the store firearms in order to prevent access by children.
Unfortunately, many gun control advocates feel the solution is to ban and confiscate all civilian owned firearms. This is one reason why gun owners largely ignore anything gun control advocates suggest.
Any close examination of those individuals who committed a mass murder will show that the majority ran around waving numerous red flags prior to running amok. Some were totally ignored by their families and the authorities but many did try to get help for their severe mental problems. It should be fairly obvious that our mental healthcare system needs significant improvement. (Perhaps it will under the ACA.)
Sadly our NICS background check for the purchase of firearms often does not flag those who have been legally adjudged as having serious mental problems and consequently they can buy very lethal firearms at a local gun store. Fortunately President Obama may be taking measures to correct this problem.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 3, 2014
Contact: HHS Press Office
202-690-6343
Obama administration takes additional steps to strengthen the federal background check system
Today, as part of President Obamas continuing efforts to reduce gun violence, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to remove unnecessary legal barriers under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule that may prevent states from reporting certain information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
The NICS helps to ensure that guns are not sold to those prohibited by law from having them, including felons, those convicted of domestic violence, and individuals involuntarily committed to a mental institution. To date, background checks have prevented over two million guns from falling into the wrong hands.
However, the background check system is only as effective as the information that is available to it. According to a 2012 Government Accountability Office report, 17 states had submitted fewer than 10 records of individuals prohibited for mental health reasons. Additional records have been submitted over the past year as a result of federal and state actions, but there is more work to be done.
There is a strong public safety need for this information to be accessible to the NICS, and some states are currently under-reporting or not reporting certain information to the NICS at all, said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. This proposed rulemaking is carefully balanced to protect and preserve individuals privacy interests, the patient-provider relationship, and the publics health and safety.
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2014pres/01/20140103a.html
tiny elvis
(979 posts)you ignore it because you can
you can because you are nra
you pretend there is a vague premise to your ignorance without naming it
it is only because you are backed by the nra
your vague, alternate suggestion could be interpreted as totalitarian control of deviant people
anything but the toys
the deliberate ignorance is excruciating to witness
more so when you spin it sweetly than when others practice it crudely, without self awareness
spin
(17,493 posts)But I fear it is a misguided mission with little or no chance of success.
An effort like that reminds me of Don Quixote and his quests. Still, if you enjoy tilting at windmills, have fun.
The truly sad part is that people who do wish to ban and confiscate firearms have made it impossible to pass much needed improvements to our national gun laws.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)even with the N-frame, all steel, M.27 with 8.45" barrel. That's a lot of mass, but the recoil is still considerable. I've never considered going to .44 mag. since it has even more recoil, is even more expensive to shoot, and paper targets don't put up much of a fight anyway.
spin
(17,493 posts)with a target grade .45 automatic pistol. I could post a fairly high score with a .22 caliber target pistol and with a revolver using .38 caliber target ammo. When I loaded my revolver with .357 magnum ammo, my scores also dropped. Obviously I was sensitive to recoil.
My solution was to buy a .44 magnum revolver which many seem to make little sense. There is no doubt that the recoil level of a .44 magnum can be oppressive and some other shooters told me that I would most likely develop a bad habit of "flinching" by shooting my new handgun.
Fortunately I was also reloading my own ammo at the time. I was able to reduce the level of my loads to a more manageable level and gradually increase the power to a maximum load. I probably fired several thousand .44 magnum loads downrange.
I found that by doing so, my shooting ability with my .45 auto and my revolver while shooting .357 magnum loads increased significantly as the recoil level of both weapons was no longer a significant factor.
Now I take a .44 magnum revolver out to the range perhaps once a year for kicks and grins.
Of course the .44 magnum is hardly the "most powerful handgun in the world" today, but I have little desire to own a more powerful handgun.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)I suppose sellers of other products do the same kind of thing--I seem to remember Burger King having an ad claiming it wasn't "chick food"--but the imagery of a gun as a phallic symbol is so widely known that the advertiser seems to be counting on the association.
raven mad
(4,940 posts)up here when ammo gets in short supply! Of course, folks forget that the real gun nuts also do their own reloading.
spin
(17,493 posts)ammo and you can tailor the loads to your individual firearm and find an extremely accurate load.
Reloading ammo is a fairly simple process and the equipment is not expensive. Of course there are some safety rules that you should follow.
I reloaded handgun ammo for over 20 years. I would usually reload 100 to 200 rounds a week for my weekly trips to the range.
raven mad
(4,940 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 18, 2014, 12:20 AM - Edit history (1)
Just responding to a new friend who knows where I'm coming from! I'm broke and poor; my guns are old (one was a donation from my stepson) but kept in great shape. They help feed us.
I don't consider myself a "gun nut", as I can't afford a "collection". I keep a shotgun (bird hunting, and smallish game, but don't try 'em on rabbits/hares, it destroys the meat, which is the only reason I hunt), a rifle for larger game and on long winter trips (bear, moose, caribou) and one handgun for summer hikes. The handgun serves well to scare the heck out of the bear and moose on the trail. Bear in our parks become habituated mostly due to careless campers leaving out food and/or waste - the blackies are easy to spook. The grizzlies? Not so much. Now, more toward
Although I've never, ever known a reloader (and have been shooting target, skeet and hunting stuff for 45+ years) who could decently reload a shotgun shell! I know the tech is out there, but the patience is beyond most folks! A bunch of us got together many years ago and put reloading equipment in the basement of a friend's house; it's safe, it's locked up. We have all known each other 40 or more years and have keys ONLY to the reloading room, not the house. Or even the rest of the basement! It's work, but it's also comradeship. Nobody drinks/smokes and everyone pays attention if operating that blasted "chunker".
I don't even leave any gun where the cats could accidentally knock it over, let alone anywhere near a child. Someone breaking in here could find them - if they knew where the trapdoor was!
These guns are not for "home defense" or "Stand Your Ground" bullshit. They're necessary for a way of life we've embraced. I'd rather shoot with a camera unless I've got a hot moose tag (it's a lottery system except for the indigenous, which is really only fair - unless you ask an NRA member or some fuckin' fundie).
And yes, the hides get used, too. We don't use 4-wheelers unless it's really big game (moose go to a full ton here). We pack out. We don't take trophies.
Caribou herd in ANWR taken a few years back by a bush pilot friend (we were flying out some dogs for vet care):
AND as a final thought:
THE NRA SUCKS HUGE, GREEN, DISEASED AND DRIPPING COCKROACH DICKS. Take THAT, LaPierre, you perverted mother fu*ker!
erpowers
(9,350 posts)I could be wrong, but I think it will end up being the other way around. At least for Meryl Streep. I say Streep because as far as I know Harvey Weinstein is a producer so he most likely won't be hurt unless the NRA goes after every actor and actress who appears in one of his films in an attempt to intimidate them in order to get them to turn down film roles in his projects.
I do not think the NRA will back down because of a movie. They most likely will stand strong and proud in the face of the movie. They might even put out some fact sheet claiming the film is all wrong and just a left wing hit piece. They may also go as far as to link the movie to President Obama and the 2016 Democratic nominee and claim, Democrats now more than ever are going to attempt to enact gun control.
reflection
(6,286 posts)This will mobilize the red meat right even more than they are now, and probably increase their turnout in the next few elections that follow. But politics have to take a back seat to a message this important.
All he has to do is tell the story of what is going on in Congress that Congressmen/women won't speak of because of backlash. I say go for it, Weinstein.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)nxylas
(6,440 posts)The movie, if it's any good, might garner some critical acclaim, maybe even some Oscars, but it'll be preaching to the choir.
CBHagman
(16,984 posts)This is the first I've heard of it. Of course it's unclear how this will turn out, but given the role entertainment plays in shaping public opinion, it might be big news.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)he rails against the NRA and says that americans shouldn't be allowed to own guns, yet, he's produced several movies featuring guns and violence, Pulp Fiction, Django Unchained, Kill Bill 1,2,3, Inglourious Basterds, etc.
I'll just bet that the NRA is shaking in, not fear, but laughter.
shedevil69taz
(512 posts)is quite absurd actually, considering NOW he wants to try and do something about it.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)alp227
(32,021 posts)do you not think it's possible to enjoy action films and be anti violence in real life?
NickB79
(19,236 posts)"We gotta make sure that we're not glorifying it," Obama told the crowd at DreamWorks studio, adding that movie executives had a "big responsibility" to the viewing public. "Because the stories you tell shape our children's outlook and their lives."
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)you're damn right he is repeating right wing talking points.
His bit about 'the stories you tell shape our children's outlook and their lives'...the movies listed about from Weinstein I do believe all have ratings that should keep them out of the hands of the children of sensible and aware parents.
It's a false equivalency that the NRA loves.
Titonwan
(785 posts)This is supposed to be an expose on how power works for big arms manufacturers and how they possess undue power over our 'representatives' in Congress.
Just like AIPAC does. It's not democratic in the least.
There's fantasy and then there's reality. He's making a movie of the latter.
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)"The movies listed about from Weinstein I do believe all have ratings that should keep them out of the hands of the children of sensible and aware parents."
Umm... middle and high school students who haven't seen Pulp Fiction and Inglorious Bastards are, well, Bible-thumping homeschoolers. That or just really, really lame.
Pretty sure we watched Pulp Fiction on a 6th grade bus trip, actually...
hughee99
(16,113 posts)for the glorifying of violence that occurs in those movies?
alp227
(32,021 posts)The director's or the viewer's? Most viewers recognize that movies are generally artistic expressions not ways to tell you how to live.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)The good guy "gets justice" or "fixes the problem" or saves the world through violence. Are you okay with movies that try to make racism, sexism, or homophobia appear okay? After all, it's just artistic expression, not telling anyone how to live.
alp227
(32,021 posts)Sometimes, immorality can make for a compelling story with the right filmmaker. Like Dexter.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)that glorifies, tries to justify, minimize or whitewash a certain behavior loses some credibility when they personally complain about it. Imagine D.W. Griffith decrying the KKK after putting out "Birth of a Nation" (granted it's a much more extreme example than Weinstein).
Paladin
(28,257 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)but I still see a little bit of hypocrisy in it.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)We should ask some.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)Wouldn't that make him a hypocrite? It's an easy question.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)It's really a simple question.
Did he profit from these movies featuring guns and violence?
If so, wouldn't that make him a hypocrite?
frylock
(34,825 posts)no, I don't for a fucking second believe him to be a hypocrite. that shit opinion is straight up right wing boilerplate.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)And he is a hypocrite, he says that guns don't belong in America, yet he profits from his movies involving guns and violence. How is that not hypocrisy?
If all he did was go after the NRA, I would have no problem with that, but he's basically saying that Americans have no right to firearm ownership.
frylock
(34,825 posts)good day to you.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)makes him millions while decrying the fact that there are firearms in this country and he wants to get rid of them.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)because most people can tell the difference. This must be why he's making a FICTIONAL movie that he's expecting will have REAL WORLD consequences for the NRA.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"I dont think we need guns in this country versus "he's basically saying that Americans have no right to firearm ownership..."
There are precise and relevant differences in the the observations of what a culture may or may not have absolute need of, and what the enumerated rights are in that particular county.
However, I readily understand that bias needs to conflate issues to better validate itself, and that many sub-literate and under-educated individuals are unable to grasp the difference between depicting a thing, and the thing itself.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)Let me ask you this hypothetical question, suppose Mr. Weinstein had come out and said that he was going to make a pro 2A movie? What would your reaction be?
frylock
(34,825 posts)bigworld
(1,807 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)Discussed a wide range of past, present, and future (Judy Garland Story) projects, but I heard nothing mentioned on this subject. Maybe I missed it. Do you have the time stamp handy by any chance?
Kingofalldems
(38,456 posts)Kick and Rec.
Titonwan
(785 posts)... so I hope he has MM as a consultant (at least). Look forward to seeing this!
K&R
Paladin
(28,257 posts)That didn't take long, did it?
At this point, I'm figuring that Weinstein and Streep are each receiving hundreds, if not thousands of death threats from pro-gun extremists---with many of Streep's threats containing some amazingly sick rape promises. I'm sure that bumper stickers are in the works ("Come And Take It, Harvey" will be one of the milder ones). And targets featuring Weinstein's face are being cranked out, for use at rifle ranges. These are all safe bets, because this is how pro-gun absolutists have responded in the past. Down the road, there will be threats of violence against theaters that plan on showing this movie. Again, it's to be expected.
Some of our DU Gun Enthusiasts have been commenting lately about the "culture war" implicit in the gun rights debate. Well here it is, in all its sick, twisted glory. Which side would you rather be on?
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)doesn't change the fact that Mr. Weinstein has made millions off his movies depicting firearms use and violence, therefore, that makes him a hypocrite.
Paladin
(28,257 posts)Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)Can you refute it? Or, is that all you got?
Paladin
(28,257 posts)Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)but can you honestly say that he's not a hypocrite?
Paladin
(28,257 posts)And this conversation is over.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)It's a very simple question, is Mr. Weinstein a hypocrite or not?
He makes millions on his movies depicting violent firearms use, but then slams the NRA (rightly so) and then goes on to say that firearms don't belong in this country, which means that Americans don't have a right to own firearms, how in the world does that not make him a hypocrite?
Kingofalldems
(38,456 posts)Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)How the hell are you today?
Are you here for another session of bonding? I so look forward to you making your presence known. Really, I do.
Maybe you can answer, is he a hypocrite or not? I really, really value your input on this!!!!!
hack89
(39,171 posts)Ignore the insulting, frothing at the mouth extremists on both sides of the issue and support reasonable laws like UBCs while enjoying shooting sports with my friends and family. The vitriol gets old - I just tune it out now.
Paladin
(28,257 posts)Shit, you're on another DU thread right this moment, making common cause with domestic abusers who want their guns returned. Domestic abusers, for the love of God. You're not fooling anybody, at this point.
hack89
(39,171 posts)All I did in that thread was point out the actual legal issue in front of the court. Perhaps you missed my post where I explicitly said that men who use physical violence or the threat of harm with a deadly weapon should lose their guns.
Lying for a good cause is still lying.
louis-t
(23,292 posts)-George Costanza
frylock
(34,825 posts)Lord Rafael of the Seven Summits was on foxsnooze puffing his chest.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)alp227
(32,021 posts)Why is Teddy so revered asking American right wingers?
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)Why is this chickenhawk, pedophile motherfucker not in prison yet? I would love to be the one to pick him up on federal child abuse charges and deliver him to Florence, CO's federal supermax prison.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)Generally child abuse charges are handled by state or local authorities and prosecuted under state laws.
I'm surprised you don't know that.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)But, if you want to debate this, I'll be more than happy to.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)Sure... I'd be happy to discuss your "Nugent to the club Fed" fantasies.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)rdharma
(6,057 posts)But he won't be put in a federal lockup for child abuse unless there are certain circumstances involved.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)and I know that certain conditions have to be met for federal charges, but, I can only hope that he meets these conditions and I get to frog march his RW ass to federal court before I retire in April.
tblue
(16,350 posts)People can pooh pooh it all they want. At least somebody's trying to do something that informs the public and might make a positive change. I'm all for that!
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)That I assume are armed with what....... guns
http://www.uproxx.com/filmdrunk/2012/09/harvey-weinstein-harassed-by-scientologists-hires-bodyguards/
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)NRA Talking Point #187
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)so, instead, bring up another NRA Talking Point, which, BTW, I can't seem to find on the NRA website.
Link? Please?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)the NRA talking point is bullshit they make up. Say it enough and some just believe it, very gullible I must say myself.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Titonwan
(785 posts)what would you have him protect himself with? Sternly worded rhetoric? Have hunted all my life, but there's limits to the cray-cray.
Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #86)
alp227 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)sarisataka
(18,648 posts)than when security guards were there for "training"
No prior training before arriving at the range. While standing at the line, with live ammunition, the "trainer" (for lack of a better term) is explaining to the guard (holding a gun for the first time in her life) that pulling the trigger will make the gun fire. First five shots hit the floor twice, a wall, the ceiling and the paper outside of the scoring area. Second five hit the floor, three on the paper (one in the eight ring, one in the seven, one outside of scoring) and one miss into the back stop. -Qualification done. Next!
The five guards who were "trained" were going to provide armed security at one of the nations largest gem shows the next day. Less qualified guards (!) would provide unarmed security.
Kingofalldems
(38,456 posts)Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)or afternoon, depending what part of the country you live in.
Just out of curiosity, who are the "gun republicans'?
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)I don't think a film is an adequate consequence.
hack89
(39,171 posts)How much does Wayne pay you to post such nonsense?
godevil10
(63 posts)very violent, gun use heavy films. Is,he swearing off making them?
DeltaLitProf
(769 posts). . . and their use look like very bad choices.
Do you remember the accidental killing of the young man in the backseat of the car during Pulp Fiction? It took place because Travolta's character was handling his gun rather carelessly. I'll never forget that scene.
rdharma
(6,057 posts)Wow!
hack89
(39,171 posts)His hypocracy pisses us off but the proposed movie does not. It is hard to see a political movie with a moralizing agenda becoming a huge hit. Those are not the kind of movies that become blockbusters.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)Mr. Weinstein? Yes!
Mr. Weinstein is nothing more that a Hypocrite, he made millions on his movies depicting firearms use and violence while at the same time, bashing the NRA and saying that guns don't belong in this country.
Kingofalldems
(38,456 posts)Among other statements their leader claimed Obama would use Medicare to register guns. You seem to be a HUGE supporter based on your responses in this thread. Please explain.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 18, 2014, 02:16 PM - Edit history (1)
my BESTEST BUDDY, just for you, I'll explain, the NRA is nothing more than a RW mouth piece for the repubs, and if Mr. Weinstein had stuck to just that, then I would have no problem with his making the movie, however, he went on to say that he believes that guns shouldn't be allowed in this country, ergo, Americans have no right to firearm ownership, yet, he's made millions off his movies depicting guns and violence.
THAT MAKES HIM A HYPOCRITE.
Kingofalldems
(38,456 posts)From the article: "Conservative critics are going after Weinstein, calling him a hypocrite for opposing Second Amendment rights while producing several films with gun violence...."
Goodness.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)C'mon BESTEST BUDDY, you can do a better smear than that!!!! What happened to our bonding sessions? I really thought that we were making progress with our friendship?
Are you back to making unfounded accusations? I really, really hope we can move past this and cement our newfound camaraderie.
Kingofalldems
(38,456 posts)are saying. In fact I actually smeared you, you should alert.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)You practically accused me of being a RW'er without actually saying so, but, I can move past this if you can BESTEST BUDDY. Do we have an accord?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)People change for the better, gun fanciers ought to give it a try.
Believe me Hoyt when I say that I take anything you say with a HUGE smile.
IveWornAHundredPants
(237 posts)Weinstein has produced many movies in which guns are used: Pulp Fiction, Django Unchained, etc. etc. I have seen all these movies, and not once did I leave the theater feeling more kindly disposed towards guns. In fact, it was the opposite. So I would argue that there's not much "glorification" going on there.
I would also argue that these movie are works of fiction, and the guns in them, which are being handled by fictional people and not actually harming anyone, are actually props. So I'd have a difficult time thinking that Weinstein made his fortune from guns, because though the things you see in the movies are meant to represent real guns, they are not actually real.
I think you need to reserve your cries of "hypocrisy!" for when, say, the executives of the Remington company start decrying guns and gun culture. (Or shaving and shaving culture for that matter - is that the same company?)
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)producing movies depicting guns and violence and he's stated that he doesn't believe that guns don't belong in the U.S.
If he had stopped at just condemning the NRA, no problem.
And, I'll reserve my cry of hypocrisy for those that I think are guilty of it, like Mr. Weinstein.
IveWornAHundredPants
(237 posts)He hasn't made millions having anything to do with guns. The guns in the movie aren't real. If the country was filled with fake guns that couldn't hurt anyone (or wouldn't hurt them as frequently, considering the Jon Eric Hexum case for instance), that probably wouldn't bother him.
And if indeed he's stated that "he doesn't believe that guns don't belong in the U.S.," it sounds like the two of you are in accord anyway.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)If you can't see the hypocrisy then, you'll never see it. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
IveWornAHundredPants
(237 posts)You're still free to call him a hypocrite, of course. You're also free to call him green with purple spots. It's a free country.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)And he's still a hypocrite.
BainsBane
(53,032 posts)They are ghoulish zombies that feed off human life.
hack89
(39,171 posts)In such a significant way? I think his ego is getting in the way of rational thought.
SansACause
(520 posts)They 're like some death robot sent on a killing spree from the past.
4_TN_TITANS
(2,977 posts)in a theater?
valerief
(53,235 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)go see it. Hate Radio, Big Media, and Cabal News will make sure this barely sees the light of day
onehandle
(51,122 posts)And this pre-announcement is to make sure that the press is ready to talk about it extensively, thus driving up ticket sales.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)The big corporations will make sure this is goes away real fast.
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)it too was a box office flop.
Still haven't seen it.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)I will hope for this movie to succeed but the forces will be against it
Ranchemp.
(1,991 posts)but his statement saying he doesn't believe guns belong in this country leads me to believe that he has a different agenda other than vilifying the NRA, hope he sticks to just exposing the NRA without the no american should own guns nonsense. Time will tell.
BTW, I still think he's a hypocrite, he makes millions on his movies depicting gun use and violence, yet he abhors the NRA, (rightly so) and thinks that Americans shouldn't have the right to own firearms.
spin
(17,493 posts)GOA. (Gun Owners of America).
Mr. Weinstein should be careful what he wishes for, it could have unintended consequences.