PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: LevelWing on July 05, 2016, 07:27:47 PM
-
Hollywood actor Matt Damon used a press conference in Australia over the Fourth of July weekend to discuss his desire for a massive confiscation of U.S. guns.
“You guys did it here in one fell swoop [in 1996] and I wish that could happen in my country, but it’s such a personal issue for people that we cannot talk about it sensibly,” Mr. Damon said during a promotional engagement in Sydney for the movie “Jason Bourne.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/5/matt-damon-jason-bourne-star-calls-for-us-to-ban-g/
I find that ironic, at best. If Hillary wins, she will likely make a push for this. She's already said she's in favor of it.
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/5/matt-damon-jason-bourne-star-calls-for-us-to-ban-g/
I find that ironic, at best. If Hillary wins, she will likely make a push for this. She's already said she's in favor of it.
What a hypocrite.
-
What a hypocrite.
I think f'n idiot would be more accurate
-
Sadly, the vast majority of Hollywood, the entertainment industry, and media have these same views on legally owned guns, yet they have armed security. They can be protected but we can't.
Actors don't have to be intelligent, they just have to be able to mimic.
-
Here's what Congressman Rangel had to say about guns:
-
Guy's got a right to his opinion, and just because you disagree doesn't make him stupid. Doesn't make him a hypocrite unless he owns the things. Unless you think the Daisy Ridley is a hypocrite because she doesn't really fight with laser swords.
-
Guy's got a right to his opinion, and just because you disagree doesn't make him stupid. Doesn't make him a hypocrite unless he owns the things. Unless you think the Daisy Ridley is a hypocrite because she doesn't really fight with laser swords.
Do you agree with his opinion?
-
Do you agree with his opinion?
Goodness no! There are lots of really good reasons to own firearms. But it really doesn't matter whether people own them for good reason or bad ones, the legality of the things is enshrined in our Constitution and as long as that's the case its no one's business why someone owns a firearm.
-
Guy's got a right to his opinion, and just because you disagree doesn't make him stupid. Doesn't make him a hypocrite unless he owns the things. Unless you think the Daisy Ridley is a hypocrite because she doesn't really fight with laser swords.
No, he's stupid.
Since we're talking about the privileged few (of your ilk), I present Her Majesty, Queen Nancy:
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/nancy-pelosi-driver-cuts-across-traffic/
-
Goodness no! There are lots of really good reasons to own firearms. But it really doesn't matter whether people own them for good reason or bad ones, the legality of the things is enshrined in our Constitution and as long as that's the case its no one's business why someone owns a firearm.
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.
-
OH MY GOD...AN ACTOR HAS AN OPINION!
Why is this even a story?
I have worked with actors...they are just other people. Regardless of your position...who cares!
-
Matt Damon is welcome to come to my house and try to take them, he'll get them one round at a time just like any other would-be fascist - fucking useful idiot moron.
There are no special effects, stuntmen, craft services table, directors or cuts here Matt, molon labe!
'Gimp
-
Here's how the academic set deals with the 2A:
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7808
(http://www.campusreform.org/img/CROBlog/7808/SSCCProf.jpg)
-
I have worked in the film and video business for over 25 years and I have met many "Hollywood" armorers. They are class III licensed because many of the guns you see on TV and the movies are fully functioning arms with blanks in them and in some cases, live ammo. Some of these guys are NRA members.
I have always fantasized about a walk out strike by the armorers in support of the 2nd Amendment. If they did that, 95+% of movies, TV shows and short films couldn't be made. Nearly every plot written involves a gun in some way and the armorers make it happen. Of course this will never happen because first and for most the armorers are business people. They know that if they make things hard, the movie producers can easily go elsewhere.
So in the mean time, I suggest somebody take Matt Damon out behind his comfy trailer all by himself and beat him soundly around the head with a rock until he understands personal self defense and what that means.
-
Here's how the academic set deals with the 2A:
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7808
(http://www.campusreform.org/img/CROBlog/7808/SSCCProf.jpg)
The hypocrisy of the left knows no limits. This guy, who wants gun control, is advocating arming himself (fallacy #1) and then storming the NRA headquarters (fallacy #2) and ensuring there are no survivors in the hopes there will be gun reform then (fallacy #3).
Those who own guns and are responsible and do not advocate violence. They want guns to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, self defense, hunting, sport, etc. I don't think I've ever seen a responsible gun owner suggest a place is stormed and leaves no survivors. Ridiculous.
-
So in the mean time, I suggest somebody take Matt Damon out behind his comfy trailer all by himself and beat him soundly around the head with a rock until he understands personal self defense and what that means.
Have you seen the Jason Bourne movies? That doesn't work out well for other people. :P
-
Here's how the academic set deals with the 2A:
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7808
(http://www.campusreform.org/img/CROBlog/7808/SSCCProf.jpg)
The hatred is growing. I saw today on Facebook something that said "The NRA is America's ISIS." That is so unbelievably wrong, but many liberal, progressive types nod their heads in agreement with this. They know it's kind of a joke, but also kind of not.
If the left were to ever "rise up" and take arms to "take out the NRA" it would be comical to watch. The only effective way would be for them to hire trained mercenaries to do it for them. Being the pathetic pussies they are, this is likely what they would do. The left has plenty of money. Money they don't freely give to those without money I might point out.
-
Have you seen the Jason Bourne movies? That doesn't work out well for other people. :P
Yeah, I'm talking about Matt Damon, not Jason Bourne. There is a big difference. Tough guy Damon would take one tap on the head and start screaming for security.
-
The hypocrisy of the left knows no limits. This guy, who wants gun control, is advocating arming himself (fallacy #1) and then storming the NRA headquarters (fallacy #2) and ensuring there are no survivors in the hopes there will be gun reform then (fallacy #3).
Those who own guns and are responsible and do not advocate violence. They want guns to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, self defense, hunting, sport, etc. I don't think I've ever seen a responsible gun owner suggest a place is stormed and leaves no survivors. Ridiculous.
I would suggest that an academic arming himself and storming NRA HQ would result in "no survivors", except not the way he thinks.
Same reason you never see mass shootings at gun shows.
-
The left would use the courts and law enforcement, not force.
I fear they are rapidly reaching the point where the ends (defeating conservatism) will justify any means, fair or otherwise. I don't think they will round everyone up and herd them to the showers, but they will implement stronger and stronger anti-right legislation to disenfranchise the right.
-
Same reason you never see mass shootings at gun shows.
That would be interesting!
-
That would be interesting!
picture that commercial where the bumbling bad guy enters a diner in order to rob it... only to find the diner filled with offduty police officers for some fraternal order of LEOs or something.
-
picture that commercial where the bumbling bad guy enters a diner in order to rob it... only to find the diner filled with offduty police officers for some fraternal order of LEOs or something.
Or a chapter of Hell's Angels.......