A poster to promote the latest James Bond film that features the spy brandishing a machine-gun has come under fire from an anti-arms group.
Protesters claim the marketing campaign glorifies armed violence and want the work for the new 007 film ‘Quantum Of Solace’ pulled.
Yes, the nanny-stater mommies really are this hysterical.
Although what nanny-stater mommy Daniel Craig is doing achieving fame and fortune through simulated gunplay does seem a legitimate question.
So pictures of machine guns are causing all the wanton violence in the UK?
ReplyDeleteWhat a stupid bunch of twits.
Parental Warning: This film features firearms or the mention of firearms and may be too upsetting for some viewers.
ReplyDeleteSoon phrases like "jumping the gun" and "gave him both barrels" will be violations of the Verbal Morality Statute, John Spartan.
When evil threatens, James Bond should challenge it to a pillow fight, if that's not too graphic.
Bond trivia. They auditioned James Brolin once to play 007. UGH!
ReplyDeleteNot sure about now but Craig was said to have started to 'enjoy' shooting according to some of the stunt people. Could be he's still anto and is an 'only one' actor.
Not just an actor, but a British actor. They're the worst. At least in the US we have a *few* pro-RKBA actors.
ReplyDeleteI don't have any handy quotes from David Tennant, but at least some of the dialogue from Doctor Who indicates the titular character he plays in that series is rabidly anti-gun.
The worst piece of UK agit-prop masquerading as an action movie was Clive Owen's Shoot 'em Up (2007). The action sequences were actually entertaining, but the dialogue and ham-fisted antigun propoganda were just nauseating and flatly silly.
Are there ANY pro-RKBA actors who hail from the British Isles? Maybe an ex-pat who's lived here in the USA awhile, or in Western Canada? Anyone?
Ok guys, let's put this in perspective. This isn't new, not even here.
ReplyDeleteThink of all the old westerns we all used to watch. A great portion of them ended with the protagonist who used a gun or guns to seek justice and defend the downtrodden and weak, with him throwing the gun in the dirt and walking away from it as though all the bad deeds he corrected were the result of guns. You can go all the way back to the forties to see this.
We have, as a population, been more resistant to this propaganda, but it has been going on a long, long time here and has finally gained a great deal of traction in the late sixties with a couple of high profile assassinations that put the unthinking majority into emotional response instead of logical response. But make no mistake, the disgusted cowboy throwing down his gun in a condemnation of what it has wrought (not my interpretation) set the stage.
We have since seen forty years of capitulation by pragmatists to the emotional inane. We are now here, and not that far behind the UK. There does seem to be a glimmer of good sense and principle reasserting themselves, but it is not a done deal, by any means.
The bit I hate in The Shootist. Ron Howard throws away John Wayne's gun. The Duke nods. Then I guess it could be saying no to oneupmanship. Shoulda kept the gun. The 20th century isn't any different. I would have written it so Gilliam kept the guns and protected his Mom and himself. Oh well.
ReplyDeleteThere's a certain irony about this actor who plays James Bond: he's as anti-gun as they come.
ReplyDeleteAs far as "The Shootist" is concerned, I too think that Gilliam should have kept J.B. Book's guns, as a historical memento of the man he considered more of a father than his own. Or, as the only guns he could acquire. In the book, Gilliam carried Book's guns out of the saloon with "that sweet, clean feeling of being born", almost as if he would be the next J.B. Books.