Tuesday, April 9, 2013

I Disagree.

Unc thinks we need to stop hammering on violent video games and movies.

I've got to disagree here. I think we need to keep the heat on both Hollywood and the video game manufacturers for one simple reason. Think Jim Carrey and his bon mots regarding gun owners. Think of that "Demand a plan" video. Add in all the sanctimonious bulls**t coming out of Hollywood regarding guns and gun owners. They are actively seeking to throw peaceful gun owners under the bus in the wake of horrific tragedies involving the mentally ill.

It's time they felt the heat, too.

You see, if the government can squash the Second Amendment, they can sure as hell squash the First. Let the elites feel the breath of the wolf on their heels - they're more than happy to sell out us gunhumpin' rednecks, let them start to fear those government intrusions. You can't make films uncomplimentary to certain religious groups - no, that's banned now. Violent video games? Banned. Movies which depict alcohol/drug/cigarette use? Banned. Let them come to realize that handing the government a blank ban check in the form of abrogation of rights is a bad idea no matter which right is in their sights.

I bear no ill will towards the video game designers (the link in Unc's post). I'm sure that there are many who would stand shoulder-to-shoulder with me in solidarity for gun rights, just as there are actors and actresses in Hollywood who support the Second Amendment. But it's time we started involving the entertainment industry as a whole - because we recognize the danger while they do not. They are gleefully selling us out hoping that the bear will eat them last - it is incumbent on us to remind them that the bear will, indeed, consume them at some point.

Every time they work as the useful idiot making some anti-gun PSA, or billboard, or sound bite, they're bringing the wolf a step closer to the door. Millions of people - for right or wrong - have their opinions shaped by the various and sundry talking heads and vacuous ninnies in LA and NY. We ignore that at our peril. While, as my friend Tamara reminds us, some states are expanding gun rights, others are restricting it further - and as CO shows us, states that were formerly strong on gun rights can flip in one election cycle. Public opinion as shaped and crafted by the Hollywood elites is most certainly a part of that.

We need to get them to recognize that they sacrifice their Second Amendment supporting citizens at their own peril. Once the Second Amendment has been nullified - as in (formerly) Great Britain - there will be nothing to stop the government from whittling away at the First. Getting Hollywood on our side now, while there's still a fighting chance, would help us stem the loss of formerly pro-gun states and perhaps even bring some of the anti-gun states back from the abyss. We need to make the entertainment industry realize that they need us just as much as we need them - perhaps even more.

Because that bear is ever hungry, and he won't stop at a simple 2A snack.

That is all.


Will Brown said...

I think you're wrong on this one Jay. We need to co-opt the electronic entertainment industry (which effectively includes cinema and television along with now-traditional video games) instead of attempting to damage them in retaliation and trying to drag them into the same anti-rights fire with us. Morn their loss of conceptual and performance freedom just as we have experienced. Commiserate the frequency with which they are cynically abused to advance political and financial competitors objectives just as we gun owners have experienced. Point out the shared nature and financial position of their audience and make allies of as many of them as we can.

Do that long enough and you conquer their efforts of destruction of rights and convert them to your shared perspective - and hopefully bring some honest understanding to the nature and constraints of that condition for all concerned.

Consider the potential of this strategy compared to that taken by your drinking buddy Alan Gura in the legal field of the rights battle.

Lupis42 said...

I get where you're coming from, but I respectfully disagree.
Here's the thing: violent video games and movies are not the problem, any more than guns are the problem. If we hammer on them because they hammer on us, we've stopped being honest. And last time I checked, "Everyone else is doing it" was not an acceptable excuse for lying.
If we trade our integrity for the satisfaction of making some self-righteous comedians get a taste of their own medicine, we deserve to lose.

Chris Byrne said...

I'll get more direct and simpler...

That's offensive, stupid, dishonorable, and disgusting.

You don't defeat your enemy by becoming as dishonorable and disingenuous as they are... If you do that... you don't deserve to win.

Jay G said...

Yeah, we've done real well taking the high road, haven't we?

Look, what I'm suggesting is not that we actively sell out Hollywood. I'm suggesting that we might want to work with them to help them understand that they're not doing themselves any favors by cheerleading for gun control.

They seem to have a problem understanding this.

Maybe looking down the barrel of some legislation that *WILL* affect *THEM* might help them see our point of view?

Chris Byrne said...

Let's look at it from a practical perspective...

Does it really sound like a good idea to you to advocate for censorship and restriction of freedom... just to get back at, piss off, or teach a lesson... to people who are your political enemies?


Jay G said...

I am advocating neither, Chris.

What I am doing - and I'll admit I may be doing it poorly - is pointing out that those who often appear opposite us on the gun issue should be thinking about the stances they take on the Second Amendment, because they will most assuredly come to face the same music with regards to the First Amendment.

They gleefully jump on the anti-2A bandwagon, making ill-conceived videos mocking us, or heart-rending pleas for legislation banning that which we know to be inalienable - and someday they will face the same sort of legislation.

In a way, I would like to see legislation levied at Hollywood. Perhaps that is what would be needed to bring them around to realizing that the Bill of Rights is an "all or nothing" deal - it's not a buffet where they can choose only the rights they want to enjoy.

But that would be petty, and small.

I would much rather work with them to help them see that once the .gov is through with gun owners, that will never be enough.

But at that point, their options will be significantly more limited.

Heath J said...

Agreed with you, bro, on all points.

I'm just more in the camp of "fuck em', they've earned it"

As a freedom loving individual/ Libertarian, I've been actively for equal marriage rights. What has it gotten me? (besides doing what I felt was right?) A bunch of assholes whose rights I supported go out of their way to curtail mine.

I'm done. The damned bear can eat them AFAIC.

Lupis42 said...


I understand the frustration, but fundamentally, that 1A legislation would be just as stupid, ignorant, and destructive as the 2A legislation we get now. I can't in good conscience do anything less to oppose it.

And while an "enemy of my enemy" situation might buy us some understanding in the world that is Hollywood, it seems just as likely to create more kneejerk anti-gun reactionaries who want to push the ball back into our court. You don't win someone's friendship by turning their gun on them to show them how it feels.


I wasn't aware that "doing the right thing" and "speaking the truth" required a quid pro quo now.
Is the only reason you've spoken out on the issue because of what you hoped to gain?

Eainsdad said...

Well....One man once said:
"We must all stand together or surely we will all hang separately"
The law of unintended consequences is a harsh taskmistress. What if we put a few bills out there to bring the point home and those bills are actually passed?
What then?
We will have proven that curtailing the 1st Amendment which is pretty damned important is now something that can be voted in.
I believe that heckling the actors who are hypocrites is a good idea. I believe that boycotting their movies is a good idea. I doubt that turning this into a free-for-all with gay rights guys voting to ban guns because gun rights guys voted to ban gay rights (as an example) will EVER prove to be a good idea and will actually prove to work for the Liberal cause. Don't we call Zero the great divider?
Wouldn't this play into his game?

Oddball said...

Nope. Sorry. Gotta disagree with you 100% on this one. The video game industry is not our enemy. If we try to say that video games are the cause of violence, that just makes us look like old men shaking our canes and telling people to get off our lawns, and rightly so.

I know a lot of folks that heard Wayne LaPierre's speech to the point where he blamed those damn violent movies and video games, and tuned out to the rest of the message. The only thing that doing so does is turn a rather large community against us.

Oddball said...

Sorry. On second reading, I think you're saying that we need to get the video game and movie industry to understand that they're at best next in line after us, if not in the same boat.

If that's the case, then I agree. I also think that Uncle and the original post that he linked to was saying the same thing.

Jay G said...


Yeah, that's the point I was trying to make. We need to work with them to get them to understand that the all-powerful state that they are currently working *with* against guns will INEVITABLY turn on them.

Every time I see some empty-headed actor or actress doing the "ZOMG GUNZ R BAD" dance (notwithstanding if they - like, say, Michael Douglas - made a good number of violent movies where they portrayed people using firearms), I want to puke.

These people are so completely ignorant of history. It's like they honestly believe that getting rid of firearms - from the law-abiding, only, because those are the only people bans every affect - will create some violence-free utopia where we can all sing kumbaya hand-in-hand.

There's no POSSIBLE way that an overreaching nanny state that wants to dictate every facet of our lives would EVER go after our freedom of expression, right?


Will Brown said...

I too can see the misunderstanding , glad we got that cleared up.

About actors; as a professional class they are people who are accomplished at expressing thoughts and emotions of others. It is not surprising that they look upon opportunities to perform public political expressions as simply being another opportunity to practice their craft/trade. Without especial regard for the actual content being expressed - to coin a phrase, it's just business, nothing personal.

If you include the tendency of people to want to cater to the opinions of those who control their access to opportunity, it very quickly becomes clear that much of "Hollywood" opinioneering isn't individual (in the sense of independent) thought on the part of the person making the performance, outside the context of personal/professional advancement.

And there is our access point.

People who are successful at suppressing their own intellect to better project another's, are people open to any intellectual persuasion. So hire them - at first (give them opportunities to directly experience our position professionally). If our message really is as attractive as we profess, "Hollywood" will gradually come around to the same judgement too.

Just like Alan Gura is convincing the courts.