Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

thunderous_funker · Oct 29, 2003, 06:07 PM

Americans Flock to Get on NRA Blacklist
by Jill Serjeant

LOS ANGELES - Most blacklists are designed to intimidate. But thousands of Americans are clamoring to join one drawn up by the National Rifle Association.

Actor Dustin Hoffman was so dismayed to find his name missing from the NRA's shadowy 19-page list of U.S. companies, celebrities, and news organizations seen as lending support to anti-gun policies that he wrote to the powerful pro-gun lobby group begging to be included.

"As a supporter of comprehensive anti-gun safety measures, I was deeply disappointed when I discovered my name was not on the list," Hoffman wrote in a letter to the NRA that was released on Tuesday.

"I was particularly surprised by the omission given my opposition to the loophole that makes it legal for 18- to 20-year-olds to buy handguns at gun shows," he added.

Hoffman's name has now been added to the list which reads like a Who's Who of American business, culture and religion and which ranges from the American Jewish Congress to A&M Records, ABC News and talk show queen Oprah Winfrey.

An NRA spokesman could not be reached for comment.

The list was found deep in the official NRA Web site by a group of grass-roots anti-gun campaigners and publicized by them two weeks ago to garner support for two pieces of gun control legislation going through Congress.

The campaigners set up their own Web site (http://www.NRAblacklist.com) and urged Americans to voluntarily put their names there. A full-page ad on Tuesday in Daily Variety -- the Hollywood trade magazine -- urged movie and music artists to sign up.

"What the site tries to do is turn it into a badge of honor to get on the blacklist by saying 'Hey Julia Roberts is on the blacklist. Why don't you join it?.' It's been incredibly successful. Since we have launched, 25,000 people have signed on to ask to be put on the blacklist," said Wendy Katz, spokesperson for the group.

The NRA initially denied compiling a blacklist as such, saying it was merely responding to members wanting to know which individuals and corporations opposed the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment on the right to bear arms.

But National Rifle Association Executive Vice-President Wayne LaPierre said of the list last week; "Our members don't want to buy their songs, don't want to go to their movies, don't want to support their careers."

Katz said the campaigners hoped to expose the NRA's influence in Washington, D.C., spur opposition to a bill that would grant immunity in civil cases for gun manufacturers and dealers, and gather support for renewal of a 1994 ban on the sale of military assault weapons.
-------------------

Well, "flock" might be overstating it, but it is an amusing scenario.

I'm also curious about the claim that NRA'ers are commodifying their dissent so well. If they are so conscientious about not buying music or watching movies of people who are "anti-gun", how are they about buying gas from Shell (which continues to operate in Iran), or Wal*mart for putting its employees on the dole, or the companies that sold technology to Saddam, or massive polluters, etc...?

zigzag · Oct 29, 2003, 06:21 PM

Pretty funny. Reminds me of the time that cop and his wife were arrested for prostitution in Florida - they were running a one-woman whorehouse and their defense was that she was addicted to sex. Local politicians who had patronized them were desperately trying to suppress the customer list. Meanwhile, I was desperately trying to get on the list.

Lerkfish · Oct 29, 2003, 06:36 PM

That's hilarious to take a hatefilled NRA act like that and turn it on its head.

LOL! where do I join?

RooneyX · Oct 29, 2003, 06:41 PM

Joined! Love joining rightwing blacklists! Bring 'em on!

RooneyX · Oct 29, 2003, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by zigzag:
Pretty funny. Reminds me of the time that cop and his wife were arrested for prostitution in Florida - they were running a one-woman whorehouse and their defense was that she was addicted to sex. Local politicians who had patronized them were desperately trying to suppress the customer list. Meanwhile, I was desperately trying to get on the list.

lol. You are the bi@tch.

Lerkfish · Oct 29, 2003, 07:02 PM

Even funnier, they have newspaper columnists and editorial cartoonists on their blacklists....LOL! I guess they feel pretty threatened.

Powerbook · Oct 30, 2003, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Americans Flock to Get on NRA Blacklist
...

An NRA spokesman could not be reached for comment.

...

He, Hehehehhee...

You bet!

PB.

finboy · Oct 30, 2003, 10:18 AM

And how many of those celebs on the list have used gun violence and controversy to make money and boost ratings? Ultimate hypocrisy -- Hollywood vs. self-defense.

Every one of those talking heads has armed bodyguards.

petehammer · Oct 30, 2003, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by finboy:
Every one of those talking heads has armed bodyguards.

I agree it is hypocritical for action stars to be against gun violence, but then again, most action stars (Arnie, Willis, Stallone) are Republicans.

Here's a sampling of some on the list who apparently (see above) have armed bodyguards:

Richard Dean Anderson - Actor
Ed Asner - Actor
Bob Barker - TV Personality
Candice Bergen - Actress
Richard Belzer - Actor
Boys II Men - Pop Group
Peter Bonerz - Actor
Albert Brooks - Actor

There are, of course, many more. Maybe I should get into the bodyguarding business?

asleep@thewheel · Oct 30, 2003, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by petehammer:
I agree it is hypocritical for action stars to be against gun violence, but then again, most action stars (Arnie, Willis, Stallone) are Republicans.

Here's a sampling of some on the list who apparently (see above) have armed bodyguards:

Richard Dean Anderson - Actor
Ed Asner - Actor
Bob Barker - TV Personality
Candice Bergen - Actress
Richard Belzer - Actor
Boys II Men - Pop Group
Peter Bonerz - Actor
Albert Brooks - Actor

There are, of course, many more. Maybe I should get into the bodyguarding business?

huh? why would any of THEM need bodyguards?

Spliffdaddy · Oct 30, 2003, 10:42 AM

Because others are allowed to own guns.

MacNStein · Oct 30, 2003, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by petehammer:
I agree it is hypocritical for action stars to be against gun violence, but then again, most action stars (Arnie, Willis, Stallone) are Republicans.

Here's a sampling of some on the list who apparently (see above) have armed bodyguards:

Richard Dean Anderson - Actor
Ed Asner - Actor
Bob Barker - TV Personality
Candice Bergen - Actress
Richard Belzer - Actor
Boys II Men - Pop Group
Peter Bonerz - Actor
Albert Brooks - Actor

There are, of course, many more. Maybe I should get into the bodyguarding business?

Don't forget Rosie! Though I'm always trying to.

davesimondotcom · Oct 30, 2003, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by petehammer:
Peter Bonerz - Actor

I didn't believe that there really would be someone who wasn't in the "adult" industry with such a name. So I looked him up in the IMDB.

He's responsible for Police Academy 6. Speaking of something that should be banned...

asleep@thewheel · Oct 30, 2003, 11:05 AM

i thought Peter Bonerz played the dentist in the old old bob newhart show.

armed bodyguards...give me a break.

you don't get famous for shooting actors who aren't even worth approaching for an autograph...

actually there isn't one actor worth approaching for an autograph...god there just actors...nothing special.

petehammer · Oct 30, 2003, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I didn't believe that there really would be someone who wasn't in the "adult" industry with such a name. So I looked him up in the IMDB.

He's responsible for Police Academy 6. Speaking of something that should be banned...

But the list does include Richard Dean Anderson, better known as MacGuyver! (Don't bring up Stargate)

-pete

Lerkfish · Oct 30, 2003, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by asleep@thewheel:
i thought Peter Bonerz played the dentist in the old old bob newhart show.

He was also the director of the series.

Wiskedjak · 12:48 PM

I think it's possible to be for gun control and not be against guns

Gun control doesn't mean getting rid of all guns. It just means having tighter controls over WHO can have them.

finboy · Oct 30, 2003, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I think it's possible to be for gun control and not be against guns

Gun control doesn't mean getting rid of all guns. It just means having tighter controls over WHO can have them.

And evidently, some of the folks who advocate gun control certainly don't advocate gun control for THEM, just for US.

petehammer · Oct 30, 2003, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by finboy:
And evidently, some of the folks who advocate gun control certainly don't advocate gun control for THEM, just for US.

Huh? Do you think Hollywood actors are packing sub-machineguns? If so, you might need the old "reality check."

I do like the US v. THEM argument, its a good way to polarize an argument.

thunderous_funker · Oct 30, 2003, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
I think it's possible to be for gun control and not be against guns

Gun control doesn't mean getting rid of all guns. It just means having tighter controls over WHO can have them.

What are you? Some kind of pot smoking, tree hugging commie malcontent??

How dare you suggest there is fairly large continuum of options between
"only government morality police have guns"<---------->"everybody and anybody can have a howitzer"

petehammer · Oct 30, 2003, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
What are you? Some kind of pot smoking, tree hugging commie malcontent??

How dare you suggest there is fairly large continuum of options between
"only government morality police have guns"<---------->"everybody and anybody can have a howitzer"

Whaaaaaaaat? No! Seriously?

What I love about gun control is when it is suggested that we, say, restrict Uzis, the first words out of the NRA mention a "jack-booted government police state." Apparently, there is no continuum.

thunderous_funker · Oct 30, 2003, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by petehammer:
Whaaaaaaaat? No! Seriously?

What I love about gun control is when it is suggested that we, say, restrict Uzis, the first words out of the NRA mention a "jack-booted government police state." Apparently, there is no continuum.

Exactly. And look how many otherwise reasonable people fall for it.

The NRA ownz politicians and has successfully poisoned all reasonable discourse on the subject. Just look at the hyperbole in this thread.

"Hoffman is against the loophole that lets teens buy assault rifles at Gun Shows??? What next?? Armed and trained thought police stationed at my bedside?? We all know that being against a "loophole" is merely Commie Code for legalizing the drinking of the blood of Christian babies and tearing up the Constitution!!"

finboy · Oct 30, 2003, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by petehammer:
Huh? Do you think Hollywood actors are packing sub-machineguns? If so, you might need the old "reality check."

I do like the US v. THEM argument, its a good way to polarize an argument.

It has nothing to do with polarizing (although it's a good way to respond without really offering anything helpful or anything requiring an understanding of the gun control situation).

They want one thing for themselves and something else for the rest of us. What's more, they've made no secret of it. They picked their stand on the issue, I didn't -- they've "polarized" themselves, in your terminology.

The actors themselves may not pack Uzis, but you can bet your bippy that some of their bodyguards do. Not only do they understand the issue, but they can be hypocrites about it as well.

finboy · Oct 30, 2003, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

"Hoffman is against the loophole that lets teens buy assault rifles at Gun Shows???"

What loophole is that, exactly? No exaggeration there. Assault rifles? You mean fully auto military types (assault rifles), or the "lookalikes" that Feinstein and her toadies have focused on?

Like the Columbine bunch bought all of THEIR hardware at gun shows, right? No, they BROKE THE LAW. Several times. And others broke the law. Law didn't seem to be much of a deterrent to those freaks. But more laws will? How do you know?

As for the "extremes" issue, how exactly do you feel about your freedom of speech? Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? Freedom of association? Take all your feelings about those basic rights and add one that I put in there on the same level -- the right to self-defense. A basic fundamental human right. When we start talking about taking away basic human rights, I don't think you'd find many folks who would assign a "degree" of importance or acceptance to the question.

thunderous_funker · Oct 30, 2003, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by finboy:
What loophole is that, exactly? No exaggeration there. Assault rifles? You mean fully auto military types (assault rifles), or the "lookalikes" that Feinstein and her toadies have focused on?

Like the Columbine bunch bought all of THEIR hardware at gun shows, right? No, they BROKE THE LAW. Several times. And others broke the law. Law didn't seem to be much of a deterrent to those freaks. But more laws will? How do you know?

You just can't seem to help jumping from one extreme to the other can you?

I guess since crimes continue regardless of our laws, we should just not have any. Obviously they do no good.

Yep. All or nothing. Can't be anything in between. Good work, finboy.

petehammer · Oct 30, 2003, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by finboy:
The actors themselves may not pack Uzis, but you can bet your bippy that some of their bodyguards do. Not only do they understand the issue, but they can be hypocrites about it as well.

a)Can you please name the actors on the list who have bodyguards?

b)And of those, who have bodyguards who carry Uzis?

I'll agree that there may be a positive answer to (a), and am sure that no bodyguards are carrying Uzis (I mean, seriously).

finboy · Oct 30, 2003, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by petehammer:
a)Can you please name the actors on the list who have bodyguards?

b)And of those, who have bodyguards who carry Uzis?

I'll agree that there may be a positive answer to (a), and am sure that no bodyguards are carrying Uzis (I mean, seriously).

Why not? The Kennedy compound in Ma. is protected by Uzis. They're legal to own for law enforcement types.

I guess your burden is to demonstrate that there isn't a double standard. You can't.

petehammer · Oct 30, 2003, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by finboy:
Why not? The Kennedy compound in Ma. is protected by Uzis. They're legal to own for law enforcement types.

I guess your burden is to demonstrate that there isn't a double standard. You can't.

Jeepers! I guess my English isn't very good. I'll try and rephrase my question.

Who among the actors on the list owns an Uzi or has a bodyguard with an Uzi?

Unrelated anecdotal evidence isn't helping me understand which actors you are referring to.

finboy · Oct 30, 2003, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by petehammer:
Jeepers! I guess my English isn't very good. I'll try and rephrase my question.

Who among the actors on the list owns an Uzi or has a bodyguard with an Uzi?

Unrelated anecdotal evidence isn't helping me understand which actors you are referring to.

Alternatively, which ones don't have Uzis? You can refute it just as easily as I can defend it. Or not. It's not like they ADVERTISE their dependence upon weapons.

Demonhood · Oct 30, 2003, 08:28 PM

i'd say that the actors are only being hypocritical if they want to ban all weapons yet still have armed bodyguards.

and even then, they can argue that they're lobbying for a goal, and many armed people think they need to be stopped at any cost. so their protection is justified.

or something.

either way, calling someone a hypocrite for wanting some gun control laws while having body guards is misleading.

Wiskedjak · Oct 30, 2003, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by finboy:
They want one thing for themselves and something else for the rest of us. What's more, they've made no secret of it. They picked their stand on the issue, I didn't -- they've "polarized" themselves, in your terminology.

Please explain HOW they want one thing for themselves and something for the rest of us by having armed guards.

First: Who are THEY?
Second: What do they want for themselves?
Third: What do they want for the rest of us? (NOTE: use THEIR words, not YOUR'S)

Lerkfish · Oct 30, 2003, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by finboy:
It has nothing to do with polarizing (although it's a good way to respond without really offering anything helpful or anything requiring an understanding of the gun control situation).

They want one thing for themselves and something else for the rest of us. What's more, they've made no secret of it. They picked their stand on the issue, I didn't -- they've "polarized" themselves, in your terminology.

The actors themselves may not pack Uzis, but you can bet your bippy that some of their bodyguards do. Not only do they understand the issue, but they can be hypocrites about it as well.

I assume the bodyguards would be compliant with gun control laws...I mean, licensed and duly reported to authorities with the right to carry those weapons as part of their employment.
A person could be completely FOR gun control laws and the legal possession of weapons by their bodyguards. I don't see that as being hypocritical, unless you're making some other point I'm missing?

pooka · Oct 30, 2003, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by petehammer:
Who among the actors on the list owns an Uzi or has a bodyguard with an Uzi?

Unrelated anecdotal evidence isn't helping me understand which actors you are referring to.

Doubt any of them do.

Most people find Uzis to be terribly huge pieces of **** and wouldn't keep one around to use as a backup in case their hammer broke. If I ran out of toilet paper I might consider wiping my ass with one but I'd probably just use my hand. Seriously, if I had one, I would sell it to some dumbass who thought it would be cool to own an Uzi. And I'd bend em' over price-wise.

I have no doubt that quite a few "bodyguards" are packin' full-auto Glock 18s (frightening sumbitch) and MP5s. These are damn near impossible for your average citizen to acquire.

Blah. My opinion:

The constant pursuit to ban scary looking stocks = teh dum.
Mag limits = teh dum.
Gun locks = teh dum.
Gun safety courses = not so dum.
Instant gunshow bg checks = not so dum.
Ass****ing fines for firearm violations = not so dum.

petehammer · Oct 31, 2003, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by finboy:
Alternatively, which ones don't have Uzis?

Well, by that logic, all of them have tanks too. Normally you assume someone doesn't have something until you show that they do.

For example, I now have a Ferrari because you don't know otherwise.

So, yes, the burden is on you to back up the claims of their bodyguards/actors themselves have Uzis.

Innocent until proven guilty.