Rambo Sly Stallone is for AWB

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am a big fan of his and I am very disappointed that he is pro AWB, however as someone previously noted here a lot of movie people are in that lot. Overall it does not really matter because I still like his movies, and his political stance is irrelevant to me. I would say that if an actor or writer or director really and truly felt that guns were bad, then they are absolute hypocrites unless the refuse to act, direct, or write any piece that has firearms in it.
 
I'm disappointed as well. I love me some Stallone movies, but this recent news is quite the bummer. Oh well....there's still Die Hard around.
 
I am a big fan of his and I am very disappointed that he is pro AWB, however as someone previously noted here a lot of movie people are in that lot. Overall it does not really matter because I still like his movies, and his political stance is irrelevant to me. I would say that if an actor or writer or director really and truly felt that guns were bad, then they are absolute hypocrites unless the refuse to act, direct, or write any piece that has firearms in it.

They can have guns in their movies as long as the movie portrays guns as being bad. At least that's how they should think when they honestly believe that guns are evil and require legislation. Anything other than that is just being a hack at best, selling out their values for money, but is better labeled as being a hypocrite.

I can't even think of a movie that portrays guns as evil. Other than documentaries like Bowling for Columbine. And even that movie portrays actual guns as sexy and cool, instead of being blood-soaked implements of murder (although it's overall message is that they are.)

Only in modern-day reporting do we see the consistent message that guns are "scary" and thus evil. (Like in the common pictures of scary-looking guns featured in news reporting.)
 
all we need is some Josey Wales
 

Attachments

  • movies-the-outlaw-josey-wales.jpg
    movies-the-outlaw-josey-wales.jpg
    134.7 KB · Views: 0
Actors play roles for money.

I guarantee you that Sly didn't accept the role of Rambo because he liked guns, he did it because the pay was good and it was work.

Actors play serial killers, doesn't mean they like to kill people in real life. Actors play doctors, doesn't mean they have a medical degree. Actors play pilots, doesn't mean they can really fly a plane. I could go on and on.

My point is who cares whether an actor is pro or anti gun, their opinions mean nothing to me and just because I may not agree with their political views does not stop me from wanting to watch movies.

Actually some of it matters if you think about it.

If Bruce Lee, Steven Segal, or Chuck Norris didn't really know martial arts/self defense, that kinda defeats the purpose right? I would not be a fan if they were against self-defense and hand-to-hand combat.

If an actor in a biker movie is against riding motorcycles, or an actress playing a musician/singer but hates music in real life, wouldn't all that be an oxymoron?

Some roles can be acted out easily without much issue, as in medical roles, pilots, etc as we see on movies or tv sitcoms. An actor or actress can only act so much, but to the fans it can make a difference if that actor had views that are totally opposite to the roles they played.

Growing up, Stallone has been one of my favorite actors ever since the Rambo series, Over the top, and a few others. Now hearing that he's anti-gun after making all these movies involving violence about guns, many people will see him as a hypocrite.
 
Right.

7.62x39 is in a similar performance class as the 30-30. The 30-30 has taken more deer than Carter has liver pills.
Funny but true. The 7.62x39 is plenty good enough for deer. Funny though how the same guys that are saying what a deadly round the .223 is don't know that it isn't legal to hunt with in more than a few places because it isn't considered to be an adequate round for hunting medium game.
 
I never was a fan to begin with...

When they gave him a speaking role you could barely understand a word he was saying.
 
When celebrities open their mouths the world listens. This is a fact. It may be a sad fact, but nevertheless, it is a fact. So with two celebrities talking about gun control in the media today, it is interesting to take a peek and find out if either of them makes any sense.

In comments to reporters, Die Hard star Bruce Willis noted that gun control laws pose a direct threat to wider freedoms under the bill of rights:

“I think that you can’t start to pick apart anything out of the Bill of Rights without thinking that it’s all going to become undone,” Willis told The Associated Press.

”If you take one out or change one law, then why wouldn’t they take all your rights away from you?” the star added.
The 57-year-old actor also commented that in his opinion strict gun control legislation would do little to prevent mass shootings in the future:

“It’s a difficult thing and I really feel bad for those families,” he said. “I’m a father and it’s just a tragedy. But I don’t know how you legislate insanity. I don’t know what you do about it. I don’t even know how you begin to stop that.”

Now consider an opposing opinion from comedian Chris Rock, who today took to the podium at a press conference for the “Demand A Plan” movement, which is lobbying to support the Obama administration’s proposals for strict gun control laws.

Rock said:
“I am just here to support the President of the United States. The President is our boss, but he is also… you know, the President and the First Lady are kinda like the Mom and the Dad of the country. And when your Dad says something you listen, and if you don’t it can bite you on the ass later on. So, I’m here to support the President.”

SORRY CHRIS BUT THE POTUS IS NOT OUR "BOSS" HE WORKS FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THIS NOT A MONARCHY OR DICTATORSHIP!

I saw this on Facebook and thought it was interesting, in regards to this discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top