Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) and gun phobia

[springmom]

I don't think guns bear the same relevancy to people who can afford a mansion and 24/7 bodyguards though, but I hope you're right.

I'm totally at a loss for what wealth has to do with anything here. It doesn't matter whether you're dirt poor or one of the Rockefellers. The right to keep and bear arms, is the same. Here you have a British movie actor, growing up into manhood, and learning to enjoy firearms. How on earth does him being wealthy have anything to do with that????

Besides, to link to another thread that was on here lately about Angelina Jolie, actor who have the public spotlight and who talk positively about firearms are a boon for our side. We are thankful for people like Charlton Heston...why can't the next generations start taking some of that "goodwill ambassador for firearms" on themselves?

Springmom

 

[SMLE]

I'm totally at a loss for what wealth has to do with anything here. It doesn't matter whether you're dirt poor or one of the Rockefellers.

Unfortunately, it DOES matter when you can afford to hire others to do your dirty work for you and let the peasants go to "heck". Just because Radcliffe used guns for this movie and may have enjoyed it, doesn't mean he will be any less anti-gun or elitist. We have plenty of hollywierd types in the US who have no problem making money carrying guns on screen but who don't want the "little people" to have any.

I sincerely hope that he would have a more favorable outlook on firearms, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Joe Demko]

Just because Radcliffe used guns for this movie and may have enjoyed it, doesn't mean he will be any less anti-gun or elitist.

For the benefit of my dim, sub-standard brain, do please go back and quote the parts of the article where Radcliffe is revealed to be either elitist or anti-gun. I guess it's coz I'm stoopud, but I missed those bits. All I read was that he was fearful of handling guns, but got over it.

 

[springmom]

All I read was that he was fearful of handling guns, but got over it.

We're being stoopid together, then, Joe, because that's what I read too. And from where I sit, that's a good thing to have happened.

Springmom

 

[Rachen]

All I read was that he was fearful of handling guns, but got over it.

Only one Briton, but still, remarkable. Remember last year how they reacted to that poor little .22 LR round found on a doorstep? The majority have already been brainwashed to hate guns.

However, a recent video from NRAVIDEOS show a massive protest in UK, led by people who wants their gun rights back. Very inspiring video, but they still have so much to do.

BTW, NRAVIDEOS' Myspace account was terminated, no doubt by the owners of Myspace. So much for free speech, huh, Myspace?

 

[Joe Demko]

The video in question was actually several years old and had more to do with "rural rights" than gun rights.

 

[SMLE]

Joe, Springmom;
Your point is well taken. There is no point in the article that says he was, or is, anti-gun. BUT There is also no mention of him being pro-gun either. Until I hear that he has joined a shooting club and applied for a firearms license or AT LEAST made a pro firearms public statement, I will not let him off the hook. And I do really, really HOPE that he is pro-gun. I think he would be a great spokesperson for shooting sports if he wanted to.

 

[springmom]

Maybe Hugh Laurie can take him shooting sometime when he's back home

Springmom

 

[Joe Demko]

Until I hear that he has joined a shooting club and applied for a firearms license or AT LEAST made a pro firearms public statement, I will not let him off the hook.

If I may be so bold as to reference the wise and level-headed hso:

Not being vocally for something doesn't make you automatically against it.

There are plenty of THR members that do nothing more than come here and read and vote. Not being vocal supporters of RKBA here and in the real world doesn't make them antis.

There are plenty of THR members that come here and beat their chest about RKBA while in the real world they don't do anything more than vote. That doesn't make them antis.

There are plenty of THR members that don't do anything. They don't even vote. That doesn't make them antis.

If a celebrity doesn't advocate for RKBA it doesn't make them an anti.
If they're vocally against RKBA that makes them an anti that warrants attention.
If they are just against RKBA it makes them an anti, just like any other anti.

 

[SMLE]

hso is indeed wise and I agree completely, BUT:

"Not being vocally against something doesn't make you automatically for it..."

We can go on like this for days, but lets not. I yield. Peace.