Gun Tweet of the Day: Juxtaposition Edition

Actor and heartthrob George Clooney got himself arrested outside the Sudanese Embassy while protesting the humanitarian situation in southern Sudan. Emily Miller jumped over strategically places hurdles to register a legal firearm in order to protect herself in one of the country’s most violent cities. Anyone see a problem here? Anyone?

comments

  1. avatar Tom says:

    You go back, Jack, do it again. We’ll turn them round and round. You go back, Jack, do it again.

    This is all very normal, and why this country is in the state it is in.

  2. avatar CarlosT says:

    Meh. DC’s gun laws are moronic but let’s not act like Clooney should have gotten the firing squad for trespassing.

  3. avatar Mark says:

    Bail is not a fine related to the alleged offense, it’s a judgment of flight risk. Milller’s snark just makes her look ignorant.

    1. avatar Not Too Eloquent says:

      Hush, she’s gorgeous.

  4. avatar ST says:

    Considering crooks are legally empowered to NOT register their firearms, this falls under the “obvious as the sun” category. Then again, its good to remind the masses that $465 gun registration fees don’t exist to fight crime.

  5. avatar LeftShooter says:

    It strikes me that the $465 Ms. Miller spent was likely the best “publicity spend” she will ever make. She should leave it at that.

  6. avatar Ralph says:

    Clooney was arrested because a top chieftan in Sudan just heard about “The Men Who Stare at Goats” and thought Clooney was checking out his girlfriend.

    1. avatar Ropingdown says:

      “was checking out his wives.” Fixed it. laugh.

  7. avatar Ropingdown says:

    Clooney’s smart. Given the choice between asserting a view at the Sudanese Embassy or at a D.C. City Council meeting, he made the choice offering greater likelihood of some decent result.

  8. avatar APBTFan says:

    I get so tired of these celebs that champion causes overseas as if we don’t have domestic issues that could benefit their attention.

    1. avatar I_Like_Pie says:

      I can’t say if I had millions of millions of dollars that I would do any differently. You want to help people and others still get upset. Spend it on blow and people get upset, you do good things for a local community and people don’t care.

      Can’t win for losing.

      There is a real problem in many parts of the world that need attention that big business isn’t going to waste time or image on….Can’t really fault the guy for trying to prevent the slaughter of what has totaled to 300k people so far in Sudan.

      I am sure that he could feed people here in the USA taking entitlements. It would be a good cause I suppose. WE are the ones giving our people aid when you think about it.

    2. avatar Stuart says:

      people only have so much spare time. It is up to them to decide how to spend it.

    3. avatar Silver says:

      Most celebs, like Clooney, are leftists…why would they want to help a country they hate so much?

  9. avatar C. S. P. Schofield says:

    While I agree that the fee to register a gun is too high ($0 sounds about right to me, but I’m a crank), I’m far from sure what the Clooney arrest has to say to it. Considering all the nitwit causes actors take up, one who actually protests a real ongoing atrocity SHOULD get some kind of discount on his fine, if only for the novelty.

  10. avatar mikeb302000 says:

    I see a big problem here. Comparing things that have no relation to one another. That’s a problem.

    And of course the unanimous approval of such nonsense by the commenters.

    1. avatar Bill says:

      No, Mike, you are the problem. It is because of people like you who think they have the right to tell other people how to live, what they can own and how they can use their property that we find ourselves in the dire straights of today.

      1. avatar mikeb302000 says:

        Oh, is that right, Bill? Do you feel that way about the speed limit and all the other things you’re constrained to accept living in the society of your fellow men? Or is it just when you gun rights are threatened with minor inconvenience, which is all I’m talking about, assuming your a lawful gun owner?

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          When are you headed off to Nevada to shoot the children? Oops. I meant shoot with the children.

        2. avatar mikeb302000 says:

          That’s funny Ralph about shooting the kids. I really did laugh. But, Imagine what some of your whiny friends would have to say if I made a joke like that.

        3. avatar Stuart says:

          so, where in the Constitution does it talk about a right to have personal transportation?

          Oh, wait it doesn’t. Yes again, Mike, you are wrong.

        4. avatar mikeb302000 says:

          So the reason you accept the speed limit or any other government demand is because it’s not in the constitution. Bullshit. You pick and choose, and often it makes not sense and lacks consistency.

        5. avatar Stuart says:

          the reason I accept the speed limit is because it is the law, something which appears to escape your attention.

          Mind you, everything I see you write supports the supposition that you are a self-serving publicity whore.

        6. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

          Whoa, what happened to the editors’ flaming policy?

          Isn’t gratuitous personal opinions about other commenters considered flaming anymore?

        7. avatar Stuart says:

          it’s not flaming when it’s true.

        8. avatar Stuart says:

          I obey the speed limits because that is the law, which according to you is fine, except when it is an area that you personally disagree with, in which case arbitrary and illegal restrictions are A-OK.

          What does that make you? A hypocrite and, apparently, a publicity whore. So that’s another two things to add to your resume: as well as a troll, you are a hypocrite and an attention whore. Good job!

        9. avatar Stuart says:

          “So the reason you accept the speed limit or any other government demand is because it’s not in the constitution”

          Wrong. I accept speed limits because they are the law. Restrictions on firearm ownership are unconstitutional, which the Supreme Court has consistently upheld.

        10. avatar mikeb302000 says:

          C’mon Stuart, what about Justice Scalia’s approval of “reasonable restrictions.” You disagree with them, I suppose? You take “shall not be infringed” all the way, do you?

          And since you love to mention the Constitution so much, what about that part that says “all men are created equal,” but the “all men” part didn’t mean all of them. Then later it did. How does that work in your fair-minded and unbiased thinking?

        11. avatar Stuart says:

          there’s no point trying to have a discussion with a troll. So I won’t.

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      Comparing things that have no relation to one another. That’s a problem.

      Fine. I won’t compare you to a summer’s day . . . or an intelligent human being.

  11. avatar GS650G says:

    A woman in DC actually writes a series exposing the sham procedures they have for getting a gun and posters here give her a hard time. With friends like these…….

    1. avatar Not Too Eloquent says:

      A “hot, single” woman. Corrected it for you.

  12. avatar pastubbs says:

    Wait since when was there a gun registry and $465 fcuk that’s another gun good thing I live in TN. America hellz yeah well at least the free part of America.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email