Tom Selleck Should Be the NRA’s Official Spokesman

The above confrontation between actor Tom Selleck and [former] chat show host Rosie O’Donnell appeared in 1999. Tom is still a working actor and an NRA Board member. The National Rifle Association (NRA) should put the incipient septuagenarian front-and-center in the current “debate” over gun control. Charlton Heston was the best thing to happen to the NRA in his day. Until and unless the NRA can find a younger more ethnically-appealing spokesman or woman, it’s Tom’s turn. Would CBS kill Selleck’s current vehicle Blue Bloods? Certainly. I can’t speak for the actor or the hundreds of people who depend on the show for their livelihood, but I reckon it would be worth it.

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

64 Responses to Tom Selleck Should Be the NRA’s Official Spokesman

  1. avatarCA_Chris says:

    I am so glad that talk show ended. O’Donnell is so obnoxious and ignorant, and like many of her peers she is proud of her ignorance.

  2. avatarLance says:

    Not 100% sure its a must it be nice. WL is dong a good job now.

  3. avatarDrVino says:

    It is very difficult to come to a divisive topic without preconceived notions and opinions.

    • avatarRon Burgundy says:

      There’s a difference between coming with preconceived notions and opinions and squealing like a pig on its way to the slaughter.

  4. avatarRob says:

    Who could argue with Tom Selleck?

  5. avatarTRUTHY says:

    WL, for $900,000 a year, is no bargain. There are far more eloquent speakers that don’t come across like a crazy John McCain twin.

  6. avatarWA_2A says:

    As NRA is the gun rights community’s largest, most well-known voice, it’s important they are successful in their mission. Unfortunately they have an “evil incarnate,” out-of-touch, OFWG, gun-nut image in the media’s eyes, which is not helping us in any way. Every libtard and left-wing editorial associates gun rights with them in a negative way and if this continues they will only be counterproductive to us. We need to change this image and relate to masses.

    It might even benefit us to detach from the GOP; yes, they’re our only friends with lots of funding and media attention but every day I wonder if they’re actually friends. Mitt Romney certainly wasn’t; he wouldn’t support our interests. FOX news is not an avid supporter of gun rights either.

    Furthermore I refuse to associate with a party with such 16th century views on social issues; that’s why I became a Libertarian.

    • avatarSwarf says:

      Yes we do need to change the popular image of gun owners. Call people “libtard” more. That’s sure to help.

    • avatarJamie in ND says:

      If you vote Democrat you’re voting against your 2A rights. That’s the truth whether you want to believe it or not. Remind me again which party is balls out for a new AW ban,mag cap limit,amount of ammo possession limit,appointing anti-gun judges & forced buy back/confiscation law? Oh that’s right it’s the Democrat party of America, you know, the ones looking out for the “little man”. You liberal gun owners & independents “need” to wake the hell up ASAP!

  7. avatarMatt in SD says:

    While TS is a righteous member of the mustached mafioso, of which i belong, and would no doubt be exponentially better than who we have now, I still like Samuel L. Jackson better. :)

    • avatarRob says:

      I think a two pronged approach would be best. Mix the controlled angry as hell Jackson with the calm firmness of Selleck and it would be unbeatable.

    • avatarLeo338 says:

      Did you happen to see the videos Samuel L Jackson made for Obama during this last campaign? He would never align himself with the NRA. I don’t know why people keep bringing up his name. Where did this idea come from and why do they continue to believe it would even be possible?

      • avatarWiregrass says:

        They like his soliloquy from Pulp Fiction I suppose.

      • avatarWinston says:

        He made a recent comment to the media where he said the problem wasn’t guns (around which he grew up) but people “who aren’t taught the value of life.” He’s also said before that he’s a gun owner. However he also said “We need to stop deranged people from getting access to guns.” So signs are he’s really for some kind of registration/permitting.

        Source: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/12/18/Samuel-L-Jackson-gun-control

        Relative to other mainstream celebrities he’s practically a new Charlton Heston, but that’s only because everyone else is so anti-gun.

  8. avatarDavid-p says:

    If he could disagree with Rosie and not be eaten he has my vote.

  9. avatarDonS says:

    Would CBS kill Selleck’s current vehicle Blue Bloods? Certainly.

    I don’t know about that. Wahlberg’s character in that show seemed to have a pretty responsible conversation with his kid about guns. In that scene, the producers / studio certainly don’t come off as totally anti-gun.

  10. avatarSanchanim says:

    Well that was an interesting interview. Tom was so polite, despite the prodding from Rossie, although to her credit she also apologized, but that was after the fact.
    He is a good speaker, and quiet, and he tries to formulate his words to frame the argument in the best light possible. He certainly had valid talking points, and despite that Rossie kept on pushing the same agenda in a loop. This is pretty much the gun control advocates way of dealing with things.
    But if only one life could be saved they say, well lets apply that to everything in life, like cars or pools, or baseball bats.
    I for one would not have an issue with him being the spokes person. I am not sure if it is even an option, but surely it would be interesting. I have been reading the mass media, and it is depressing. My take on this is similar to Robert’s take. Anything but a complete dismantlement of arms in America, or disbanding the NRA would not help. People will take anything the NRA says the wrong way. They will simply look to spin it that way. It is sad really…
    There is so much that needs to be done, but everyone is shoring up their positions and nothing will get done. The NRA has stayed away as much as possible talking about an AWB. They phrase statements like we don’t think it will help. It isn’t exactly saying no, but it is also an attempt to frame the argument that we want the opposition to prove to us that the AWB helped prior and would help again. Instead of defending the position the gun control advocates attack the NRA, and drag out the same loop argument, which of course we can show made little change, but it is the repetition they are hoping will stick.
    I can only think that by the time anything gets to the congress, emotions will have moved on, and things will simply die off. Americans tend to have a short memory, and they will move on the latest shocking news of the day. We as gun owners however do not. By keeping the pressure up we can make sure our representatives know exactly where we stand and will block and legislation.

  11. avatarJohn F says:

    When SHE said muskets to defend against the British, That was an OPENING for Tom to say ASAULT RIFLES are the MUSKET of modern times.
    The 2nd Amendment is there to Protect the USA from Tyranny from abroad and from within.

  12. avatargej says:

    where did that meme come in? Is it even possible to fire a semi auto that fast?

    • avatarDonS says:

      5 rounds per second? Sure, as long as you don’t necessarily care about hitting paper at 100 yards. Bump-firing is awfully fast. (Mag dump starts at ~1:03)

  13. avatarMike S says:

    Rosie arguing that the 2A only applies to muskets, then turning around and invoking the 1st on the set of her television show was f***ing hilarious.

    • avatarAPBTFan says:

      Funny isn’t it? They claim the 2nd doesn’t cover modern firearms because they weren’t around when it was written yet proclaim the 1st covers radio, television and the internet.

  14. avatarTommy Knocker says:

    RF Selleck is almost 68. He is older than Wayne unless your watching reruns of Magnum PI. He also is not as pro gun as u might think. I would not mind a change but consider how you hand the reigns over to someone new while in full gallop. We need someone articulate and with a solid constitutionist framework mastered. Visualize Mark Levin.

    • avatarSanchanim says:

      LMAO OMG put Mark and Michael Savage up there, it would be hilarious!
      Now get off my phone you big dummy!!! lol
      I would die laughing if he were spokesman, imagine if there were protestors, he would probably bring them up on stage and dismantle them right there…

    • avatarmountocean says:

      Also notice how he insisted multiple times that he is NOT a spokesman for NRA. If he doesn’t want it he doesn’t want it.

  15. avatarHAVE GUN says:

    If Mr. Selleck could be persuaded to take a prominate roll in support of the NRA, I am all for it.

    There is no downside to that.

  16. avatarJosh says:

    Im afraid Levin is way to radical to appeal to any libtards. That said I agree with most of his views and enjoy his show.

    • avatarWinston says:

      I am not liberal, but I would encourage you to not use works like “libtards” or other derisive terms to describe those on the left. For one, there are many pro-2A liberals whose existence is not as tortured as you might think. They simply have an interest in protecting and guarding civil rights, among which they count the Second Amendment. The ACLU might not, but many left-leaning individuals do. Second, we wish to expand our numbers. That is to say, we want more gun owners and more pro-2A citizens. Writing off virtually half the country will not help us accomplish this goal.

      I share your frustration with most left-of-center politics, but individuals are not the enemy. Ignorance and inexperience with guns are.

  17. avatarRoss says:

    Yes Tom would be an excellent choice

  18. avatarguzzimike says:

    What I took away from watching the video (and a multitude of others) is that the firearms/2A folk almost always seem to remain calm and collected in these discusssions, debates, interviews or whatever you want to call them. Meanwhile the anti folk go off the rails on a regular basis.

  19. avatarTman1966 says:

    Here’s a great candidate for NRA spokesman:

    • avatarSanchanim says:

      It’s all good! Actually we need him in Congress or something… VP maybe, now that would be crazy, get him to go on a conservative ticket, and when people say no, we can call them racist!!!
      I really wish he would get his word out more. For those in the black community, I am not one, but this is so refreshing.. I really like his vids..

  20. avatarTman1966 says:

    Actually, the wrong video popped up. Check out “MrColionNoir” on YouTube and click on his recent post, “Why does anyone need an assault rifle”

  21. avatarBiofire says:

    We need a guy with his charisma and name recognition. Then, he needs to be schooled on gun research so he can speak from the facts and explain why research shows that AWBs do not work.

  22. avatarnd says:

    Or Chuck Norris. Lol. Nobody beats Chuck

  23. avatarCCDWGuy says:

    I would vote for Nikki Goeser as a spokesperson for the NRA. She would flip out the left not only with her story but with all she has done for gun rights.

  24. avatarSkyler says:

    He succeeded in making her look like a complete fool.

  25. avatarRalph says:

    I wouldn’t wish that job on anybody. The left will hate him and you guys will turn on him in a heartbeat.

  26. avatarTeddy Ruxxpen says:

    Tom Selleck is a douche. Any replacement needs to be opposite of OFWG. I’m for MrColionNoir but, it’ll never happen.

  27. avatarCasey T says:

    I think they should go younger. Personally, I’d like a veteran too because they have instant credibility and if the media attacks them, they are attacking all veterans then.

  28. avatarMr. Grimm says:

    Whenever someone trots out that line about the 2A not meaning modern weapons all that goes through my mind is that, by their logic, the 1A doesn’t apply to television, radio, or the internet because they didn’t exist at the writing of the Bill of Rights. I wanna see someone throw that right in a gun grabbers face on national TV and watch them choke on it.

  29. avatarJosh says:

    +1 That is a very good point

  30. avatarTim says:

    I am very liberal socially and gun wise. And fiscal conservative. And a NRA member democrat. Tom’s discussion is exactly what we need. We need to make sure that crazies and criminals can’t buy guns legally and that everyone keeps their guns locked up (except the one they plan to use for home protection). My kids just called the cops on someone my son knew from HS 2 years ago as a louser who was stocking his mother’s house. Tell me I don’t need 2nd Amendment Protection against the criminals in society.

  31. avatarG. J Pattee says:

    I disagree with Tom. He is an ignorant man who knows not what he speaks of. I would like for him to see the pictures of all the young children who just recently got shot with their bodies blown to pieces and see if he is still 100% okay with all this NRA nonsense. America is unbelievable.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.