We’re all kinds of pro-gun around here. We see no reason why anyone should discriminate against an American seeking to exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. But if someone doesn’t want people carrying a firearm on their property it’s their right to ban guns from their property. Just as it’s our right not to visit them if that’s the way they want to be about it. By the same token, if a magazine (not clip) wishes to exclude pictures of guns from their beauty contest, that’s perfectly legal and, in People’s case, entirely predictable. I mean, it’s not as if it was . . .

a “women of a certain age showing their primary method of personal defense” contest. And if it was, I’d be binning at least one of the shots sent in by Bob Ferris for his wife’s poor trigger discipline. (Notice how Sandra picks up the gun at the end of the report.) Still, it’s good (if weird) to see CNN take up their case with only a modicum of gentle ribbing. I especially liked the slam against the dead tree picture book; the couple aren’t canceling their subscription to People because they don’t have one. Nice one.

Recommended For You

35 Responses to OMG! People Beauty Contest Bans Gun Photos! OMG!

  1. And Sony should ban guns from any films they finance. I don’t own any SONY stock, and the other studios could use some help.

    The ban does imply, really, that someone might unfairly win the contest simply by including a gun in their photo. Nice.

      • Please don’t use that word “procedure”. I have been into a lot of Doctors offices lately, and that word just freaks me out, sort of like when the doctor puts on those thin white latex gloves, and tells you to “bend over”

  2. Their magazine their rules.
    Complaining about it is as ridiculous as people complaining about the comment moderating done at this site.

  3. Eh. It’s a free country. If they don’t want guns in their photo contests, and then they don’t have to have them. Private Property rights and all that.

    I do wonder, though, just out of morbid curiosity what they would do with the photo of someone in the contest that was carrying concealed during but only found out after they had their picture taken.

    My guess: pull a Watts and piss and moan about how nobody got hurt after being shown how objectively dumb their worldview is (and just how vulnerable they truly are). Oh, and chuck them out of the contest, too.

  4. We should band the “no guns allowed” decals on store windows because the sight of anything gun related make some people uncomfortable. 😉

    • Do you not remember the Chicago politician who wanted to restrict concealed carry, because all those red circled Beretta signs would upset people?

  5. I’d be binning at least one of the shots sent in by Bob Ferris for his wife’s poor trigger discipline.

    Look at the shot where he picks up the S&W 686…the one that looks like it’s pointed at a camera man’s legs. His finger goes right to the trigger.

  6. But I’d wager they’ll allow photos of somebody sitting behind the wheel of a car, swimming in a pool, sipping martinis or preparing dinner with sharp, dangerous knives.

  7. Uh, would anyone who cares what People Magazine does please raise their hand?

    Didn’t think so. Thank you; carry on.

  8. For some reason Ursala Andress in “The 10th Victim” comes to mind, with various guns. No guns as the first Bond Girl in “Dr. No,” but still a win. The contest above? Does it really matter? I do relish the irony, that we’ve apparently traded Israeli (and Swedish) Models for, well, something less. And none of them have guns. There is something to be said for variety amid the unrelenting gun bits, and gardening tips just wouldn’t do. Really.

    Bob and Sandra subscribe to People Magazine? Really?

  9. Robert. I frankly do not care what People does. However, I do know how we can counteract and bring back some beauty of the female persuasion to these here environs. Just as we compile gun support pics, maybe it is time to begin a “girls of the gun” pic gallery. Something available at the site, which readers can, if so they choose contribute to, without having the photos attached to stories on the main page.

  10. If SCOTUS rules that an employer must provide birth control and morning after pills in health insurance, regardless of the 1st amendment’s religious freedom protection, the case is strong that business cannot deny a citizen their second amendment right as the business has no rights.

    • Huh?

      Sorry, I’m a bit confused. Can you elaborate on that analogy a bit? If I’m reading that correctly your making the inference between employee healthcare (which provides birth control) and people who enter their photo into a contest (via People Magazine) – which doesn’t make an “employee/employer” relationship..

  11. Isn’t “People” that brightly colored fluff stuck in the center of the Sunday paper
    that I toss out with all the rest of the junk ads and such?

    I think my Grandma used to read that. And Readers Digest.

  12. This doesn’t really bother me, it’s kinda like how there’s more than a halfway decent chance I’m armed as I sip coffee and borrow Starbucks’ free wifi.
    Oh and millions of teenage girls in thier Justin Bieber t shirts read people, as they cry to some Taylor swift song that goes like this (blah blah blah, I hate men).

Leave a Reply

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