Reader Matthew Howe writes:
I once had the pleasure of working with Julianne Moore and can attest that she is a very nice person. For a major movie star she’s down to earth, charming and accessible. We were the scrubby local crew shooting a PSA with The Big Star and she treated us all like fellow professionals. In fact it was her hair stylist, not Ms. Moore, who was the diva who gave us all the problems. Which is why it’s so sad to see her embarrass herself when it comes to the subject of gun control. Look, I’m sure she means well. I’m sure that in her heart of hearts she thinks that partnering with Everytown for Gun Safety is a way she can both protect the Second Amendment and make society safer. She is, of course, wrong . . .
Ms. Moore is a founder of the Everytown Creative Council, an offshoot of Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety. On their web page, which features a list of celebrities who share the Everytown vision, they list a few organizing principles:
We believe we have a responsibility to help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people – including convicted criminals, domestic abusers, stalkers, terrorists and people with dangerous mental illness.
This, of course, is a call for universal background checks even though recent mass shooters, whether of the mentally ill or terrorist flavor, have virtually all passed background checks or found easy ways to avoid them. And criminals? Please. They love expanded background checks because anything that makes it harder for the law-abiding to arm themselves makes their life less risky.
We believe in gun safety – that we have a responsibility to store guns safely, unloaded and out of the reach of children.
Fatal gun accidents are, statistically speaking, extremely rare. These creative types would do more good to encourage people to put fencing and gates around swimming pools. Not to mention that there is research showing that gun storage laws actually make people less safe, not more. Gun storage laws essentially ignore the self-defense aspect of bearing arms. A gun in the safe isn’t much good at 2:00 am when some meth-head is kicking your front door in.
We believe everyone has a role to play in reducing gun violence and that every action, no matter how small, helps bring us closer to a future free from gun violence.
In screenwriting, reveals are important. Here’s where we reveal that this whole effort is just more shallow, Hollywood, we-must-do-something, feel- ood pap. I hate to be the one to spoil the party, but there’s no future free from gun violence. As long as there are guns, some idiot will use them for ill.
But why single out gun violence? Why not call for a future free from all violence? Does a murder victim care if he’s been shot or bashed over the head with a 2×4? Of course not. Violence has been part of the human condition since there has been a human condition and that seems unlikely to change any time soon. Governments and individuals have been known to do terrible things to innocents, and that’s precisely why the Founders officially recognized the natural right to bear arms. And that’s precisely the reason we fight to stop people like Laura Dern and Billy Crudup from limiting or eliminating it.
We believe the creative community has an opportunity to use our communications skills and the power of culture to galvanize many more Americans in the gun violence prevention movement.
“Gun-violence prevention movement.” Now there’s a thinly veiled rebranding of “gun-control” if there ever was one. But if they’re serious about preventing “gun violence,” I assume buses of celebrities are loading up as we speak to visit inner-city Baltimore and the south side of Chicago to hold encounter groups with the criminal elements there to try to change their violent ways. Because that’s where the murders are.
Or maybe they could start a massive, Hollywood-financed suicide intervention program, because that’s where the majority of “gun deaths,” as they define them, are. But hey, that stuff is hard. So instead they put up a nice web page, lie about how many people are part of the Everytown, and push for policies that do nothing except harass lawful gun owners.
Why the disconnect? Because like many in the emotion-driven, we-must-do-something anti-gun movement, Ms. Moore doesn’t really know what she’s talking about. She hasn’t really researched it. Hasn’t really gotten up close and personal with the data, arguments or numbers. I’d guess she may have read a few articles in the Times, listened to the echo-chamber chatter of her anti-gun friends, and decided to parlay her celebrity into what she considers action. If she has actually researched it, clearly she’s only looked at one side of the argument.
Evidence? Check out this earlier statement of Moore’s on gun control:
As actors, we are citizens first so we believe in the Constitution and the Second Amendment. But 92 percent of the people in the United States are in favor of background checks, too, so I don’t feel like I’m in the minority. I definitely feel like I’m in the majority here.
If Ms. Moore truly understood the Constitution, she would understand that, outside of enough popular will to amend the document itself, what the majority wants doesn’t matter. The Bill of Rights exists specifically to protect the individual from the majority.
My advice for Ms. Moore: stick to acting. Leave the gun control advocacy to those of us who take the time to really try to understand it. Because what you have to say on the issue is as embarrassing as starring in Assassins.
Moore’s the pity.
Pity her Moore?
Moore or less…
Infringe no Moore
Roger that, K!
Moore common sense is needed.
JWM, that’s just Paineful.
JohnL, something Moore was needed?
No Moore, please.
Thus quoth the raven, never Moore!
No Moore what?
No moore moorons like Moore.
She needed Moore thought on her gun control stance.
Moore Ginger the better. ?
Moore than a feeling.
Yet a goodly number of these so called Hollywood betters (better than the rest of us) will continue to make movies that employ guns as major props in their artistic endeavors.
One way to counteract their misguided political endeavors is to boycott their artistic products and publicize why they are being boycotted.
If they’re going to take a stand for gun control then they shouldn’t be using guns as props in their movies and Hollywood shouldn’t be making movies using guns as props.
A ten percent if ever there was one.
She should go back to screwing Dirk Diggler on camera…….
Wow … 92% … they added a significant figure so it *must* be a credible (or is that credulous?) number!
It used to be 98%, so I guess that means fewer people want background checks.
That there is the best comment that I have seen on the Internet so far this year!
Ms. Moore,
If 92% of Americans support (with gusto no less) a man’s right to be free of sexual frustration, would that legitimize laws compelling women to relieve men’s sexual frustration on demand (e.g. legalize rape)?
“…that we have a responsibility to store guns safely, unloaded and out of the reach of children.”
Fine. Buy me a safe, in fact, a couple safes (need a couple quick access, at least 1 large one, and maybe a dedicated ammo safe. I’ll store my guns and ammo in them, give you a hug, and we’ll sing songs together. That’d go a hell of a long way towards the compromise you’all are always barking about. Instead of demonization, descrimination, insults, marginalization, hate, more insults, and confiscation, that you normally try using to get me to do what you want.
For once give ME something.
Hollywood celebs that use guns in movies ought to be spanked in public when they support gun control.
I volunteer to spank Ms. Moore.
Oh, behave!
Moore is meh…mayhap that flick where she loses her mind isn’t “acting”.
If they are so opposed to gun violence, why do they still take on characters that use guns? Billy Crudup in Blood Ties? Liam Neeson in almost any movie as of late. Julianne Moore…Children of Men? So many other titles to choose from with any of these numptys.
Why don’t they return any profits from these movies and put their money where their mouth is?
The fallacy of feel good gun control is the illusion of effecting change. Much easier to communicate with law abiders instead of criminals. Instead of gun control why are we not responding with Criminal Control. With the resources available (LEO, DEA, WXYZ ?) would be easier to implement.
If gun control advocates say no, we want to badger law abiders, it’s the evidence people of the gun need to point and laugh at them.
Really tired of Hollywood “Stars” who have never been to gun range, never held a gun off screen, much less ever shot one, telling me how it works. Already know how it works, they hand you a script and you spout what is on it. Don’t need to fully understand it or that 99% of what spouted is false. Not to worry, still get the paycheck and warm feeling of “doing something”
Now take your crew, lights and Teleaprompter and go away, just go away!
Wow, some nobody is anti-gun……….call me when anyone cares….
why aren’t these rant’s required to be started with” Im not a gun owner, but I play one on TV”. perhaps the public would get a better understanding on where these opinions views are coming from
That is the hilariously ridiculous part of the whole situation. These idiots have almost no actual knowledge about the topic but get reported on like they have a clue. That’s like me, with my degree in therapeutic knitting, walking onto a construction site and arguing with the foreman about what the best safety practices are, and some news reporter promoting my thoughts and ideas as if they were legitimate. I say again, idiots, the whole lot of them!
Funny that she feels that way about guns and children.
Any one seen her picture wearing a t shirt that say we plan to kill out unborn children?
Google it. Disgusting hypocritical pig.
That’s a photoshoped image. Let’s take the high ground and keep it real. She’s a nasty lib pro-infanticide anti-gunner yes, but her shirt actually just said “Yes We Plan”, in support of PP. Yes, Google it.
Eh, I’d still bang her.
I read the article linked and had to read this line several times:
“I’d like to see a lockbox in every household that has a kid in it that also has a gun.”
I read that it she wanted a kid with a gun in a lockbox.
Maybe that is what she meant.
On the car issue, I totally agree, every highschool should have a gun education course with practical skills development in every highschool in the US, just like they have driver’s ed.
In fact another great idea would be to combine it with driver’s ed so that you can get a gun with you first car at 16 years of age.
In Connecticut, illegal immigrants can legally get a drivers license, why not a gun license too!
The stars and their acolytes live in a vacuous reality far from what the rest of us live in. They have the financial resources to sub out most of the tasks (security, child-raising, shopping, etc…) that we mere mortals have to do for ourselves. I’m sure Ms Moore’s neighborhood is heavily policed and there’s probably standing orders with the local constabulary to harass and intimidate people who don’t “look right” or might be the wrong shade of brown for that neighborhood. Your average thug probably wouldn’t stand much of a chance breaking into her compound with this layer of policing in effect, in addition to the armed private security the HOA probably employs.
And if they made it as far as her property, I’m sure there’d be a proportionate response from the police. I know this, because I see it in action in South Florida. We have our share of wealthy (D) folk and celebrities, and their neighborhoods are heavily policed. DWB pullovers are a common occurrence, and most of the gated communities have armed security patrols. You aren’t getting into Michael Bay’s neighborhood unless someone knows you are coming.
Outside those walls, it’s a different story, one they don’t acknowledge and maybe peer at momentarily on their way to the private terminal at the airport. In the middle-class and lower neighborhoods, we gotta take care of ourselves. The cops are many long minutes away (usually because the influential folk monopolize their time) and ultimately personal security is up to us. Maybe if Ms Moore remembered what it’s like to be really part of the unwashed masses, she’d change her tune.
She’s no dummy, she has to know what is going on. Her little saw about “gun safety” is nothing but a step towards “gun demonization” and confiscation. The long-term endgame is disarmament folks. Unfortunately keeping our rights safe isn’t something we can slack on. The Hollywood-types forget about rights since their influence can buy their way out of any situation, for the most part. If guns were banned and Ms Moore was caught with one for some reason, I’m sure it would be a non-issue after a fashion.
“We believe we have a responsibility to help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people – including convicted criminals, domestic abusers, stalkers, terrorists and people with dangerous mental illness.”
translate: We have been told to believe that we sound more sophistimecated, if we persist in mindlessly regurgitating nonsense that resolves to letting government do whatever it wants, as long as it comes up with some complimecated sounding psychobabble to justify it. If we don’t pretend to believe in psychobabble nonsense, after all, the other drones may think we are, like, believe in, like God, and like, stuff…..
Hollywooders “believe” in gun control for the same reason Mike Ovitz pointed out many of them decide to take up Judaism and homosexuality.
But how does more gun control reduces gun violence? I see that more gun owners are stopping crimes and saving lives each year. http://defensivepopulace.net/gun-owners-stopped-numerous-crimes-and-saved-countless-lives-in-a-year/
Actually, her position sounds somewhat reasonable for the anti-gun side. I do not know if she is just pretending to sound more “reasonable” as the gun control movement is as of late because the winds are against their sails, or if she truly does believe in the individual right to self-defense and to own guns, but just believes that certain laws are “reasonable” due to not knowing enough about the issue.
If she is the do-gooder type and not the anti-gun zealot type, the problem that people like her do not realize is that the anti-gun zealots who wish to ban all guns use people like her as tools. Provided they got the “reasonable” gun control laws in place, then they’d just start seeking to build on them.
…
Saw her on PBS this evening on “Finding Your Roots”.
She seems reasonably smart and articulate.
She did not have a privileged upbringing.
She is an Army brat. Nine schools in nine years.
Her dad was a much decorated helicopter pilot who flew 500 missions.
(Got the Distinguished Flying Cross, if I remember correctly.)
Then got a law degree and became an Army lawyer.
I think she’s probably pretty familiar with guns.
…
All that would generally ensure is that she is not one of those anti-military Hollywood leftists. But one being an Army brat doesn’t at all mean that they know anything about guns or gun rights. Her father being a decorated pilot even doesn’t mean that HE would know a whole lot about guns or gun rights. Look at how General Patraeus and General McChrystal both said they support an assault weapons ban or Gabby Giffords’s astronaut husband arguing against the AR-15 after Newtown.
True. Military service and statism are far from mutually exclusive, and gun-grabbing is classic statism. I don’t bash the military, but I don’t see them through rose-tinted glasses like many conservatives do, either. Admittedly, they’re probably more reliable on 2nd Amendment issues than most demographics.
Non of that suggests she has any familiarity whatsoever with guns.
I know army brats who dont even know which end of the gun is the muzzle.
We already know she thinks gun murder rose the past decade when it plunged, and that she thinks a semi-automatic is an automatic, meaning she does not even know anything whatsover about the core metrics, trends or guns
She did not have a privileged upbringing.
She did. Her father was a colonel and military judge. She went to some excellent private schools.
As far as the DFC, or Silver star, claim this is very typical stolen valor engaged in by Hollywood publicity people. My uncle was on the ship with Jason Robards, whose publicly material for years stated he won an individual Navy Cross, when it was a unit (the entire ship citation). It is considered to be very unethical to claim to be an individual citation. Moore’s her father does NOT appear on the Military times exhaustive list of Vietnam era citations at all.
So like tens of millions of people have been she is an army brat. In her case her fathers record ahs been exaggerated as Hollywood does, and in her case her father was a colonel and military judge and in the top 2% of military pay
My guess is that the overwhelming majority of celebrities come from “privileged” backgrounds. Who has the time and money to pursue an acting career but the privileged? I’m sure there are plenty of exceptions, but I’d expect most people in the field (among other low-ROI fields like politics, art, etc.) to be from wealthier families.
She’s just another rich, bodyguarded actor for whom none of this is real, so why bother understanding it? All she’s interested in is currying favor with the Academy so she can win an Oscar and be considered an esteemed thespian.
“Why should people live in fear knowing any narcissist or person who ever cried uncontrollably at a funeral can walk into any gun store and buy a gun”
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message3084421/pg1
Women tend to be politically clueless. They are, in a word, malleable. They’re very concerned with going along to get along, consensus, etc. Basically, they get their opinions from others, usually whoever is the dominant voice. In our society, that’s liberals.
Add to that the fact that she’s in showbiz, which is as competitive and cutthroat as it gets. Hollywood is not kind to women as they age, so you often see actresses doubling down on the leftism as their careers fade. It’s a form of marketing, and a way to stay in the spotlight sans acting gigs.
It’s really a no-brainer decision for Moore to be anti-gun. That’s the milieu in which she moves.
I just finished calling Jews out for their prominent (if little-remarked-upon) role in the anti-2nd-Amendment movement, I see no reason to pretend women aren’t a major anti-2nd-Amendment constituency, too.
The silver lining is that women tend to be pretty easy to persuade back the other way (Jews, on the other hand, are notoriously stubborn).
They can be pretty easy on the eyes, too (that’s a lovely image of Moore).
Jonathan, I doubt very much that Moore goes about her day with bodyguards. She probably only gets bodyguards when she’s entering some Hollywood event where someone else is paying for security. I doubt she’s that level of celebrity. Heck, I see photos of lots of bigger stars who go about town without bodyguards.
“We believe we have a responsibility to help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people – including convicted criminals, domestic abusers, stalkers, terrorists and people with dangerous mental illness.”
Tough. You can’t. Unless you lock them all up and sometimes not even then.
The harder it will be to get a gun legally the more profitable it becomes for black market to supply it illegally. (See war against drugs)
When someone is willing to break the law against murder, he will not think twice about breaking other law against getting gun. Gun control laws can’t protect anyone. How come some people can’t see it?