by Ric Hubbard • December 5, 2020
Show Notes
I can accept that opinions that I disagree with are valid, at least to those that hold them. I have for a long time held that nothing more clearly defines what I believe as debating issues with those that disagree with me. I also hold a great deal of respect to those who live up to their ideals. There are members of my family that are very anti-gun and they advocate for that cause, in the mean time either not owning guns or only owning guns that fit there idea of acceptable. What I have a hard time tolerating is the hypocrite.
There is a new movie coming called “The Marksman” staring Liam Neeson that, if the trailer posted above is to be believed, is about a retired Marine, an average guy, trying to make a living farming on the Southern Border. The plot of the movie seems to be that he is put into the position of saving a young Mexican boy from the drug cartels using his Mini-14 to defend himself and the kid. I think that most of the people who will be reading this can agree that this is one of the main reasons that we own guns, to defend ourselves and others.
The issue here is Neeson. He has been very vocal in his position that civilian ownership of most guns should be banned. I believe that his choice in roles and his position on gun ownership make him a hypocrite. To earn a living making movies that demonstrate the most legitimate and important reason for owning a gun while stating publicly that people who own guns for defense are wrong is upsetting, to say the least.
This kind of hypocrisy is common in Hollywood. While I may not like it when someone famous lobbies for gun control and I will loudly point out when they are wrong or outright lying, I don’t view it as hypocritical. Mark Harmon, for example, has stated that he supports gun control, but he has never, to the best of my knowledge, played any character that uses a gun that was not military or police. He is wrong, but he lives his beliefs.
Liam Neeson and other vocal advocates for gun control such as Matt Damon and Sylvester Stallone make movies that involve gun violence. In Elysium Matt Damon played a freedom fighter who used an AK-47 to steal technology from the rightful owner. Now, that way that it is described in reviews is a hero liberated technology to save his daughters life from the rich elites’ hording it for their own use. I have the greatest sympathy for people who need medicine and if a technology existed that could fix all ills, I would be a strong advocate that it be made available to all. I might even take up arms to make it happen under the direst of circumstances. I also advocate free access to firearms for all law-abiding people.
These actors and others like them have made careers out of violent entertainment all the while advocating for gun control. Meanwhile, Kurt Russell and Chris Pratt are being called out by cancel culture because they don’t toe the party line. Russell recently stated that actors should act and keep their political opinions to themselves. He stated an opinion and because it was unpopular, they are trying to take his career away from him. Pratt just kept quiet on a political event he did not support and gets the same treatment. On the other hand, hypocrisy is ok if he or she agrees with the cancelers.
Please do not get the idea that this post is me trying to cancel any of these actors. The First Amendment guarantees them a voice as both actor and advocate. I support the idea of ignorance culture. You can say what you want and if I don’t like what you day, I will just ignore it. I realize that they will never really feel it, but I will not be giving them whatever percentage of my $12 that movies cost now. I choose not to spend my money on their movies. That is my choice and right under the first amendment.
