|

In an appeal to its more immature members, NRA issues list of “coolest gun movies” ever

wolverines

Why am I not surprised that the silly 1984 fantasy “Red Dawn” (above) tops THIS LIST?

After the December killings in Newtown, Conn., the National Rifle Association’s chief lambasted the the evils of violent movies and video games, saying they, rather than guns, were a source of the nation’s woes.

Now, less than six months later, the NRA’s “flagship publication,” American Rifleman, is celebrating cinematic savagery with a list of the top 10 “coolest gun movies” that unabashedly praises Hollywood depictions of death and crime.

“Who has not dreamed of having the power and respect of Michael Corleone? That he built his empire through violence is only that much more alluring,” the magazine’s Associate Online Shooting Editor Paul Rackley wrote in his summary of “The Godfather.”

The list includes action movies like “The Matrix,” “Red Dawn,” and “Zombieland.” It notes the different gun models depicted in the films, analyzes the “gunhandling skills” of the various protagonists, and describes the post-apocalyptic, catastrophic realities shown in several of the movies as evidence of the need for guns.

Share:

7 Comments

  1. That is outrageous! First place should be shared between “Red Dawn” and “Heat”. #2 goes to another Michael Man movie “Collateral.”

  2. Up yours

    Who on earth would say Red Dawn is a “Fantasy” movie? Only a liberal turd trying to insinuate that gun owners get a boner of a movie like this.

  3. Ruben

    So what? Big deal. And Hollywood insider company IMBd also has a favorites list for:
    Rape scenes. http://www.imdb.com/list/_PfSKWq7g1I/

    Are going to go after your very liberal, big money (re: the real 1%), or do they get a hall pass?

  4. Craig Knauss

    The whole premise of Red Dawn is a joke. In the first version, Soviet paratroopers attack Spokane, WA by surprise. OK, how? How did their propeller troop planes manage to fly over hundreds of miles of U.S. and Canadian territory totally undetected? Especially since Fairchild Air Force Base is next to Spokane? And then a bunch of kids with hunting rifles take down the Soviet Army. Right.

  5. Willbill

    “…of the various protagonists, and describes the post-apocalyptic, catastrophic realities shown in several of the movies as evidence of the need for guns.

    The inconvenient fact is that criminologists have found that U.S. citizens use firearms for self-defense 2.5 million times annually, and for every life that is lost to firearms violence 65 are saved in self-defense. Coupled with the hundreds of thousands times firearms are used for recreational and competitive shooting, shooting is an NCAA and Olympic sport as well as in the Boy Scouts, 4H, ROTC/JROTC, etc. as well as hunting and collecting, it is clear that the firearms are used legally and safely far more often than their illegal and unsafe use.

    http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm

    Suter E. “Guns in the Medical Literature – A Failure of Peer
    Review.” Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. March 1994; 83: 133-48.

    Of course, citizen disarmament zealots, their organizations, their media allies, and their naïve followers ignore these inconvenient facts because they debunk their propaganda and deception.

  6. Robert

    The whole gun ownership issue is really not my battle. But I listen to the pro-gun lobby the NRA supporters and the people who post on blogs like this, and hear lots about some big effort to take your guns. I just don’t see it happening. At least not in the way you think your guns are going to save you from.

    Believe me, if there’s even a remote conspiracy out there to be had, I’ll be the first to see it as a very possibility, but I just don’t see any effort to take away and confiscate guns from the citizens who want them. Yes, there is a movement to review why average citizens need guns use to kill masses of people like the military uses, that I think is real, but to take guns away from average owners, I don’t see that.

    The more I look at the people who get up in arms about some Democratic Party lead conspiracy to take away your 2nd amendment rights, the more I think all who believe this only want guns to use against the government. Their use against home related crime is just the back up reason to the real agenda. That’s why your all so adamant about having military assault weapons at your disposal. Why else would you want that sort of fire power except to rise up against a government you see as a threat? A threat that seems to be aroused to its fullest when a Democrat is in office.

    You’re scary people, who think the most base of technological warfare weaponry is going to save you. With all the new technologies available to disarm an entire society, many being biological or neutron in nature not to mention what we don’t know about, do you really think if the disarming of the American people ever did become the edict, the government would come knocking on your door with an order to pick up your weapons? If that time ever comes (and I just don’t see it), it’s not going to happen the way you think it will. Your guns will be useless. I suspect if we the people really knew the variety of crowd/population control technologies that are out there, it would be blow our minds.

  7. Robert

    Reading over my post I realize I have to qualify my statement about taking guns away from people who want them. When I said that I didn’t mean criminals who want them, I mean people who want guns for hunting and the things that law abiding citizens would want them for, home protection being one of those reasons.

    Ok, now you can go ahead and beat me up, and tell me how wrong I am.

Leave a Reply

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

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>