Posted on 01/16/2014 2:47:17 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
Movie producer Harvey Weinstein announced for the first time on Howard Stern’s radio show that he is making a full feature drama to try to destroy the National Rifle Association.
Mr. Stern asked Mr. Weinstein on Wednesday whether he owned a gun. The Hollywood heavyweight replied that he did not and never would. “I don’t think we need guns in this country. And I hate it,” the producer said. “I think the NRA is a disaster area.”
... then revealed his secret project about the gun rights group. “I shouldn’t say this, but I’ll tell it to you, Howard,” he said. “I’m going to make a movie with Meryl Streep, and we’re going to take this head-on. And they’re going to wish they weren’t alive after I’m done with them.”
The shock jock asked whether the film was going to be a documentary. Mr. Weinstein said no, that it would be a “big movie like a ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.’”
The movie mogul said his vision was to scare people away from firearms. He foresees moviegoers to leave thinking, “Gun stocks — I don’t want to be involved in that stuff. It’s going to be like crash and burn.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
The executive producer of Pulp Fiction and other violent movies wants to ban guns for law abiding citizens.
I suppose their answer would be draconian punishment, but...
I just wonder how they propose to remove all the guns from society, as well as the knowledge of how to make them.
ILLINOIS STATE RIFLE ASSOCIATION
INFORMATIONAL ALERT
WHAT TO DO ABOUT THOSE PESKY “NO-GUNS” SIGNS
As you may know, the concealed carry law enacted last year ironically includes provisions that will greatly impede your ability to defend yourself against violent criminals. Among these impediments to self defense is a provision allowing private property owners to prohibit concealed firearms on their property. The law requires such property owners to post government-approved “no guns allowed” signs on property entrances.
As implementation of concealed carry goes forward, more and more of these “no guns allowed” signs will be springing up in businesses across Illinois. Although law-abiding firearm owners are offended by such signs, most of us accept that private property owners are free to limit access to their property as they see fit. Nonetheless, the placement of such signs poses some serious public policy implications to those who honor free exercise of basic human rights.
In practical terms, the official “no guns allowed” sign actually declares, “No Self Defense Permitted Beyond this Point.” Thus, a property owner who posts a “no guns allowed” sign is telling you point blank, “I don’t care if you and your family are in danger, I will not allow you to defend yourself.” The net effect of the property-owner’s self-righteous indignation is that anyone who enters the posted property unarmed is being set up for violent attack.
The beauty of concealed carry is that only handful of citizens need to be armed in order to protect the greater part of society from harm. This benefit arises out of the fact that would-be criminals are never really sure which citizens around them may be armed. As a result, their criminal urges may be stifled in the interest of not getting shot.
Given the deterrent value of concealed carry, the posting of “no guns allowed” signs openly invites criminals to enter a business to commit mayhem without the fear of facing an armed citizen. Under the concealed carry statute, persons licensed to carry must obey these signs. By their very nature, criminals will not be deterred by a plastic pictogram stuck to a window. Consequently, armed criminals will be absolutely assured that nobody in the establishment is capable of warding off their violent behavior. “No guns allowed” signs give a distinct advantage to those who seek to harm others.
For thugs who may be too shy to perform for an audience, the parking lots of “no guns allowed” establishments would be little more to their liking. It would be a given that anyone leaving such a business would be unarmed and, thus, easy pickings for robbers or rapists. Likewise, these criminals would be free to burglarize cars in the parking lot to harvest guns dutifully left behind by permit holders who enter the antigun business.
All in all, it’s distinctly possible that posting a “no guns allowed” sign makes patronizing a business more dangerous now that concealed carry has been passed than it had been to patronize the same store before the passage of concealed carry.
Quite a few people have contacted ISRA headquarters to report businesses that have posted “no guns allowed” signs. Many of the people ask how they should respond to the posting of such signs. Below are our recommendations.
1. Carrying a concealed firearm in to an establishment bearing an official “no guns allowed” sign is not lawful and should not be attempted.
2. Business owners who post “no guns allowed” signs consider lawful firearm owners to be social outcasts. Therefore, those businesses should be avoided, but not without first hearing how displeased you are with their decision. We recommend that you ask to see the manager and then politely tell him or her that you are a lawful firearm owner and that you disagree with their position on concealed carry. Advise the manager further that, as long as the offensive sign is posted, you will not spend money at their establishment and that you will tell all your friends to avoid doing business with them as well.
3. Reward businesses who allow concealed carry by spending money in their establishments.
4. Remain active in the gun rights movement at a local level.
5. Join the ISRA.
6. Donate to the ISRA so that we may carry on the fight to preserve, protect, and enhance gun rights in the state.
Follow the ISRA on Twitter and Facebook.
Give the gift of an ISRA membership. Not an ISRA Member? Join Today!
Have you seen the trailers for our three films (one complete: "Rockin' the Wall," one will be finished in March "Other Walls 2 Fall" and one in development and half funded "Patriot's History." Go to www.rockinthewallstudios.com for the three trailers under "Projects."
Curious position for Weinstein to take.... It seems that he appears to be channelling Adolf Hitler in his position on guns.... “they’re going to wish they weren’t alive after I’m done with them” he says of the NRA.
The Nazis forbade Jews from possessing firearms, silencers, & ammo in 1938. I wonder how many were able to “just grab one” as they were marched to the camps.
The absolute stupidity of the left never ceases to amaze!!!
From the article:
Also, the producer said he would have used a gun to stop from going to a concentration camp if he “found a gun, and if that was happening to my people.”
Never understoon anti-gun/self-defense Jews.......
Whatever happened to “Never Again!”?
American Jews should be right there in the fight for the Second Amendment.
Vexing...
Shalom
KYPD
Gun stock is what you use to make gunbo.
Harvey Weinstein of the cocaine and hookers Weinsteins? Class act guy who looks like a pig. How many bodyguards does he have?
Actually my little film company had considered ways to make Ross’s great pro-gun book “Unintended Consequences.”
——————— ——————— ——————— ———————
I’d love to see that! It would be a MONSTER project unless you do deep cuts — like start with a flashback of Henry and company humiliating Wilson Blair at the gun show, then move forward to Blair executing his plot against Henry and his friends and the blowback.
That alone would make a heck of an action movie but you’d lose the rich history of gun control in the U.S. Ross wrote.
You got me drooling here...
It's all about the money. If you find the money---ASSUMING Ross hasn't optioned it already---we will make it, on time and on budget. And I'd get Adam Baldwin to play the hero.
Me, too.
I still wish it was in audiobook format.
But UC in film would be sweet in epic form.
thanks. I knew something like that!
By the way, I have tour “Patriot’s History..” I never realized the author was a Freeper. Thank you for a great book.
Thank you. Please look at the new two volume set, “A Patriot’s History of the Modern World.” Volume 2 especially is a fantastic book. Vol. 1, 1898-1945, is dark and hard to get away from two world wars and a depression, but still, I think, insightful.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.