From my cold dead hands!

[Guest American Woman]

So how does him choosing to be a citizen make him subject to a different code of conduct than natural citizens?

I never said it did. I said that he chose to become an American. It was his choice to take the oath. Again. That's the point being made.

Good grief, if every movie maker and actor had to believe in the subject of every movie they make and all the characters they play, there would be very few made and you wouldn't stay awake through the rest.

Good grief. Every actor out there isn't a mouth piece against something they themselves are a part of through their movies.

The hypocricy is getting really thick.

It sure is, just not the way you're insinuating.

On that note, from now on, if you ever call someone for their actions, I'll be sure to correct you - and point out that it's their words, not their actions, that matter.

Edited March 31, 2013 by American Woman

[Wilber]

I never said it did. I said that he chose to become an American. It was his choice to take the oath. Again. That's the point being made.Good grief. Every actor out there isn't a mouth piece against something they themselves are a part of through their movies.It sure is, just not the way you're insinuating.

On that note, from now on, if you ever call someone for their actions, I'll be sure to correct you - and point out that it's their words, not their actions, that matter.

He had to take an oath, you didn't, so why should he be treated differently as a citizen? Why do you even bring it up?

Many actors are politically and socially active. They know when they are acting, it seems you don't.

You can't really think any actor who has played a part involving a gun is not entitled to express an opinion on them that doesn't toe the NRA line? That no actor who has played a bank robber, drug dealer, serial killer, child molester etc is entitled to an opinion on those issues that doesn't support them? If an actor plays a Republican politician in a movie they are a hypocrite if they chose to publicly support the Democrats in an election or vice versa? Get real, they're actors for cripes sake, they act. I have news for you, they aren't really the characters you see on the screen.

[Guest American Woman]

He had to take an oath, you didn't, so why should he be treated differently as a citizen? Why do you even bring it up?

I didn't bring it up. I responded to your post about it.

Many actors are politically and socially active. They know when they are acting, it seems you don't.

Are you serious? I would hope not. The "gun culture" that so many speak of re: Hollywood, according to many anti-gun types, is part of the gun problem. In other words, whether or not Jim Carrey realizes he is acting or not isn't the issue. By the same token, whether or not I know he is acting or not - and for the record, I do ( a thousand times over) - also isn't the issue.

You can't really think any actor who has played a part involving a gun is not entitled to express an opinion on them that doesn't toe the NRA line? That no actor who has played a bank robber, drug dealer, serial killer, child molester etc is entitled to an opinion on those issues that doesn't support them? If an actor plays a Republican politician in a movie they are a hypocrite if they chose to publicly support the Democrats in an election or vice versa? Get real, they're actors for cripes sake, they act. I have news for you, they aren't really the characters you see on the screen.

Wow. You don't say. They aren't really the characters on the screen? So "the gun culture" coming out of Hollywood has no effect on what goes on and no impact at all on the gun problem. Good to know.

[Wilber]

I didn't bring it up. I responded to your post about it.

I didn't bring it up either. BC did. I was just responding to his post. You jumped in.

Are you serious? I would hope not. The "gun culture" that so many

speak of re: Hollywood, according to many anti-gun types, is part of the

gun problem. In other words, whether or not Jim Carrey

realizes he is acting or not isn't the issue. By the same token, whether

or not I know he is acting or not - and for the record, I do ( a thousand times over) - also isn't the issue.

Wow. You don't say. They aren't really the characters on the screen? So

"the gun culture" coming out of Hollywood has no effect on what goes on

and no impact at all on the gun problem. Good to know.

Quite serious. I agree that Hollywood profits from the gun culture. If not, there would be very few movies about it. I don't agree that disqualifies actors from having opinions contrary to roles they may have played. Carrey is over the top, that is what he does and is the reason millions of Americans have made him rich. There is plenty of over the top rhetoric on both sides of this issue and he is no more over the top than the likes of Rush Limbaugh, just a hell of a lot more entertaining. I think this gets up the back of many who disagree with him. They can't do what he does. Because he is an entertainer, he may pay a price for this in some quarters but I'm sure he knows that from the experiences of people like the Dixie Chicks and KD Lang.

Would you brand Gene Wilder a hypocrite if he publicly disagreed with the NRA's position on the second amendment just because he got paid to play a gun fighter in Blazing Saddles? How crazy do you want to get with this?

Edited March 31, 2013 by Wilber

[Wilber]

Do you give everyone who says one thing but does another a pass because you agree with what they say? I'm guessing not.I think that's sort of the point. Carrey chose to become an American citizen.

I don't give them a pass but just because they are hypocrites doesn't mean everything they do is wrong. By definition, hypocrites should be right, 50% of the time.

[Wilber]

Double post

Edited March 31, 2013 by Wilber

[Guest American Woman]

I don't give them a pass but just because they are hypocrites doesn't mean everything they do is wrong. By definition, hypocrites should be right, 50% of the time.

I didn't say everything he did was wrong. I'm critical of him for his 'do as I say, not as I do' gun stance. Evidently making money off of the gun culture is acceptable - and his body guard being armed for his safety is acceptable. As I pointed out, he wants the rest of the country to change. Change should start with him if he wants to be taken seriously. "Actions speak louder than words."

Edited March 31, 2013 by American Woman

[Wilber]

I didn't say everything he did was wrong. I'm critical of him for his 'do as I say, not as I do' stance. Evidently making money off of the gun culture is acceptable - and his body guard being armed for his safety is acceptable. As I pointed out, he wants the rest of the country to change. Change should start with him if he wants to be taken seriously. "Actions speak louder than words."

His body guard could not be armed in Canada. That is the difference between your world and mine, your gun culture and mine.

[Guest American Woman]

His body guard could not be armed in Canada. That is the difference between your world and mine, your gun culture and mine.

This thread isn't about your world, your gun culture. It's about our gun laws - and Jim Carrey. He is, as I said, hypocritical. Change should start with him. That is the difference between what Carrey says and what he does.

Edited March 31, 2013 by American Woman

[Wilber]

This thread isn't about your world, your gun culture. It's about our gun laws - and Jim Carrey. He is, as I said, hypocritical. Change should start with him. That is the difference between what Carrey says and what he does.

So Wilder would also be a hypocrite if he spoke out against your gun laws, as well as any other actor who had played a role involving a gun and spoke out against them, including the likes of Tom Hanks for movies like Saving Private Ryan.

Poor buggers wouldn't be allowed any opinions at all without you branding them hypocrites.

Perhaps Carrey would just prefer not to need an armed body guard. Selfish brat.

[Guest American Woman]

So Wilder would also be a hypocrite if he spoke out against your gun laws, as well as any other actor who had played a role involving a gun and spoke out against them, including the likes of Tom Hanks for movies like Saving Private Ryan.

So you think any movie that has a gun in it is the equivalent of all others? You think Saving Private Ryan is no different from the violent movies, those "glorifying guns?" Those perceived as playing into the "Hollywood gun culture?" You are really unable to distinguish between all movies that have guns in them?

Poor buggers wouldn't be allowed any opinions at all without you branding them hypocrites.

I think it's great that you take a 'do as I say, not as I do' attitude with him. I assume you give your politicians the same privilege. I'm sure you're fine with others saying what they think you should do - as they do as they please. I think that's all great. For you. Since you evidently can't distinguish one situation from another. For the rest of us, we'll keep calling it as we see it.

Perhaps Carrey would just prefer not to need an armed body guard. Selfish brat.

Yes, because of course he needs one. The rest of us can just take our chances, eh? "Selfish brat," indeed.

[Wilber]

BTW. Hollywood movies are shown all over the world and a great many of the countries they are seen in don't have your gun culture.

[Guest American Woman]

BTW. Hollywood movies are shown all over the world and a great many of the countries they are seen in don't have your gun culture.

Great. So you don't think Hollywood is part of the problem. Not everyone would agree with you, hence my comments. That still leaves the whole body guard scenario ...

[bush_cheney2004]

Ebay has reinstated an auction that mocks Jim Carrey's position. The
original listing was cancelled by Ebay because of terms violations:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Selling-Jim-Carrey-Autographed-Reprint-8X10-Photo-/281084639641?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4171f33999

...As NewsBusters reported, an eBayer named "astrobuzz" created an
auction for an autographed picture of Carrey. The listing was titled
“Jim Carrey Autographed 8X10 Photo So I Can Afford a Gun!”

Identical items on eBay typically sell for about $8 and don't generate
more than a few bids. Yet by Wednesday afternoon, astrobuzz had gotten
103 bids driving the price up to an astonishing $860.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/03/30/ebay-reinstates-auctions-mocking-jim-carreys-gun-owner-attacks

[Wilber]

Great. So you don't think Hollywood is part of the problem. Not everyone would agree with you, hence my comments. That still leaves the whole body guard scenario ...

Oh, I agree Hollywood is part of the problem and shares a good deal of responsibility for building the mythology of the gun in your country but I don't blame that industry's employees any more than I blame someone working in a Colt Firearms factory for the damage their company's products cause including the AR-15. Do I blame the code writers at game companies who make violent video games or their CEO's and share holders who profit the most. A guy has to make a living and in all those cases it's legal.

If people need armed body guards in the US, they need them. I don't know if that's the norm or not. If he didn't need them before, I suspect he may now. If he comes here and brings his body guard, they leave their guns at home.

[Guest American Woman]

Oh, I agree Hollywood is part of the problem and shares a good deal of responsibility for building the mythology of the gun in your country but I don't blame that industry's employees any more than I blame someone working in a Colt Firearms factory for the damage their company's products cause including the AR-15. Do I blame the code writers at game companies who make violent video games or their CEO's and share holders who profit the most. A guy has to make a living and in all those cases it's legal.

I'll hold them accountable for their hypocrisy if they criticize those buying the guns and/or video games. If "making a living" is more important than the cause, then one should refrain from holier-than-thou criticism of others. As I said, if one is advocating change, then that person best make changes themselves.

If people need armed body guards in the US, they need them. I don't know if that's the norm or not. If he didn't need them before, I suspect he may now. If he comes here and brings his body guard, they leave their guns at home.

Whether or not it's the "norm" is irrelevant. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." What's acceptable for Carrey is acceptable for the rest of the population. What he would or wouldn't have to do in Canada is irrelevant. Edited March 31, 2013 by American Woman

[Wilber]

So you think any movie that has a gun in it is the equivalent of all others? You think Saving Private Ryan is no different from the violent movies, those "glorifying guns?" Those perceived as playing into the "Hollywood gun culture?" You are really unable to distinguish between all movies that have guns in them?

I think it's great that you take a 'do as I say, not as I do' attitude with him. I assume you give your politicians the same privilege. I'm sure you're fine with others saying what they think you should do - as they do as they please. I think that's all great. For you. Since you evidently can't distinguish one situation from another. For the rest of us, we'll keep calling it as we see it.

Yes, because of course he needs one. The rest of us can just take our chances, eh? "Selfish brat," indeed.

What is it about Carrey's movies involving guns that you find so offensive and hold to a different standard than everyone elses?

Now a parody on D Day. That could be offensive.

[Guest American Woman]

What is it about Carrey's movies involving guns that you find so offensive and hold to a different standard than everyone elses?

I never said that I found them offensive. I said that they are part of the "Hollywood gun culture" that some say are part of the problem. His movies are not "Saving Private Ryan" type movies. They are not historical/period movies. He does not portray police/peace officers. His movies contain violence. That includes gun violence.

Again. I have no problem with his viewpoint if he practices what he's preaching. I have no problem with his movies were he not critical of others. What I have a problem with is his expecting others to change, as he doesn't - and his rude, vulgar responses to those who suggest he does what he says, not what he does.

Edited March 31, 2013 by American Woman

[Guest]

The fact that Jim Carrey is sometimes referred to as a "comedian" is probably the most offensive thing about him. He's as funny as toothache.

Carry on.

[Guest American Woman]

The fact that Jim Carrey is sometimes referred to as a "comedian" is probably the most offensive thing about him. He's as funny as toothache.

Carry on.

I think some of his movies have been funny - while others are so stupid as to be unbearable. I also find many of his comments to be the same.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Now a parody on D Day. That could be offensive.

Why would D-Day be held to a different standard?

Edited March 31, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest Derek L]

His body guard could not be armed in Canada. That is the difference between your world and mine, your gun culture and mine.

Depends……….If he can demonstrate a requirement, he and his bodyguards could obtain an ATC……Or he could just hire staff from a already certified corporate security service.

[Wilber]

I think some of his movies have been funny - while others are so stupid as to be unbearable. I also find many of his comments to be the same.

Pretty much the way I see him as well but I feel the same way about many others.

[Wilber]

Why would D-Day be held to a different standard?

I said it could be offensive. Depends on how it was done. Monty Python could have probably done it justice.

[Wilber]

Whether or not it's the "norm" is irrelevant. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." What's acceptable for Carrey is acceptable for the rest of the population. What he would or wouldn't have to do in Canada is irrelevant.

Whether it is the norm or necessary is very relevent. You're not taking the idiotic position that the President's children shouldn't have armed security because their father is in favour of gun controls? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

Edited March 31, 2013 by Wilber