DrEvilmonki
Active member
And so they should not express their freedom of expression? It is the choice of people to listen to celebs or not but to bag them because they hold an opinion and express it has always seemed a bit strange to me.
Firearms & co... hate or love them?
- Thread starter Tony Manero
- Start date
And so they should not express their freedom of expression? It is the choice of people to listen to celebs or not but to bag them because they hold an opinion and express it has always seemed a bit strange to me.
darthfoley
Active member
I\'m sure he knew what he was saying. And while I\'ll grant you that telling his right-wing gun-toting audience that using machine guns to kill deer made them terrorists by proxy was a serious error in judgment, I personally would think people would look at the man\'s 40+ year history of gun advocacy before pillorying him for making one ill-conceived statement. He didn\'t \'betray\' anyone, he phrased something badly. More to the point, he never said hunters didn\'t have the *right* to own the guns that terrorists might prefer, simply that he thought it wasn\'t very sporting to shoot small animals with them.
But that\'s me, I\'m a different kind of cat, and I don\'t come from the \'you must believe exactly what I do at all times or you are completely wrong\' mentality so many other folks do.
The really fun part of this is I\'ve never even heard of this guy before.
/wanders away before being caught in one of ED\'s roundabouts...especially since I\'ve already said more than once I\'m on his side lol
EArkham
Necromancer
That\'s a bit idealistic, and, well, untrue...
Celebrity isn\'t about talent. It\'s about marketing and advertising (eg, American Idol). Nevermind the fact that many celebrities are only so because all they have are their opinions (eg, talk show hosts).
Controversy is typically a good thing for artists. Any of us could spout off lists of artists that had controversy as part of their success formula. And in a world where heavy drug use, debauchery, police records, and radical political beliefs are the stereotype in the music world, you have to do some pretty heinous things to lose control of the marketing coup it\'ll bring.
As long as you don\'t offend your marketing engine or your sponsors (which was the case with the Dixie Chicks -- a group of radio stations got together and decided to stop playing them before any serious numbers from their fanbase was heard), there will always be more fans.
Over ten years of music industry experience speaking here.
Kep
vincegamer
Active member
Apparently even if you do offend your marketing engine, since the Dixie Chicks garnered a new audience in part because of the statement, and now have some Grammies to boot.
Sure but you\'ll probably never see them at the Country Music Awards again. It wasn\'t their sponsors who started throwing away their CD\'s.
Do you think it possible the sponsors bailed because they feared the backlash of the fans? Knowing a lot of \"country folk\" myself, I would say that was probably a very good business decision. It also shows they know more about the fan base than the artists themselves. Hell, Jane Fonda is still deeply despised by a large majority in the south, and her actions took place well over 30 years ago.
As to their statement, What Natilie Maines said doesn\'t offend most of us in the least, it was the manner in which it was said.
In her interview afterwards she was talking about how there was all this Anti-American sentiment, and that she was trying to tell the crowd she was against it too. In essence, from her explanation, she dissed the President of the United States, thereby the people of the United States, who put him into office, to woo the crowd.
As a friend of mine said, \"It had the same feeling as the fat girl who rips upon her only friend to be accepted by the \"cool\" kids\"
Needless to say, it showed many a former fan that they were not the country girls they had been portraying themselves as. Country listeners by tradition are a very patriotic bunch, so while Natilie could\'ve said what she said here in the states and gotten little flack, the fact that she did it in a foreign country, playing up to the Anti=American crowd, essentially insulted them all, even if they agreed. You don\'t bring your families problems to someone else\'s house. It showed they were not part on their fan base, a problem that has plagued a lot of singers trying to fit a specific genre.
So instead of the country goddesses they were on the road to becoming, they are now perceived by quite a few of their former fan base as another group of self important celebrities.
Country is by and large about humility, and these girls have none of that.
Grammies? Ha, honestly, without looking it up, can you tell me who won the Grammies in 1983? 1996? 2000? 2003? Grammies mean nothing, songs last far longer. The songs are what make you great, and only then if people listen to them.
vincegamer
Active member
I didn\'t read that interview. I read another one.
However, I have a couple of points.
One, I\'m not convinced the crowd was \"anti-American\" as it was a British crowd, going to see a performance by a country-music trio, and Britain was our strongest supporter at the time we invaded Iraq.
Two, it sounds as if Maines was saying she was against the war, not against America. Would it have been better for her to ignore the illegal invasion of a sovereign state because it was her own country doing it?
However, I have a couple of points.
One, I\'m not convinced the crowd was \"anti-American\" as it was a British crowd, going to see a performance by a country-music trio, and Britain was our strongest supporter at the time we invaded Iraq.
Two, it sounds as if Maines was saying she was against the war, not against America. Would it have been better for her to ignore the illegal invasion of a sovereign state because it was her own country doing it?
philologus
Subgenius
@DarthFoley: Funny article.
One of the chief problems with \"Assault Weapons\" has always been \"who\'s definition of assault weapon are we using\" Alot of ink was spilled over the recent expiration of the Brady Bill. If you look at the provisions of the Brady Bill you will see that the definitions of assault weapon are laughable and in most cases don\'t render the weapon any more \"dangerous\" (a subjective term to be used in this crowd).
\"The 1994 law also prohibits manufacturers from producing firearms with more than one of the following assault weapon features:
Rifles
Folding/telescoping stock
Protruding pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Threaded muzzle or flash suppressor
Grenade launcher
Pistols
Magazine outside grip
Threaded muzzle
Barrel shroud
Unloaded weight of 50 ounces or more
Semi-automatic version of a fully automatic weapon
Shotguns
Folding/telescoping stock
Protruding pistol grip
Detachable magazine capacity
Fixed magazine capacity greater than 5 rounds
Taken from the Brady Campaign website: LINK
So a rifle with a grenade launcher is OK provided it doesn\'t also have a bayonet lug.
So which assault rifles was this guy talking about? Those with a bayonet lug, but without a magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds? I\'m sure the bayonet makes prairie dog killin\' easier.
One of the chief problems with \"Assault Weapons\" has always been \"who\'s definition of assault weapon are we using\" Alot of ink was spilled over the recent expiration of the Brady Bill. If you look at the provisions of the Brady Bill you will see that the definitions of assault weapon are laughable and in most cases don\'t render the weapon any more \"dangerous\" (a subjective term to be used in this crowd
).\"The 1994 law also prohibits manufacturers from producing firearms with more than one of the following assault weapon features:
Rifles
Folding/telescoping stock
Protruding pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Threaded muzzle or flash suppressor
Grenade launcher
Pistols
Magazine outside grip
Threaded muzzle
Barrel shroud
Unloaded weight of 50 ounces or more
Semi-automatic version of a fully automatic weapon
Shotguns
Folding/telescoping stock
Protruding pistol grip
Detachable magazine capacity
Fixed magazine capacity greater than 5 rounds
Taken from the Brady Campaign website: LINK
So a rifle with a grenade launcher is OK provided it doesn\'t also have a bayonet lug.
So which assault rifles was this guy talking about? Those with a bayonet lug, but without a magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds? I\'m sure the bayonet makes prairie dog killin\' easier.
As Orb said, the British Government was our strongest Ally.
If she were against the war she could have merely said so, that probably would have been accepted, instead she had to insult the POTUS.
Freedom of Speech merely means the government cannot arrest or seek retribution on you for your views.
It does not, however, prevent others from using their Freedom of Speech to denounce you and your views.
It does not prevent sponsors who disagree with your view from bailing on you.
It does not force people who disagree with your views to continue buying your albums and support you.
Freedom of Speech does come with a price.
Doubly so when your means of living is based on people liking you.
Just as experiment, next time you are in court tell the judge to \"F@*k off\", then cite the Freedom of Speech. I guarantee there will be repercusions.
vincegamer
Active member
I don\'t get how that follows my comment.
I never said free speech was without consequences.
What you say that does follow my post makes me sad.
You suggest that attacking the war would have been okay, but attacking the POTUS caused a backlash. That means that the country music crowd is more loyal to the POTUS than to the goals of the nation.
No, maybe not sad, maybe frightened.
I never said free speech was without consequences.
What you say that does follow my post makes me sad.
You suggest that attacking the war would have been okay, but attacking the POTUS caused a backlash. That means that the country music crowd is more loyal to the POTUS than to the goals of the nation.
No, maybe not sad, maybe frightened.
Attacking the POTUS in what Natalie herself called an Anti-American crowd in a time of war caused the backlash. Bringing Texas into it caused a backlash. The circumstances and timing caused the backlash.Originally posted by vincegamer
What you say that does follow my post makes me sad.
You suggest that attacking the war would have been okay, but attacking the POTUS caused a backlash. That means that the country music crowd is more loyal to the POTUS than to the goals of the nation.
No, maybe not sad, maybe frightened.
A backlash, that had she truly known her fan base, she should have expected.
A backlash, that she stupidly believes to this day, is not her fault.
She probably could have done the same thing to President Clinton, a President that a lot of us despised, in the same situation and gotten the same results.
Legacy Account
Active member
I bet they\'re gutted.....
Legacy Account
Active member
They still seem to be selling out venues on tour and selling half a million albums in one week is pretty good going.
Prefer the little albino kid from Deliverance personally
The whole controversy thing is a massive over reaction. The sort of thing you expect in Islamic countries when the Dutch or French print funny cartoons....
Prefer the little albino kid from Deliverance personally
The whole controversy thing is a massive over reaction. The sort of thing you expect in Islamic countries when the Dutch or French print funny cartoons....
philologus
Subgenius
Originally posted by Spacemunkie
They still seem to be selling out venues on tour and selling half a million albums in one week is pretty good going.
Prefer the little albino kid from Deliverance personally
The whole controversy thing is a massive over reaction. The sort of thing you expect in Islamic countries when the Dutch or French print funny cartoons....
Minus the riots, burnings, threats of murder, and murder.
Legacy Account
Active member
Burning and bulldozing CD\'s?
I think you\'ll find that they received death threats as well.
Funny thing is, it looks as though irate hicks bought a shit load of their CDs to burn - making sales actually increase!
As if that sort of publicity ever REALLY harmed a band. I seem to remember John Lennon commiting a much more serious faux-pas...
I think you\'ll find that they received death threats as well.
Funny thing is, it looks as though irate hicks bought a shit load of their CDs to burn - making sales actually increase!
As if that sort of publicity ever REALLY harmed a band. I seem to remember John Lennon commiting a much more serious faux-pas...
M. D. Van Norman
New member
You think that gun owners aren\'t subject to bigotry? Insinuating that someone is a potential murderer just because he has a firearm isn\'t bigotry?
That said, when I\'m on a firearms-related forum, I spend a lot of my time calling other gun owners on their bigotry. In fact, I think that the gun-control movement will eventually succeed in part because the bigotry of too many firearms enthusiasts alienates our would-be allies in the wider cause of civil rights.
funnymouth
Active member
never said that, i just said it was funny. compared to racial, sexual, and economic bigotry the \"hardships\" that gun owners have to tolerate at the hand of \"bigots\" is laughable, to the point where it is disrespectful to victims of hate. by that standard gamers are the victims of bigotry, as are kids who dont wear green on st. pattys day, and women without a man on v-day, or for anyone who has ever been disagreed with on a matter of public policy. poor, poor gun owners.
i still support the second amendment, i just dont believe that the gun owners of america are being done some great injustice because beople disagree with them.
vincegamer
Active member
Or religious bigotry. No gun-owner is going to be considered unsuited for public office because he owns guns, but try to get an atheist elected. Heck, some people are saying Romney doesn\'t stand a chance because he is Mormon.
