NRA snag for Nicolas Cage as arms curbs icon

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1657335,00.html

Nicolas Cage is best known for his hard partying and his short-lived marriages. His social conscience has rarely made headlines. But when the Hollywood star took on the role of arms dealer Yuri Orlov in the anti-arms trade film Lord of War, his life changed.

'I look at things differently now,' he told one interviewer. 'I look at the news differently. I look at the people in power differently. I've hooked up with Amnesty International and I do what I can. Lord of War is a violent movie, but it's also a profound comment on violence.'

Arms campaigners were delighted with their new celebrity recruit, and both Amnesty International Worldwide and the Control Arms campaign snapped up interviews with him for their websites. The press talked admiringly of Cage's 'Damascene conversion', crediting his wife, Alice Kim, and his two sons for his newfound maturity.

However, Cage's campaigning career has hit a snag. He is unable to become an ambassador for the anti-arms cause because he remains a fully paid-up member of the National Rifle Association of America.

After all, they're just an arms manufacturer association.

They ally themselves with international and domestic terrorists's rights.

No decent and concerned citizen should have anything to do with the NRA.

I am not an NRA member, but it would seem to me that support for the Second Amendment and selling AKs and plutonium to third world dictators is a vastly different thing.

If Mr Cage sees the difference and WANTS to support Amnesty International and the NRA, then more power to him would be my opinion.




Laura

We have just about eliminated all wild habitat space and have killed off almost all species to the point of extinction and still, we have to have the macho image of a manly man killing something. We need to promote the image of a manly man protecting life (and I don't mean Eric Rudolf (sp?) rather than destroying everything he sees.

I live next to a half million acres of game land. In a state whose entire Wildlife resource department is funded by hunting licenses.

Most people who take your position have never lived in the country and have no concept of hunting or hunters. So I understand your position. There are millions of hunters in the US. Millions who vote.

States manage wildlife, there is no shortage of deer here. People die hitting them in their cars all the time.

They taste good too.

I live in a state that has many state and national parks. I live in the country and we have deer, at this point they are not infected with wasting disease. I have not heard of anyone being killed by hitting a deer around here, but see the dead deer after them being hit by vehicles. The bear are almost extinct, the racoons and possum are dead in the streets from pick up trucks and cars. In the more moutainous regions, we have rabbits, so I guess you are right. Until we are the only species left on the planet, there are still lots of other things to kill as a sport.

Around here, we have hunting parks set on large tracts of land. For certain amounts of money you too can kill an elk, moose, deer or wild pig. I'm sure they kill the bear and mountain lion with little local conversation.

I guess I'm just sick of killing today. Carry on.

Yes, we have paved WAY too much of our wild lands. Habitat is dwindling. From an environmental view you and I agree.

From the perspective of somebody that grew up eating and hunting game, I don't see it in the same way as a lot of other folks, I guess. It isn't about macho, per se, but to some of us it is about a food source that is not as commercial as the typical poultry or beef production facility. It is also a way of life that is closely tied to the cycle of carnivore and herbivore.

I'm spoiled now--I get my meat in little trays all happily displayed under saran wrap. I don't HAVE to go out and find it and then kill it and cart it home and clean it (A most unpleasant job, BTW,) THEN cook it up. I am spared witnessing the death that goes into the flesh I consume. I don't have to deal with the removal of the scales/skin/feathers/fur. I don't even have to deal with removing the entrails, nor do I have to bleed it out. Eating meat is awfully easy these days.

I suspect that if the world tilted on its axis and suddenly, somehow, I was responsible for feeding my family, we'd eat a lot less meat than we do now. When we got it, it would be a much bigger treat than it is now. It would also be a lot more evident that a death went into the consumption of that flesh. I think we like to miss that fact when it comes off plastic trays--it is easier to suppress that realization. I also think it is important that we not forget that same fact. For that reason, I don't have an issue with some of the hunters.

I will tell you that I have no respect for the "Bambi blasters" as I call them. It is the mindset that I can't deal with. "If it moves blast away at it," seems to be a kind of motto with those guys. That same attitude is frequently accompanied by large scale consumption of booze and an overall disregard and lack of respect for the lives they end. These guys have no understanding of what they do beyond the "rack" or trophy they are taking home. THAT is the hunter that I dread.

I really do understand why hunters have a bad reputation with some folks, but not everyone who hunts is that way. I fish now (when I can manage to get away to do it) but I've not been out hunting for rabbit or pheasant in several years. If I ever need to, however, I'll do it again because I consider it as a way to eat that is comparable to cultivating grains or planting a garden or making a trip to the grocery store.

Peace.



Laura

When it comes to preserving habitats

Habitat destruction kills more wildlife than all the hunters put together.

Note that sportsmen lobbies are working with environmental groups in attempting to defeat the sell of public lands.

I do NOT consider the NRA a sportsman's group, as I believe it actually has a much different political agenda. I servers the purpose (along with evangelical fundamentalists) in getting the rural working class to vote against their class interests.

there is an ever increasing risk of hitting deer on the road.

There is a lot of habitat out there, but some species populations are way out of control, thanks to bounties on predators.

pure and simple The NRA is about protecting the money making machine of the arms industry. They use "hunting" and "the second amendment" nonsense as their propaganda.

Does not have connection to the companies who make and sell US heavy weapons on the foreign markets.

General Dynamics, Raytheon, etc do not need the NRA.

Here is an interesting article about a proposed ban on guns in Brazil:

http://www.corpwatch.org/print_article.php?id=12703

The entire article is worth reading, however, down toward the bottom there is a paragraph that says: "The U.S.-based National Rifle Association (NRA), has been following Brazil’s referendum closely. "We view Brazil as the opening salvo for the global gun control movement," NRA spokesperson Andrew Arulanandam told CorpWatch a week before the vote. "If gun control proponents succeed in Brazil, America will be next." Arulanandam denied that the NRA had given financial support to influence the Brazilian vote, but had provided "advice to help secure that the ban isn’t passed." He declined to name the recipients of that advice."

I do not defend the NRA because I do recognize that they are a lobby group that has a political agenda beyond just protecting gun ownership rights in the US. You are, essentially, correct when you say the NRA is not the true profiteer in arms deals overseas, but do keep in mind that the NRA does feel it has a vested interest in gun ownership worldwide...

Having said that, I still maintain that NRA membership does not preclude membership in Amnesty International, IMO.

YMMV.


Laura

The NRA may look to a foreign event involving gun control by a government as a pot to stir.

I am talking about large sales of heavy weapons and infantry weapons to warring parties.

What does a duck hunter have in common with Adnan Kashogi? Nothing.

destroy humanity thanks to greed, the ducks will inherit the earth.

Lol. That's a great phrase. I just hope that a creature that high up the scale is still around after we humans destroy ourselves.