Wow. Who knew James Bond's alter egos -- every stinking last one of them -- were such poseurs?
David Codrea, of the always excellent blog The War On Guns, writes a column this month for GUNS magazine on the subject of how each and every one of the tools who has played James Bond through the years is, more or less, an advocate of civilian disarmament. I would recommend you read the whole thing, but I was really most disappointed in the revelation that Sean Connery was instrumental in pushing through the effective disarmament of the British people after the Dunblane massacre. Mr. Codrea writes that Connery said, (in ads on the BBC, I gather), "It is said that a total ban on handguns, including .22s, would take away innocent pleasure from thousands of people...Is that more or less pleasure than watching your child grow up?"
I suppose some might think I beat certain issues to death, but still, I have to say, this is, as the British would say, bollocks. I know logic and reasoning are in dreadfully short supply among the glitterati, but I really expected better from Mr. Connery than a pandering presentation of an outrageously false choice. If it indeed was a choice between being able to shoot guns and watching your child grow up, then shooting wouldn't really be such an "innocent pleasure," now would it? There is (and was) absolutely no reason the British people cannot watch their children grow up and, in the process, teach them the values, virtues and life lessons inherent to the handling of arms -- yes, Sarah and Jim, with the actual handling of arms. (See Eric S. Raymond's excellent essay Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun for some great thoughts on this.) The anti-gunners will keep saying we should follow their lead, but the fact is that the British people, driven purely by emotion, sold their freedom, their natural right of self-defense, down the river for a false sense of security. And they're paying the price for it now. That's been said many times before, but I just find it amazing that people who would play such a character as Double-Aught-Seven would have such an aversion to one of his main tools, let alone the tool being trusted to the hands of someone who doesn't act under the auspices of the government. It reeks of hypocrisy. Such is nothing new from the Hollywood crowd, but I know I will never look at James Bond the same way again...
|