Home > 2nd amendment/guns/weapons > Tom Selleck and the NRA: Do I have to hate Blue Bloods?

Tom Selleck and the NRA: Do I have to hate Blue Bloods?

January 19th, 2013

tom_selleck_2

Tom Selleck is a spokesperson for NRA.

From wiki:

Political views and the NRA

To promote his film The Love Letter, Selleck was invited to be on The Rosie O’Donnell Show on May 19, 1999. However, he found himself defending an ad in which he appeared supporting the National Rifle Association (NRA) and his position on gun ownership. Selleck said, “It’s your show, and you can talk about it after I leave.” O’Donnell was highly criticized; it was criticism which led her to make an apology to Selleck by saying, “For him feeling embarrassed and humiliated by me, I strongly do apologize to him personally, but I do not apologize for my feelings about the issue of gun control.”[24]

Selleck is a member of the Board of Directors and public spokesman of the NRA.[25] After close friend Charlton Heston stepped down—due to failing health—as the highly visible public spokesman of the NRA in 2003, Selleck has stepped up in comparable manner to succeed him.[26] In 2002, Selleck donated the rifle he used in Quigley Down Under (a custom 13-pound [6 kg], single-shot, 1874 Sharps Rifle, with a 34-inch [86-cm] barrel),[27] along with six other firearms from his other films, to the National Rifle Association, as part of the NRA’s exhibit “Real Guns of Reel Heroes” at the National Firearms Museum in Fairfax, Virginia.[25]

For a number of years, Selleck appeared in television advertising for The National Review (he also subscribes to The New Republic).[28] He endorsed Senator John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. Selleck describes himself politically as “a registered independent with a lot of libertarian leanings.”[29] In a 2012 magazine article about his career, he mentioned that he likes the fact that his character on Blue Bloods and his family are visibly practicing Catholics, while adding that he is not very religious himself.

You know, I love Blue Bloods.  What a great cop show!   I don’t give a rat’s ass about Tom Selleck’s politics.  I loved Magnum, P.I.  I have liked him in other roles.  I don’t really care about his politics.  For that matter, I love Joan Baez’s music.  I sure didn’t like her politics either.   She was way too far out in left field for me.  (At least that’s what I told my parents.)

Last night, Lawrence O’Donnell had quite a diatribe on Selleck and challenged him to denounce his NRA membership on the board.  I found O’Donnell offensive. He was on his high horse.   I dislike the NRA intensely.  On the other hand, I would prefer to have someone like Selleck on the board of directors as opposed to some idiot like Ted Nugent.  I would think that Tom Selleck had a brain and would lead the organization in the right direction rather than pushing it to the far right limits.

Have I sold my soul because I like the TV show?

 

 

 

Categories: 2nd amendment/guns/weapons Tags:
  1. Lady Emma
    January 19th, 2013 at 08:17 | #1

    No, you haven’t sold anything. I saw Blue Bloods on a flight recently and it was very good. I just haven’t picked up on it here. Selleck is one of the last of the really cool guys of the 80s.

    • January 19th, 2013 at 08:39 | #2

      He is being sharply criticized because of his association with the NRA.

      He isn’t a blow hard like Heston.

      I just wouldn’t stop watching blue Bloods which I really enjoy over something like his affiliation with the NRA.

  2. Lyssa
    January 19th, 2013 at 09:21 | #3

    Of course not. I don’t think you’re lessening you’re conviction because you disagree with someone on a topic or two but enjoy other aspects of the relationship. I think that’s what’s missing. I enjoy Bluebloods but it is a little hokey. That much family connection has typically been vilified in many arenas :)

    • January 19th, 2013 at 11:39 | #4

      The family connection is sort of what I find horribly refreshing for a change. 4 generations. How often does that happen.

  3. Morris Davis
    January 19th, 2013 at 18:13 | #5

    So far there have only been 5 people hurt in accidental shootings at gun shows in NC, IN and OH on gun appreciation day. Aren’t those celebrating guns on its special day supposed to be the responsible ones?

  4. Morris Davis
    January 19th, 2013 at 21:39 | #7

    It’s today. Posted below is a link to an article about the 3 gun show shootings. I’m sure there has to be some conspiracy theory that blames it all on Obama or Acorn and their sinister plot for a UN invasion before imposing Sharia law.

    http://m.gawker.com/5977377/gun-appreciation-day-celebrated-with-accidental-shootings-at-gun-shows-in-north-carolina-and-ohio

  5. Scout
    January 19th, 2013 at 23:10 | #8

    I watched “Tombstone” tonight. It had Charlton Heston in it in a secondary role. It must have been his last film. These days, the whole country seems to have become the Earps versus the Clantons. Great scene where the cowboys are all riled because the Earps have imposed some sensible gun regulation in Tombstone. Virgil Earp (the always estimable Sam Elliott) tells the mob that he’s not saying that they can’t own guns, but he is saying they can’t have them in the town.

    In any event, Charlton Heston’s presence didn’t make this into a gun flic (it would have very much have been that without him). There are good actors, and not so good actors. He was one of the greats.

    • January 20th, 2013 at 01:25 | #9

      I will never forget him in Ben Hur. We all thought he was grand and handsome, even as tweenies.

  6. Lyssa
    January 19th, 2013 at 23:43 | #10

    Moon-howler :
    The family connection is sort of what I find horribly refreshing for a change. 4 generations. How often does that happen.

    Three generations and of course the Asst DA is part of the family – And Danny is the best Detective of the 40,000 cops :)

    • January 20th, 2013 at 03:51 | #11

      The grandfather
      Chief Reagan
      All the kids Danny, kid brother who went to law school, assist. DA
      Their kids.

      Its a good show. Its hokey. I need a little hokey in my life. Remember I have my letter from earl Hamner Jr. I knew the real Jim Bob.

  7. Lyssa
    January 20th, 2013 at 08:00 | #12

    Jim Bob!!! You’re kidding. How did you know him?

    • January 20th, 2013 at 11:37 | #13

      I worked with him at the University Hospital in Charlottesville. I was in high school working weekends. He was probably 10-15 years older than I was. He worked in credit and I worked in the business office. He had to do the weekend rotational. He bragged about who his brother was….the guy who wrote Spencer’s Mountain. At that time, the Waltons hadn’t been written. He died about 10 years ago. I lost touch after I grew up for various reasons. If I still lived there I would have probably stayed in touch by running by those offices. Alas…that didn’t happen.

      Here is the Obit.
      http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/timesdispatch/obituary.aspx?n=james-edmund-hamner&pid=2090148#fbLoggedOut

  8. January 20th, 2013 at 15:38 | #14

    Moon, back to your original question over whether you’ve sold your soul by watching and enjoying a program that features someone with whom you disagree politically, my answer is absolutely not. I’m somewhat appalled that you’d even think that.

    As intelligent adults we ought to be able to disagree with one another on issues and still remain friends / colleagues / fans. There are plenty of actors whose opinions on issues I think are reprehensible, but if they appear in a program I want to see, then I watch them. There’s a difference between the role they play and the person they are. I may disagree with them as a person, and will fight against them to the extent of my abilities, but if I enjoy them in the roles they play, I’ll still watch them.

    It’s the same with politicians. Just because someone is a Republican or a Democrat doesn’t mean I hate them or disagree with everything they stand for. There are lots of politicians I disagree with on multiple topics, but that doesn’t mean I hate them. I can think of a number of local politicians with whom I disagree on many issues, but I like them as people because they’re good parents or spouses or give generously to the community.

    I find it unfortunate that we as a community seem increasingly unable to separate the person from the issue. I’ve been extremely outspoken in my disapproval of the instructional approach the PWCS Math Department advocates. I’ve tried to keep my concerns with the math program in our schools focused on the program itself. Because I’ve expressed my disapproval so publicly and loudly, I’ve been characterized as a pretty nasty person by people who disagree with me. The thing is, I’m not a nasty person. I’m a good Mom, an OK wife, and I’ll bend over backwards to help someone in need – even people with whom I disagree on virtually everything.

    Adults – sensible, intelligent, rational adults – can and should separate the person from the issue. People who can’t need to grow up.

    If you disagree with Tom Selleck on gun control, then address what it is about his opinion that you disagree with. And if you think he’s great in his new show, then enjoy the show. Watching him and enjoying his performance as a character in a TV program doesn’t change or undermine your opinion on gun issues one bit.

    • January 20th, 2013 at 16:00 | #15

      Let’s ask Cargo if he is willing to pay money to go see a Jane Fonda movie? Cargo???

      I don’t know what Tom Selleck’s opinion on gun control is. For all I know he agrees with me. However he is on the board of directors, so it seemed like an interesting question to ask. Someone is always cutting on some actor because of their polticis. Eastwood got in the act and there is always Heston or Whoopie Goldberg to stir everyone up. Thanks, Kim.

      Oh, and I do think we are known for our vocal opinions…by those who don’t know us personally. That’s probably just the way it works. You probably faired better than I do to our political enemies. Look at what my main political “umbrella” is–reproductive rights. I have had people actually try to do me harm–not recently because I have been pretty quiet…narry a bumper sticker. I got tired of being keyed.

  9. Starryflights
    January 20th, 2013 at 19:51 | #16

    @Morris Davis
    Three accidental shootings at gun shows on gun appreciation day is a good illustration of tat I’d adage, “It’s only funny until somebody gets hurt – and then it’s freakin hilarious,” haha!

  10. January 20th, 2013 at 22:38 | #17

    @Moon-howler
    No. I’m not willing to pay money for a Jane Fonda movie. However, her politics is only part of the reason. I just don’t watch most of what she’s in AND I don’t have a need to give her money. I have a personal stake….my brother was a helo pilot in Vietnam.

    The only movies that I’ve seen of hers are Barbarella, Cat Ballou, Nine to Five (Saw that because of Lily Tomlin and Dolly Parton. I had forgotten that she was in it until I looked it up) and On Golden Pond. And I barely remember her being in that last one. Kate Hepburn and Henry Fonda rock!
    I saw all of her movies on TV for free.

    But I will watch Glover in the Lethal Weapon and Predator movies. I will watch Asner in anything. But I will admit that actors advocating for laws will make me weigh that in what movies I go see. If I don’t agree with them, why should I give them money? If the movie is good enough, I can probably ignore that. Activism has consequences.

  11. George S. Harris
    January 21st, 2013 at 14:12 | #18

    There is responsible gun ownership and there is irresponsible gun ownership. While I do not think the founding fathers meant for people to have unlimited access to as many guns as they can afford, I do think people should be able to buy guns, but they must be reviewed and they must be required to have a license that is renewable perhaps every five years. ALL gun sales must be reported and the buyer subject to review.

  12. January 22nd, 2013 at 08:11 | #19

    @George S. Harris
    No.

    No registration. No licenses are needed to exercise a right.

    • January 22nd, 2013 at 11:09 | #20

      Bull crap. What do you call a birth certificate. That’s a birth registration.

      I totally disagree with you. I have a right to vote and I must be registered to vote. I can’t just walk in off the street singing “I’m here.”

  13. January 22nd, 2013 at 15:13 | #21

    Apparently, in some cases..people do.

    And registration of voters protects THE VOTERS. Gun registration protects no one. As for birth certification… Many people didn’t have them…same with passports, etc, until recently. For values of recently that is. 1924 for passports. About 1900 for a standard birth certificate.
    Did you register for WHOM you vote? No. Can you vote without registration…some can. Depends on the states. They verify your residency after a provisional ballot.

    And since proof of citizenship is required for many things, certification is needed. However, certification is not needed to be born. It does not restrict being born nor does it provide a tool of constraint. And if it turned out that it did, I would be against that too.

    Gun registration is good for one thing only… as a tool for later confiscation.

  14. January 22nd, 2013 at 15:36 | #22

    That is so paranoid. Now who is going to come confiscate your gun? Shall I see about getting you a tin foil hat while you tell me?

    I like to think that gun registration might help me get my gun back if it was stolen.

    Most people nowadays need a birth certificate to conduct most business. Very old people use family bibles etc., in the absence of a birth cerficate. In many cases it has nothing to do with citizenship, especially since citizenship can be acquired in other ways.

  15. January 22nd, 2013 at 19:09 | #23

    @Moon-howler
    Well, let’s see… Feinstein wants to confiscate guns. There’s a pol in CT that wants to ban all guns that hold more than a single shot in CT. New York routine seizes guns from families because a dead owner’s heir cannot get “permission” for a hand gun.

    If my gun gets stolen, then I will report the serial number to the police. Besides, felons that own guns…. well here: http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/
    In case you get in any conversations around the water cooler about gun registration these days and you want to lob a conversational grenade, you can point out to your co-workers that the Supreme Court held in its’ 1968 Haynes decision that felons could not be required to register firearms, as doing so would be a violation of their Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination.

    _______

    Also, if a felon lies on a 4473…. he’s not liable. If he tells the truth, its also self-incrimination.

    • January 22nd, 2013 at 19:29 | #24

      Why do you think Feinstein wants to confiscate guns? I have been listening to this lady and she has not said that since I have been listening to her on this subject.

      I have only talked to 2 people in my life who wanted to go round up all the guns. Both were in a family were both brothers had been killed in separate gun incidents. One a suicide, the other a murder. Obviously these women were not representative of society.

  16. January 23rd, 2013 at 13:27 | #25

    Because she has stated that she wants to.

    From Wiki: Discussing why the 1994 act only prohibited the manufacture or import of assault weapons, instead of the possession and sale of them, Feinstein said on CBS-TV’s 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”

    But she’s also a hypocrite. She has a concealed carry permit and goes armed.

    Her new AWB bill contains provisions that will result in the confiscation of weapons.

    • January 23rd, 2013 at 13:48 | #26

      I think you need to make a distinction between assault weapon and gun. Are you telling me she has a concealed permit for an assault weapon?

      You are suggesting that she shouldn’t arm herself because she opposed possession of assault weapons in 1993?

      I think that is pretty harsh.

      I think people are ssurely within their rights to oppose certain types of guns being out there without being accused of wanting to round up everyone’s guns.

  17. January 23rd, 2013 at 14:17 | #27

    She wants to confiscate handguns. She is trying to ban some semiautomatic weapons and place draconian controls on the most popular rifle style in America, among other weapons.

    No, I’m not saying she shouldn’t arm herself, at all. I’m saying that she shouldn’t work to disarms us.

    I also think that people are surely within their rights to oppose without being accused of want to round up everyone’s guns. She is one that IS wanting to round up guns.

    Here’s the bullet points of her new bill:

    Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
    120 specifically-named firearms;
    Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
    Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
    Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
    Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
    Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and
    Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.
    Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
    Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
    Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
    Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
    Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.
    Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
    Background check of owner and any transferee;
    Type and serial number of the firearm;
    Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
    Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
    Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.

    This covers, basically, what I would tell you about the above travesty
    http://cms.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2012/feinstein-goes-for-broke-with-new-gun-ban-bill.aspx

    • January 23rd, 2013 at 16:42 | #28

      Cargo, Senator Feinstein wasn’t referring to handguns in her statement. She was speaking of assault weapons.

      From wiki:

      Discussing why the 1994 act only prohibited the manufacture or import of assault weapons, instead of the possession and sale of them, Feinstein said on CBS-TV’s 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”

  18. January 23rd, 2013 at 20:44 | #29

    Wiki: as mayor of San Fran: Also in 1983, Feinstein proposed banning handguns in San Francisco.

    She doesn’t like guns. And her current bills include handguns as part of the ban and confiscation.

    • January 23rd, 2013 at 23:49 | #30

      It clearly has said assault weapons. Now you tell me she wants to ban all hand guns? I don’t believe she mentioned confiscation. MOst bills want to grandfather in various weapons.

      You keep moving the goal posts on me, Cargo.

      You are giving me this yes but stuff every time I check something out. I think I might just start saying “good.” At least good stands still.

  19. Scout
    January 23rd, 2013 at 21:17 | #31

    @ CS at 1909 on 22 January: as much as I value your contributions here, you’re just dead wrong about Form 4473. If a felon (or anyone else) lies on a submission like 4473, they’ve committed a crime. The correct Fifth Amendment approach if someone does not want to incriminate themselves is not to file the form. Your comment implies that the law permits felons to do things that law-abiding folks cannot do. Nonsense.

  20. January 24th, 2013 at 09:29 | #32

    @Moon-howler
    You are right. In that context, she probably meant the rifles. But she has promoted handgun bans. And this bill does have confiscation in it since you cannot transfer her “banned” weapons, which include handguns. They will not be passed on to anybody and must be confiscated.

    For the 4473, further research has shown me that I a)was misinformed. b) wrote what I meant clumsily, but that has no further meaning due to A).

    I think that I was mixing it with the Haynes vs. United States case. Sorry about that. Probably was writing too fast.

  21. Scout
    January 24th, 2013 at 19:43 | #33

    A very gracious comment, CS. You are a gentleman and a valued colleague. I will try to live up to your standards in being candid in blog comments (and retractions when I get it wrong). Thank you (followed by a crisp, snappy salute).

Comments are closed.