"Cold dead Hands" a music video by Jim Carrey. Genesis or Soulless?
Jim Carrey’s "Lonesome Earl and the Clutterbusters". -wrote a song reference to Charlton Heston NRA statement, "I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands." The wording of one part of Jim’s song was “ he could not enter Heaven, as even the angels could not pry the gun from his hands. All Staged as an episode of Hee Haw in which Heston is a guest star. The video also features The Eels dressed as Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi, and John Lennon (all of whom were advocates of peace that were assassinated with guns).
I don’t get insulted if it’s the truth, fearless enough to change, and if it’s not true just move on.
Ted Nugent (gun nut), Alex Jone (blow horn) and most of all, Fox were very angry by Jim Carrey.
I’ll say, Jim was genius, It’s about people’s behavior with Guns on earth, not so much about a man’s soul that nobody knows until each one of us, gets to that spirit world..
How about you, Genius or Soulless ?Jim Carrey and George Clooney are both talented, but that doesn't mean they have acted with tact. When somebody, form either side of the aisle, makes statements like this, it does nothing but to drive a wedge between both sides. It shows no tact, no class.
As reported at World New Daily from January of 2003:
In receiving a special film making achievement award from the National Board of Reviews, actor George Clooney joked that "Charlton Heston announced again today that he is suffering from Alzheimer's."
Clooney still had a chance to apologize for the bad humor day. When questioned about the remark by New York Newsday, Clooney sputtered: "I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the National Rifle Association. He deserves whatever anyone says about him."
Talent doesn't necessarily mean that one is acting in a moralistic way.My simple moral policies -no harm and be honest. Make good sense to allow Clooney and Carrey fit with those idea's and their hard work. Fox, Negent and Allex promote fight rather than peaceful solutions. I would defend Heston honor if he was a class act like John Lennon or Gandhi.
War or guns solve nothing. Been to 6 war zone countries, would not be alive today, if I had a gun with me.What a good quote. I love the talent of Jim Carrey and George Clooney and although Charelton Heston was a superstar in his day, he is not even on my radar for the most part... that doesn't mean anything about anything though. How could any of these ppl think that something matters to us b/c it matters to them? I'll make up my own mind about guns, abortion, who I vote for, and what matters to me, thank all y'all superstars for your input though. I'll just file it away where it belongs.
Do you even think Jesus, would approve of guns other than to kill for food? If a gun kills a soul dose that make him a super human being, or will he get the wrath of God orders - not to kill.
All that dose not matter according to America road record of hypocrites
Can't imagine Buddha, Gandhi or Jesus sitting at a table taking about weapons of mass destruction, gun or bombs.
“If every life is important, and if you’re trying to save people from dying by gunfire, then you can’t ignore nearly two-thirds of the people who are dying by suicide by gunfire.
GunIn 2010 in the U.S., 19,392 people committed suicide with guns, compared with 11,078 who were killed by others. According to (HICRC)I read back and I can't really see where Jesus was referenced in this thread... until your last post. That must have been a subject you tried to sort of force this subject into b/c you know I am a Christian?
My point was that just b/c someone acts for a living, they shouldn't think their opinion has any more weight than any other citizen. I didn't bring religion into this subject at all.You mean Heston did not make Biblical movies and went to heaven with his gun.?
We are talking about honorable men throughout history also. Jesus was man in history who did not personally use weapons. Carrey and Jesus did have guards who did have a weapons for protection them.
Carrey made 5 billion $ wroth of movies and Jesus claim to be King of kings. Makes sense, if you're talking out about guns, swords or bullies by their means of magic entertainment.I don't care about how talented Carrey is or isn't. He didn't show class. The same goes for Clooney. When is it appropriate to mock somebody who has a fatal disease?
Ted Nugent is talented too. Does that mean you think he's right?
If you want to turn this into a debate about whether or not gun rights are justified, that's a different thing. Yes, I believe gun rights are justified; I'm nauseated by the sanctimonious Hollywood liberals who spew venom at anybody who disagrees with their progressive gun-control agenda. Jim Carrey versus Thomas Jefferson? George Clooney verses John Adams? I'll take Jefferson and Adams any day of the week.Thomas Jefferson was talking about musket guns that take 3 minutes to load. In that time and distance I could run up to them and kick their ass with my bare hands.
Have the right to protect myself from killers. Should I allow him a second shot on me? I would not seriously harm him, just disarm him with a little beating, not anything like the harm of a gun.
Read the quote again and try to picture it anatomically. Then you might get the point being made.
you mean, kick their ass with my bare hands. Kick ass is open slang for any fighting or fighting protection, or just tell me what part?
Gentle beatings are the solution? Are you serious?
It's OK I've' been a world class wrestler , only would bend his arms out of shape, not break them. In order he can't reload his musket and kill me.
It's game over to the million parts of my soul if I allow him to kill me, and he may loss his soul to the lord, if he wins.What should the 100-pound woman do when attacked by three men, gently beat all three? Let's get serious.
To beat a bully, you must be either bigger, better, faster and smarter. A 100 pound woman should avoided going to place like that or invite a guy like me to come along for the adventure. I confront all bullies, unless the odds are too great and both of us will run like hell.
That would be great if all criminals knew that they couldn't attack unless it was a convenient time. Criminals, however, have a way of picking inopportune times, say late at night. . .
Then give everyone a gun and everyday it will be like -High Noon,
When each person owns a hand gun, the people have 6 times more chance of shooting someone they know than shooting the criminal.Your statistic is a myth that was debunked by Duke University. Duke University completed a comprehensive study. Here's an excerpt:
MYTH 3:"Since a gun in a home is many times more likely to kill a family member than to stop a criminal, armed citizens are not a deterrent to crime."
This myth, stemming from a superficial "study" of firearm accidents in the Cleveland, Ohio, area, represents a comparison of 148 accidental deaths (including suicides) to the deaths of 23 intruders killed by home owners over a 16-year period. 2
Here's a link:
http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm
You already have 2/3 of suicides causes by guns, that's someone you know for sure. I get back to about this guy I see a lot of cherry picking here.
No, you're wrong here. An experienced shooter, in the American Revolution, could fire three times per minute, not once every three minutes. Actually, in a pinch, they probably could have pulled off four rounds per minute. Having personally fired a Harper's Ferry Model 1803, I can say that you're wrong here. Even so, what's your point? Is this the argument liberals like to make about how guns have changed, and the founding fathers didn't intend for us to have access to guns with such large magazines and firepower?
The founding fathers chose their words carefully. They specifically referred to the right to bear arms, not the right to own guns. One has to wonder why they didn't refer to them as muskets, flintlocks, or even swords, all common weapons back in 1791. They knew technology would evolve, and current weaponry would become outdated. That's why they referred to these weapons as "arms." Were canons against the law back in 1791? No, arms were legal, not just flintlocks. What restrictions were there back then? None. That's the point. There were no restrictions on arms, a broad, carefully-selected term.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson
Some would say that the term "gun" was unpopular back then. That's why, they claim, arms was the terminology used. That's not true. Here's another quote.
"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks."
-- Thomas Jefferson
What's next? Are we going to say that the founding fathers had no idea how communications were going to change? Thus, you do not have first-amendment rights when it comes to communications via telephone and the internet? Freedom is freedom, and it doesn't need to be justified because of a change in technology. Should freedom of speech be restricted to parchment and quill, printing press, or personal communications? After all, this was the technology available back in 1791. This argument doesn't hold water when it's applied to other freedoms, but people who advocate gun control love to use it when it serves their purpose.I don't think any mature conversation about the right to bear arms should be about whether or not it exists in the Constitution and whether or not one has a right to exercise that right especially in a self defense situation. Nor should it be questioned when in the course of dealing with a tyrannical government overextending its jurisdiction. So what should be the litmus test for those who have the faculties and or proper intent for firearm ownership? Right now it seems as if you have no criminal record on file you can legally purchase one from a dealer. In the case of a criminal you can merely go down to the corner and purchase or barter for one. So what is to be done to keep the stolen firearm out of the wrongful intending offender? And can that even be effective when so many reoffend without any regard for the law? What about the legal gun owner who has someone else in the household use their firearm to hurts others? Who is culpable? Are we all to just get carry permits and shoot when feeling threatened? Is the government capable of coming to an agreeable solution? There has to be a compromise as there are too many guns out there to expect just banning them is a solution to the violence. If people point to Canada or Australia as an example, how can what worked in a different culture work in ours?
Education Answer
NO one can defeat violence with violence , no one can stop killing with killing. America has 25% of the worlds prisons and 50% of the world's world budget of the entire world combined with only 4% of the world's population.
Dose the US action look like self defence or offence toward our world?No American can give me a sound answer of this type of mental illness.
Other than taking most of the war, gun and prison budget and replace with a better social, treatment and education budget.Are we talking about guns, or are we talking about the incarceration rate in America? The incarceration rate would have more to do with drugs than guns. Only 8 percent of prisoners are incarcerated for violence, and much of that violence didn't even involve a gun; 48 percent are incarcerated for drugs.
The police stop violence with violence all the time. The police kill people, and consequently save lives, all the time.
If somebody breaks into my home and threatens to kill my family, I'm not going to be too worried about what other countries are thinking of me. I'm going to be calling 9-11 and protecting my family as best I can. If necessary, that means with violence, a gun. Further, I hope the police come quickly, and I hope they bring guns too.The worse threat every American faces comes from his/her own government. You said so yourself, gun are for the fear of own Government tyranny. Now, you want to continue a Police State, WARNING they are not your friend, in America today, police murder with impunity.
Police Are More Dangerous To The Public Than Are Criminals. Washington have squandered trillions of dollars on their wars, killing and dispossessing millions of Muslims while millions of American citizens have been dispossessed of their homes and careers. Millions of American are killed or imprison for pot each year, wail only two cops were killed. I thought cops were supposed to lay down their lives for the pubic. Cannabis is the most important plant in the world and we continuously loss that drug war for the last 75 years.I own guns for sport and to protect myself against criminals, not the police.
Police are more dangerous than criminals? Let's see statistics.
Cannabis is the most important plant in the world? Are you serious? Do you eat cannabis for breakfast? I eat wheat.You think the government allow proper document on pot when they won’t event join in a debate or study the science about cannabis. They are the greatest coward and liars, I’ve have ever meet.
I like to eat cannabis seed for Breakfast as it has the second most nutrient value next to soya and most value for medicine. Here is some entrenched interest groups that are spending large sums of money to keep our broken drug laws on the books:
1.) Police Unions: Private Prisons Corporations: Alcohol and tobacco Companies: Fearing competition on leisure, Pharmaceutical Corporations: the “second biggest opponent on Capitol Hill is big PhRMA” because marijuana can replace “ Prison Guard Unions: keeping people behind bars just like for-profit prison companies. Forestry, Cotton , Plastics and oil industries as cannabis make 50,OOO other products.
Less than half of all murders are solved they are far more concern of easy busting pot possession for their greatest profit for prison complex. Maybe if I being murdered, I would cell phone the cops to tell them the muggers have pot on them and the cops will come running. The police have little or no significant effect on the overall crime rate many are later proven innocent and police falsify and fabricate evidence to get a conviction in a large percentage of cases. More than three times as many black people live in prison cells as in college dorms. They spend more on prisons than on education.
I think Jim was hilarious. Fux News was funny as well.
I was hoping someone would notice the Video.
I think there is a very fine line between confronting a bully and being one. In the recent movie theater murder case one man threw popcorn, the other replied with a bullet. Who was the bully?
Why that dirty popcorn thrower, murder was too good for him!!! lo
Got strapped so bad in school; that I could not write with my hand for 3 weeks. Why,? because I dropped my pencil a few times. Still today, drop popcorn and pencil all the time, it didn't do me any good.
Punishment worst than the crime still goes for most, right into the afterlife.
Related Discussions
- 126
Some Say:" Guns Don't Kill People do" But Aren't Guns Weapons Created To Kill?
by VC L Veasey 8 years ago
Some Say:" Guns Don't Kill People do" But Aren't Guns Weapons Created To Kill?
- 9
Is Jim Carrey a hypocrite?
by Cassie Smith 10 years ago
Is Jim Carrey a hypocrite?Jim Carrey now comes out with an opinion piece on huff-po which states "I Never Wanted to Take Your Guns Away", just to limit them. lol! And also call gun owners "heartless mother*uc*ers". His "satiric" video, Cold Dead Hand, basically...
- 9
Why do conservatives get upset with Jim Carrey?
by Cassie Smith 10 years ago
Why do conservatives get upset with Jim Carrey?Jim Carrey is a has-been comedian who uploaded a short, Cold Dead Hand, which he said was a biting satire about guns and their supporters. We all know he's liberal, we all know that it's one-sided. He's also not respectful of Charleton...
- 29
Should guns be restricted to military, police and security guards?
by Cindy Vine 12 years ago
Should guns be restricted to military, police and security guards?
- 407
2nd Amendment meaning
by WTucker 13 years ago
What does the second amendment mean to you? Please include historical precedence and logical deduction for your meaning. I would discourage what you wish the gun policy would be for the US but rather what you feel the amendment actually means.A well regulated militia being necessary to...
- 102
This is how we save lives from gun violence
by promisem 5 years ago
If you want a factual and research-based explanation of how to reduce gun violence, please read the informative article below.https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics … c24213c694