Pardon our dust! We just migrated to a new host and platform, and we're still doing some fine-tuning. Broken images, URLs, etc. will be par for the course.
**½/**** Image A Sound A- Extras B- starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, Forest Whitaker, Johnny Knoxville, Rodrigo Santoro screenplay by Andrew Knauer directed by Kim Jee-woon
by Walter Chaw I think, and I don’t say this lightly, that South Korean filmmaker Kim Jee-woon is a genius. His landmark A Tale of Two Sisters is lush and at times unbearably frightening; his A Bittersweet Life is an elegiac crime saga with the best, most innovative knife-fight in a movie until the naked scuffle in Eastern Promises; his The Good, the Bad, the Weird (which his latest most resembles) is a dizzy, hilarious take on the Spaghetti Western; and his I Saw the Devil is the slickest, and stickiest, exploitation serial-killer/torture flick I’ve ever seen. He’s his country’s Takashi Miike, its Quentin Tarantino. And his American-made, English-language debut, unceremoniously dumped in the middle of the deadly first quarter of 2013, is, I guess you could say, at least better than John Woo’s Hollywood baptism, Hard Target. The tragedy of it all is that the picture will be more ballyhooed not for the arrival of Kim on our shores, but for the return to the action genre of one Arnold Schwarzenegger (Expendables cameos notwithstanding), here cast as a soft-around-the-middle aging lawman in the Stallone-in-Copland mold who stands up against a cabal of snarling baddies in defense of the AARP and the NRA in one fell, sometimes ironic, swoop. I’ve never not liked a Kim film, but he’s testing me. Ultimately, it’s impossible to completely hate a movie that references, in addition to all the pictures Schwarzenegger’s made, one–Paul Verhoeven’s forever-gestating Crusades epic–he never got to.
The Last Stand is really just a by-the-numbers, late-’80s toss-off actioner salvaged to watchability by Kim’s direction and the amusement factor of Ah-nuld playing his age and declaring his “honour” after it’s been horribly besmirched by his time sitting at the head of a bankrupt California and cheating on Maria with the housekeeper. He’s Sheriff Ray of Podunk, Arizona, with three deputies and a past in The Show (LA Narc) that’s left him with scars and an appreciation for country living. His Barney Fife is “Figgy” (Luis Guzman), the cute one is Deputy Sarah (Jaimie Alexander), the innocent one who talks about his dreams right before the big shootout is Jerry (Zach Gilford), and then there’s Johnny Knoxville as a gun nut or something who does a Jackass™ stunt to the pleasure of everyone assembled who thinks they’ve figured out a clever meta-reference. Oh, hell, maybe they have; I’ve lost track of what’s post-modern anymore and what’s the only way left that anyone can communicate. Anyway, Ray is called back to action after discovering the body of Farmer Grouchy (Harry Dean Stanton) and figuring out that it’s all connected to the prison-break of drug kingpin Gabriel Cortez (Eduardo Noriega), aided by henchman Burrell (Peter Stormare, doing a weird hillbilly-cum-Swedish accent) and pursued by FBI stooge Bannister (Forest Whitaker). Does Ray have what it takes? Will the film honour its title and leave no room for a sequel?
Armed with nothing like innovation or intelligence at the script level, Kim lards The Last Stand with several inspired visual gags that culminate in a chase through a cornfield and one frozen, bird’s-eye shot that gifts the film with a kind of wit it doesn’t deserve. The picture’s prologue, meanwhile, is economical and tense, and various touch-points along the way–including a sly indictment of the Amendment 2 whackos who proclaim, as one did at my screening, that the events depicted in the film are exactly the reason private citizens should own military weaponry–point to an accomplished director slumming to get work in the United States. The hoots of approval attending the reveal of a highly illegal 1939 Vickers Machine Gun and some sentiment expressed about how the government doesn’t need to know it’s in civilian hands says a lot about the Red Dawn wish-fulfillment that The Last Stand projects. It’s sort of like a dream, isn’t it, for Grandma to get the chance to shoot an Asian guy out of her crap shop and back into the Old West? I have a hard time believing that someone like Kim, who makes films like A Bittersweet Life and I Saw the Devil, films so eloquently about the consequences of violence both real and cinematic, doesn’t see the irony in a vintage gun-fetish shoot-’em-up starring the aging poster-child of homoerotic manmeat wielding cold, hard, gunmetal dicks in defense of his adopted land. What I’m saying is that The Last Stand is a good version of a bad movie and that I hope Kim doesn’t end up like John Woo did in Hollywood–or if he does, that he has the sense to go home a couple of movies sooner than Woo did.
THE BLU-RAY DISC by Bill Chambers Released on Blu-ray by Lionsgate in the U.S. and eOne in Canada, The Last Stand docks on the format in a glossy 2.40:1, 1080p transfer. In the extras, director Kim Jee-woon says via translator that what drew him to the project was its analog (Ah-nuld and WWII-era weaponry) vs. digital (Cortez and his supercar) subtext, and that’s reflected in a film that looks at once plastic and old-fashioned. Greenscreen dominates countless shots, for instance, but however much the technique has been refined over the years, the seams show here as if in some compositing homage to rear-projection. Nevertheless, the Alexa-generated image is, however perfect, not altogether uncinematic, thanks to relatively diffused focus, saturation, and contrast. The 7.1 DTS-HD MA track–which I listened to in a lossless 5.1 downmix–has one minor issue: the dialogue is balanced low against the robust music and effects. Forest Whitaker is practically inaudible at reference level, but raise the volume at your peril, as gunshots can be sudden and piercing. Perhaps full 7.1 would make all the difference in unpacking the centre channel. For what it’s worth, the ricochet sounds that scatter across the room are some of the most convincing I’ve ever heard.
The four HiDef featurettes on board the disc are snooze-worthy to varying degrees. “Not in My Town: The Making of The Last Stand” (28 mins.) sends a lot of love both Schwarzenegger’s and Kim’s way; everybody’s excited to work with everybody. The best part breaks down the zipline sequence, which took the action coordinators forever to figure out but is probably the kind of thing Kim could’ve knocked out in his sleep in Korea. We learn that downtown Albuquerque subbed for Las Vegas in a jarring reminder that Vegas has a government sector somewhere among the casinos and bordellos. “Cornfield Chaos: Scene Breakdown” (11 mins.) goes into gratifying detail about the 1000-horsepower Corvette the baddie drives in the film, while “The Dinkum Firearm & Historic Weaponry Museum Tour” (11 mins.) interviews the geeks who stocked the production with vintage guns and ammo, including a Magnum that thoroughly emasculates Dirty Harry’s .44. Lastly, “Actor-Cam Anarchy with Johnny Knoxville and Jaimie Alexander” (11 mins.) intercuts P.O.V. footage captured by the two eponymous stars as they give us an above-the-line talent’s-eye view of the set that mostly entails hugging/embarrassing camera-shy crew members.
A 14-minute block of “Extended Scenes” (HD) proved indistinguishable to me from anything in the finished product, save for a gash on Schwarzenegger’s forehead that was subsequently erased in post. The 8-minute block of “Deleted Scenes” (HD) is slightly more interesting, revealing a greater emphasis on Ray’s age (he’s introduced applying Ben Gay to his legs) as well as the impetus for the Rodrigo Santoro character’s arrest, which, perhaps too depressingly for this film, suggests he is in a losing battle with addiction. The eOne platter we received for review does not come with any additional copies of The Last Stand.
107 minutes; R; 2.40:1 (1080p/MPEG-4); English 7.1 DTS-HD MA, French DD 5.1; English, English SDH, French SDH subtitles; BD-50; Region A; eOne (Canada)/Lionsgate (U.S.)
what issues do you think Walter has, Mr. AtheistConservative?
Plebontheweb
January 18, 2013,
Oh Walter bashing the NRA again. Like when he proclaimed the NRA to be ‘dangerous’ in a review posted some time ago… of course he never explained or gave any sense as to in which way he felt the NRA were ‘dangerous’. Perhaps he’ll chime in with an elaboration here! If he knows what he was talking about, that is.
Isn’t any organisation based on the promotion of a weapon dangerous by definition? Especially a weapon that kills like 20000 of your people a year… It’s like having an association that promotes the value of cancer, or cigarettes, or speeding in high-traffic areas. Wake up.
Josh
January 18, 2013,
but enough of this madness. the real story here is that arnold is supposedly going to play conan again, king by his own hand. aging conan nerds rejoice.
Plebontheweb
January 19, 2013,
Ah, but the NRA doesn’t promote the equivalent of cancer or speeding. As for your statement about guns killing 20000 per year (actually something like 8000 last year I believe), I think you’ll find that the vast majority of murders/unlawful shootings are committed by gangbangers/criminals in urban areas with stringent gun control laws.
Perhaps you could point me to efforts being made to disarm the gangbangers/criminals in those areas, as opposed to the roundabout and ineffective tactic of hoping disarming ‘Mr & Mrs America’ would lead to the criminals being disarmed. Which you might call ‘trickle-down’ gun confiscation.
You’ve failed to give a good explanation of why the NRA is dangerous. But I don’t suppose Walter could himself offer a better one, if he could, no doubt he’d have spoken up himself by now.
Jonathan
January 19, 2013,
Josh already explained it, but I am foolish enough to try again. The NRA has 1 (one) goal: to sell more guns. Now, this is America and it’s the job of every lobbying group to support their products so I don’t hold it against them. But you have to agree that more guns = more deaths from guns. It doesn’t matter that the NRA isn’t explicitly advocating their sale to gangbangers or whatever term you used, that’s just saying “well it’s not as bad as it could be.” Which I agree with, it could definitely be worse but you must also agree that for every additional gun the probability of a gun crime rises EVER SO SLIGHTLY. An unnoticeable amount by itself maybe but with the volume of guns sold every year the cumulative amount becomes something significant. So that’s why the NRA is inherently dangerous. Even if things could be worse and even if what they are doing isn’t illegal and is their God-given right as American citizens. I won’t get off on a tangent addressing your other points.
Now Walter, he won’t come in here and defend his comment because I don’t think he really cares and he only throws those little remarks in as click-bait for the easily riled conservative types like Mr. AtheistConservative (who of course swallowed the hook immediately). I’ve noticed lately that a lot of the reviews here have had to be “edgy,” such as giving the Hobbit half a star and railing against 48p for half the post rather than detailing why he believed the film to be that poor. I’m disappointed because for years this has been my favorite and most trusted site for movie reviews. It would be a shame if FFC mutated into an Armond White equivalent because I truly would miss the well-reasoned and carefully considered reviews of days past.
One last note, I think Walter is confused about Mr. Kim’s directing history since he cites A Bittersweet Life as containing “the best, most innovative knife-fight in a movie until the naked scuffle in Eastern Promises.” While A Bittersweet Life contains several, in my opinion, iconic scenes (the opening fight on the table, the scene at the gun dealer’s, even the end credits have stuck with me) I cannot recall a knife fight scene in that film. I believe he is confusing it with the far inferior Man from Nowhere, and I wanted to clarify to do Mr. Kim’s best work justice.
Plebontheweb
January 19, 2013,
That’s one tortured, reaching ‘explanation’ (actually non-explanation) for Walter’s contention that the NRA are dangerous, since the NRA has no direct responsibility for gun deaths. That would be the persons committing the acts leading to those gun deaths, as I explained before, a large proportion of those are attributable to gangs/criminals, so it seems that those criminals are far more ‘dangerous’ than you expect us to believe the NRA are. Is there some reason why the gangs etc. aren’t railed against as much as the NRA?
That’s also why I don’t have to agree that ‘more guns = more deaths from guns’ since you’re lumping in the guns bought by the general law-abiding majority with the guns used by criminals, which are responsible for many more deaths in proportion to the number of guns owned by non-criminals.
Jonathan
January 19, 2013,
The explanation was only “tortured” after I went to lengths to break it down for you. The original was actually very succinct if you recall. In it, guns were compared to other dangers like cigarettes or speeding. Now, you could argue that speeding kills more people than guns do and nobody tries to ban cars but cars serve another purpose besides killing, while guns are very singular in their use. And we still regulate cars, limiting how fast they are allowed to go and who is allowed to drive them for instance.
You appear to acknowledge that non-gang members do commit some gun violence (or accidents occur even) but pin the majority on gangs/criminals using wording like: “a large proportion of those are attributable to gangs/criminals” and “responsible for many more deaths in proportion.” This would indicate that you know that even in the hands of the larger, non-criminal public guns are still attributed to SOME deaths and are therefore dangerous. You can surely see then why it follows that an organization that promotes guns could likewise be viewed as dangerous.
Unfortunately, your refusal to admit this to yourself and language like “Is there some reason why the gangs etc. aren’t railed against as much as the NRA?” would indicate that you either aren’t serious about the conversation at best or you have no grounding in this reality. Either way, I understand that I will not change your mind so I will let this go. I hope you have a good day.
Jacob
January 20, 2013,
RE: Jonathan
[I’ve noticed lately that a lot of the reviews here have had to be “edgy,” such as giving the Hobbit half a star and railing against 48p for half the post rather than detailing why he believed the film to be that poor. I’m disappointed because for years this has been my favorite and most trusted site for movie reviews. It would be a shame if FFC mutated into an Armond White equivalent because I truly would miss the well-reasoned and carefully considered reviews of days past.]
What past are you referring to? Walter Chaw is no more inflammatory than he’s ever been. He’s always been liberal with one stars, half stars, and zero stars. Just because he’s starting to tread on your sacred cows doesn’t mean the site has changed. That’s classic internet narcissism.
Plebontheweb
January 20, 2013,
@ Jonathan
You say, ‘You appear to acknowledge’ –
Of course the above only serves to highlight that YOU have NOT acknowledged the role played in the gun death rate by criminals/gangs, which is to be expected, after all, people on your side of the gun ownership issue do not believe in making any acknowledgement of or concession to those who disagree with you. Concessions and compromise are for the OTHER person to make, not you.
I’d suggest that that has more to do with you wanting to duck out than not being able to change my mind or whatever.
Josh
January 20, 2013,
Pleb is working pretty hard here. I wonder if he’s aware of the irony of calling himself a pleb while frantically defending an extremely corporatized lobby group.
That aside, justifying the fact that the NRA lobbies against any kind of gun control by saying that most gun crimes are committed by ‘gangbangers’ in urban areas with strict gun laws ignores the fact that there are a shitload of guns manufactured and sold in the US because there’s a massive market for them, and lobbying against any kind of regulation on that front guarantees that the tap stays wide open, and those are the same guns that end up on the streets. unregistered guns are still the same guns, manufactured in the same factories. If there are millions of guns lying around, people are going to catch bullets.
The idea that there’s any legitimate argument for a situation like that is a joke. the fact that pleb’s spending so much energy on such an argument reveals a pretty shocking cynicism in the face of the kind of news an american wakes up to every morning. does he wonder why his fellow plebs are filling each other with bullets every day while rich guys tell them having guns is their most sacred right?
Plebontheweb
January 21, 2013,
Um, my ‘fellow plebs’ aren’t ‘filling each other with bullets’. You know, since there’s at least 43 million households with lawfully owned firearms, if your ideas were in any way true the annual gun death toll would number in the millions and would be broadly distributed across the entirety of the gun-owning populace, instead of being more-or-less concentrated in the (gun-free) inner cities.
As for your excoriating the NRA for supposedly making cynical reference to the situation the gangbangers create, I’d better tell you that I’m not a member of the NRA and pay little attention to what they in particular have to say about anything. That gangbangers contribute an exceedingly high proportion of the annual gun death toll is, in fact, common knowledge, despite it being denied by the ‘agenda-driven’.
For one thing, the truth of this is revealed by statistics compiled by the FBI – so I suppose you’d better chew them out for giving legitimacy to the NRA. You’d also better have some sneering remarks ready for those, like me, who became aware of this phenomenon through their own independent research rather than being ‘fed talking points by the NRA’ as you so condescendingly have it.
MrThell
January 28, 2013,
The timing of this NRA conversation is pretty amusing given that it took place just before the organization had its “worst week ever”: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/conservatives-have-their-worst-week-ever-20130123
Amazing that on “Gun Appreciation Day” at sanctioned gun-loving events the nuts managed to shoot five of themselves. Yeah, more guns can’t be equated with more shootings …
Plebontheweb
February 6, 2013,
Whereas the anti-gun side are all such saints.
Oh wait, no they’re not:-
“Convicted rapist organizes gun control demonstration at Dayton gun show; Media fails to note his sex offender status” http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/8759
That’s just one of the most obviously self-serving advocates for gun control, but there’s very, very few amongst the whole lot of ’em that’d have anything like a ‘crisis of conscience’ over the ‘victim disarmament’ aspect of gun control.
![The Last Stand [Blu-ray]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51BoJPHyU9L._SL500_.jpg)
Walter, you have issues. Serious ones.
what issues do you think Walter has, Mr. AtheistConservative?
Oh Walter bashing the NRA again. Like when he proclaimed the NRA to be ‘dangerous’ in a review posted some time ago… of course he never explained or gave any sense as to in which way he felt the NRA were ‘dangerous’. Perhaps he’ll chime in with an elaboration here! If he knows what he was talking about, that is.
Big ‘if’.
Yeah, Walter doesn’t like the NRA — him and 45% of nation.
http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-approval-ratings-press-conference-gun-control-video-games-media-2013-1
Why don’t you go read some Big Hollywood rather than lamenting that someone does not share the same political beliefs as you? I’m certain they’re much more up your alley…
Yeah, but why are they ‘dangerous’?
Isn’t any organisation based on the promotion of a weapon dangerous by definition? Especially a weapon that kills like 20000 of your people a year… It’s like having an association that promotes the value of cancer, or cigarettes, or speeding in high-traffic areas. Wake up.
but enough of this madness. the real story here is that arnold is supposedly going to play conan again, king by his own hand. aging conan nerds rejoice.
Ah, but the NRA doesn’t promote the equivalent of cancer or speeding. As for your statement about guns killing 20000 per year (actually something like 8000 last year I believe), I think you’ll find that the vast majority of murders/unlawful shootings are committed by gangbangers/criminals in urban areas with stringent gun control laws.
Perhaps you could point me to efforts being made to disarm the gangbangers/criminals in those areas, as opposed to the roundabout and ineffective tactic of hoping disarming ‘Mr & Mrs America’ would lead to the criminals being disarmed. Which you might call ‘trickle-down’ gun confiscation.
You’ve failed to give a good explanation of why the NRA is dangerous. But I don’t suppose Walter could himself offer a better one, if he could, no doubt he’d have spoken up himself by now.
Josh already explained it, but I am foolish enough to try again. The NRA has 1 (one) goal: to sell more guns. Now, this is America and it’s the job of every lobbying group to support their products so I don’t hold it against them. But you have to agree that more guns = more deaths from guns. It doesn’t matter that the NRA isn’t explicitly advocating their sale to gangbangers or whatever term you used, that’s just saying “well it’s not as bad as it could be.” Which I agree with, it could definitely be worse but you must also agree that for every additional gun the probability of a gun crime rises EVER SO SLIGHTLY. An unnoticeable amount by itself maybe but with the volume of guns sold every year the cumulative amount becomes something significant. So that’s why the NRA is inherently dangerous. Even if things could be worse and even if what they are doing isn’t illegal and is their God-given right as American citizens. I won’t get off on a tangent addressing your other points.
Now Walter, he won’t come in here and defend his comment because I don’t think he really cares and he only throws those little remarks in as click-bait for the easily riled conservative types like Mr. AtheistConservative (who of course swallowed the hook immediately). I’ve noticed lately that a lot of the reviews here have had to be “edgy,” such as giving the Hobbit half a star and railing against 48p for half the post rather than detailing why he believed the film to be that poor. I’m disappointed because for years this has been my favorite and most trusted site for movie reviews. It would be a shame if FFC mutated into an Armond White equivalent because I truly would miss the well-reasoned and carefully considered reviews of days past.
One last note, I think Walter is confused about Mr. Kim’s directing history since he cites A Bittersweet Life as containing “the best, most innovative knife-fight in a movie until the naked scuffle in Eastern Promises.” While A Bittersweet Life contains several, in my opinion, iconic scenes (the opening fight on the table, the scene at the gun dealer’s, even the end credits have stuck with me) I cannot recall a knife fight scene in that film. I believe he is confusing it with the far inferior Man from Nowhere, and I wanted to clarify to do Mr. Kim’s best work justice.
That’s one tortured, reaching ‘explanation’ (actually non-explanation) for Walter’s contention that the NRA are dangerous, since the NRA has no direct responsibility for gun deaths. That would be the persons committing the acts leading to those gun deaths, as I explained before, a large proportion of those are attributable to gangs/criminals, so it seems that those criminals are far more ‘dangerous’ than you expect us to believe the NRA are. Is there some reason why the gangs etc. aren’t railed against as much as the NRA?
That’s also why I don’t have to agree that ‘more guns = more deaths from guns’ since you’re lumping in the guns bought by the general law-abiding majority with the guns used by criminals, which are responsible for many more deaths in proportion to the number of guns owned by non-criminals.
The explanation was only “tortured” after I went to lengths to break it down for you. The original was actually very succinct if you recall. In it, guns were compared to other dangers like cigarettes or speeding. Now, you could argue that speeding kills more people than guns do and nobody tries to ban cars but cars serve another purpose besides killing, while guns are very singular in their use. And we still regulate cars, limiting how fast they are allowed to go and who is allowed to drive them for instance.
You appear to acknowledge that non-gang members do commit some gun violence (or accidents occur even) but pin the majority on gangs/criminals using wording like: “a large proportion of those are attributable to gangs/criminals” and “responsible for many more deaths in proportion.” This would indicate that you know that even in the hands of the larger, non-criminal public guns are still attributed to SOME deaths and are therefore dangerous. You can surely see then why it follows that an organization that promotes guns could likewise be viewed as dangerous.
Unfortunately, your refusal to admit this to yourself and language like “Is there some reason why the gangs etc. aren’t railed against as much as the NRA?” would indicate that you either aren’t serious about the conversation at best or you have no grounding in this reality. Either way, I understand that I will not change your mind so I will let this go. I hope you have a good day.
RE: Jonathan
[I’ve noticed lately that a lot of the reviews here have had to be “edgy,” such as giving the Hobbit half a star and railing against 48p for half the post rather than detailing why he believed the film to be that poor. I’m disappointed because for years this has been my favorite and most trusted site for movie reviews. It would be a shame if FFC mutated into an Armond White equivalent because I truly would miss the well-reasoned and carefully considered reviews of days past.]
What past are you referring to? Walter Chaw is no more inflammatory than he’s ever been. He’s always been liberal with one stars, half stars, and zero stars. Just because he’s starting to tread on your sacred cows doesn’t mean the site has changed. That’s classic internet narcissism.
@ Jonathan
You say, ‘You appear to acknowledge’ –
Of course the above only serves to highlight that YOU have NOT acknowledged the role played in the gun death rate by criminals/gangs, which is to be expected, after all, people on your side of the gun ownership issue do not believe in making any acknowledgement of or concession to those who disagree with you. Concessions and compromise are for the OTHER person to make, not you.
I’d suggest that that has more to do with you wanting to duck out than not being able to change my mind or whatever.
Pleb is working pretty hard here. I wonder if he’s aware of the irony of calling himself a pleb while frantically defending an extremely corporatized lobby group.
That aside, justifying the fact that the NRA lobbies against any kind of gun control by saying that most gun crimes are committed by ‘gangbangers’ in urban areas with strict gun laws ignores the fact that there are a shitload of guns manufactured and sold in the US because there’s a massive market for them, and lobbying against any kind of regulation on that front guarantees that the tap stays wide open, and those are the same guns that end up on the streets. unregistered guns are still the same guns, manufactured in the same factories. If there are millions of guns lying around, people are going to catch bullets.
The idea that there’s any legitimate argument for a situation like that is a joke. the fact that pleb’s spending so much energy on such an argument reveals a pretty shocking cynicism in the face of the kind of news an american wakes up to every morning. does he wonder why his fellow plebs are filling each other with bullets every day while rich guys tell them having guns is their most sacred right?
Um, my ‘fellow plebs’ aren’t ‘filling each other with bullets’. You know, since there’s at least 43 million households with lawfully owned firearms, if your ideas were in any way true the annual gun death toll would number in the millions and would be broadly distributed across the entirety of the gun-owning populace, instead of being more-or-less concentrated in the (gun-free) inner cities.
As for your excoriating the NRA for supposedly making cynical reference to the situation the gangbangers create, I’d better tell you that I’m not a member of the NRA and pay little attention to what they in particular have to say about anything. That gangbangers contribute an exceedingly high proportion of the annual gun death toll is, in fact, common knowledge, despite it being denied by the ‘agenda-driven’.
For one thing, the truth of this is revealed by statistics compiled by the FBI – so I suppose you’d better chew them out for giving legitimacy to the NRA. You’d also better have some sneering remarks ready for those, like me, who became aware of this phenomenon through their own independent research rather than being ‘fed talking points by the NRA’ as you so condescendingly have it.
The timing of this NRA conversation is pretty amusing given that it took place just before the organization had its “worst week ever”: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/conservatives-have-their-worst-week-ever-20130123
Amazing that on “Gun Appreciation Day” at sanctioned gun-loving events the nuts managed to shoot five of themselves. Yeah, more guns can’t be equated with more shootings …
Whereas the anti-gun side are all such saints.
Oh wait, no they’re not:-
“Convicted rapist organizes gun control demonstration at Dayton gun show; Media fails to note his sex offender status”
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/8759
That’s just one of the most obviously self-serving advocates for gun control, but there’s very, very few amongst the whole lot of ’em that’d have anything like a ‘crisis of conscience’ over the ‘victim disarmament’ aspect of gun control.
ugh someone ban this doofus.