Video mocking celebrity gun control PSA takes off

Jamie Foxx in the "Demand a Plan" PSA / Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition via YouTube

In the wake of the Newtown tragedy, the debate over gun control and gun violence has raged. In the midst of this debate, many (but not all) celebrities have raised their voices in favor of stricter gun-control laws. As is often the case when a celebrity dips their toes in politics, outrage and mockery has ensued.

After the Newtown tragedy, celebrities like Beyonce and Jon Hamm filmed a PSA (at left) calling for stricter gun control measures as part of the "Demand a Plan" campaign from Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition, which also includes familes of victims from the Aurora, Tucson and Virginia Tech tragedies.

In the video, celebrities cite the names of the numerous recent mass shootings, then ask "How many more?" They then ask the public to "demand a plan" from "our leaders" to do something about gun violence.

• Obama "skeptical" of NRA guns-in-schools idea
• Fearful of ban, frenzied buyers swarm gun stores
• Poll: Inconclusive support for gun control

In response to the video, YouTube user "ma5one" uploaded a mashup of the PSA campaign, in which he (or she) juxtaposed scenes of violent film or television roles of the celebrities right after their part in the original campaign. The idea appears to be to point out the hypocrisy of celebrities calling for gun control while using violent, gun-fueled images to advance their careers.

Giving credit to the YouTube user "Mike Hunt," "ma5one" wrote that the video is about "Hypocrite celebrities and their anti-gun agenda."

In response to a comment on the video, Hunt wrote: "money and fame > principle." In the description section of a "clean" version of the video (above), "Mike Hunt" wrote: "They supported a mass murderer and war criminal for high office (see Obama's drone policy) and profit from a culture of violence that they now protest against. Riiiigggghhhhttt..."

The Daily News called "ma5one" a "gun rights activist," but does not provide much other information on him or her.

The video has taken off in popularity, receiving more than 500,000 views on ma5one's version alone, as well as tens of thousands more on other uploaded versions.

Hollywood has been sensitive to the link between glorified violence on screen and real-life tragedies like the Aurora shooting and Newtown. Most celebrities say the blame lies squarely on the mentally ill perpetrators of the crimes.

Jamie Foxx, however, who is featured in both the "Demand a Plan" original and mashup videos, and who has been a particular lightening rod for the debate after his starring role in the violent "Django Unchained" movie, feels differently.

"We cannot turn our back and say that violence in films or anything that we do doesn't have a sort of influence," Foxx said in a recent interview. "It does."

[skrillathrilla]

lol "Mike Hunt"

[pa-antiques]

If these stars hate gun violence we should be sure to boycott their movies so that our children don't watch this sort of thing. Do they ever think about how they are numbing out kids to killing.

"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, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"

-- George Washington
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

-- Mahatma Gandhi

[SHADOWB94]

The real hypocrisy is that all these celebs use armed bodyguards to protect themselves, yet they don't think the children should be protected by armed guards. What do you expect from the death party - they kill unborn babies. Why would they care about the children in schools.

[SumDumusr]

The left wing makes millions selling videos of violence (special effects, cas flying, flame and smoke, gratuitous sex and violence) and then object when their 23/7 presentation of sex & violence moves some under-aged minor who has been on prescription mind-drugs since 1st grade (ADD, ADHD, bipolar, downers, upppers) and is legally a drug addict to take a gun he has no legal right to possess (to touch) whose parent broke all the laws allowing him access to it to go and shoot his school chums and they want to blame guns? Then the car makers can blame bumpers for causing accidents. Obama can blame the White House front door. Bernanke can blame printing presses. Lindsay Lohan can blame her lipstick for letting her drink. Al Gore can blame cigars for global warming.

[meine_sagen]

Well, one good thing to come out of this: There will be no more of these violent movies made by any of these celebrities. It will be all goodness and light from now on. No more glorifying violence from any of them. Right? Yeah, right. I appreciate being given the "list" of celebrities whose movies I will no longer watch. Most of them aren't worth a crap as actors, anyway.

[Type_Z]

Oh boy, I like your sense of humor. Tarantino makes no apologies for his movies. Jamie Foxx is flying high off himself. What are the chances any one of these actors will be in movies in the future that have some type of violence? Probably 100%.

The whole point of this article is the hypocracy stinks bad. The video made from the PSA exposes personal hypocracy to its highest.

Most people can watch a movie and take it for just that, a movie. We have choice to go to the movies we like or don't.

Music, movies, video games can affect our moods and perceptions. Just like many other things, if you know people that have problems telling the difference between what is real and what isn't , then keep them away. There are many things in life to enjoy. People usually voice their preferences and they may have very good reason for them. Respect it.

[emerson1248]

More gross political opportunism from the far left. Never let a good tragedy go to waste. You people should be ashamed of yourselves. But by reading some of your utterly ridiculous comments, void of fact or common sense, I can see you have no shame at all. You all will lie cheat and abuse anyone to get what you want, and that is total control as we all know you are the only ones who should be armed for our own good.

[TimeToEvolve]

We have to recognize that we have a Wall Street government, You can trace almost every major problem we have in America back to the ridiculous idea that we don't need government oversight.

Most of the later wars, the gun violence, the escalating medical costs, debt problems, environmental issues are all the result of deregulation, privatization and the out-of-control military-industrial-financial complex. We have a lot of change to inflict folks.

[legalbutunjust]

And then there is the golf club analogy. Again, ridiculous.

Golf clubs are designed to strike a hard, little ball. Always have been. Just like guns have always been made for firing a projectile.

Who uses a gun to kill without the projectile part of it? Who uses a golf club for the swinging, the rounds of golf or practice on the range, without the little ball its meant to strike? No one.

So, sure guns are a lot like golf clubs. It's just that it's awfully hard to kill someone with a gun unless it has ammunition in its chamber. And though a person could die perhaps easier, at the hands of another wielding a golf club alone, ask how often that really happens. Ironically, I know a case in which a person accidentally killed himself with just a golf club. It has happened. A young man was disappointed at a shot he made, and struck the club so hard on the ground, the shaft shattered and a long portion of it ricocheted and pierced him right through the heart, and he bled to death.

Yet in all, to be intellectually fair in the analogy's own argument, one would have to make the comparison of a gun firing its bullets just like a club strikes and drives a golf ball.

Real hard to kill someone using a golf club in the way it is really intended. Although not inconceivable, I've nonetheless never heard of anyone being 'struck' by a speeding golfball, and killed. Certainly not intentionally, anyhow.

Guns on the other hand....

[Type_Z]

Except the Kennedy cousin that murdered his 15 year old neighbor, Martha, with a golf club I believe. Martha rejected his affections and he beat her. He is in prison, finally.

If it wasn't a golf club, my apologies and mistake, but I do believe it was.

[pleaseletitbeso]

It is amazing that a substantial group of individuals have been convinced that the problem we have with violence is a direct result of inanimate objects, but violent programming is entirely absolved of all responsibility.

Only a complete fool would believe that the entertainment industry, media, and the video game industry has no effect on the psyche of our youth.

I would venture a guess that these are the same folks that have no children of their own and are completely ok with collecting years of unemployment benefits because it pays better than finding a new career.

[TimeToEvolve]

As does the failed Reagonomics of privatization and not properly funding public education. We are seeing the end result of 35 years of this failed policy in America.

[TimeToEvolve]

So let me get this straight. The right wingers are claiming that entertainment is too violent but guns are not. They have the free will to watch or not watch violent entertainment but we can't have the free will to regulate something whose very purpose is to kill people. It is amazing how their "reasoning" works.

[deathpanelist1]

@ 7lucky, I don't have the free will not to be shot by a gun. I do have the free will not to watch violent movies that you may choose to watch.
While you think your condescending response make you seem intelligent, it doesn't.

[legalbutunjust]

The radicalized, liberal gun owner/enthusiasts began a long time ago forgetting that with gun ownership rights, comes serious responsibility.

They all claim they are responsible, and safe with their habit. Which is fine, on any individualized basis. But for them to be claiming that there are not enough guns, and the manufacture and distribution of assault weapons must proceed forever more with unfettered pace and up-to-speed determination, is completely not responsible. It wasn't responsible years ago, and with internet age upon us, and web sales and advertising going full steam ahead, it is even more irresponsible.

I'm not for taking guns out the hands of irresponsible citizens. I'm simply for placing limits - in the future - on guns and ammunition purchases at the wholesale and retail level. In turn, a stern cap of production, something history has show went totally ignored. Additionally, eliminating reality gun TV and curtailing the number of outfits that sell such weapons.

All this crap about cars kill, so lets ban them. knives kill, so lets ban them. Hammers kill, lets ban them. These are all absurd and counter-productive rebuttals. Few people go out and begin a knife, car, or hammer collection. Sure some do it, but those things weren't ever originally designed, or even now produced, to take a life. Despite any number of purposes, not one of them is for killing. And of course, there are far, far fewer people in this society that are collectors of those other things which were not and are not designed to shoot you, and run a bullet in and through you, than there are those that have such said items made for- among other purposes, to kill.

Rights come with responsibilities. I hear a lot of spewing of late about individual rights, not a damn thing about collective responsibilities.