Comments on: Jodie Foster's rare interview dodges sexuality questions

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 09:31:00 +0000

Wow, Ned, what a super intelligent argument there:- we have guns, we shoot, we better.What a twat you are. Do more guns keep you safe? Your nation's crime statistics compared to the UK would indicate otherwise. You can keep your guns… and your faith in a country where less than 7% of the population have a passport, infinitely less than that go to college, and you have a bumbling retarded president ruling over a nation of terrified idiots. Good for you!Oh, yeah, I'm very happy living over here, and even more happy the likes of you are living over there!

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Ned

Ned — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 01:37:00 +0000

"Guns are designed for one thing, and one thing only. To kill."Actually, guns are designed to launch a projectile. In the U.S., literally billions of rounds of ammunition are used every year. While guns are a better "design" for killing folks, it appears that a quite a number people have found other uses for them other than killing.As for the US being "out of control" that has do do with a lot of factors, like the war on some drugs and the fact that gangsters kill each other to protect their "turf."I'll take living next door to the guy with the NRA sticker over living in a place where only criminals have guns.So I guess we're both happy living where we are.The best to you, and here's my hope that your law enforcement personnel keep you safe from the bad people. In the US, the police have no legal duty to protect any person. They carry guns to protect themselves.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:05:00 +0000

"EVERYONE has access to the tools to do harm – whether it be a gallon of gasoline, an automobile, or a baseball bat, knife or gun."That may be true, but all except one item in that list has multiple uses. Guns are designed for one thing, and one thing only. To kill. If you have such a device, then you can't say "I didnt plan to kill them," or "They just stepped out in front of me".If you remove the weapons, you remove the potential. The US is out of control, and it is not possible to eliminate the amount of guns and knives, but in UK, it is still a small percentage of people, and if they are caught with them, they should be locked up. Simple as that. No ifs or buts.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Molon Labe

Molon Labe — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 03:18:00 +0000

Jodie is against lawful people possessing guns? So?Jodie Sounds like she's 'projecting'.I'd advise Jodie to stay away from guns and allow the rest of us to make our own security decisions.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Frank Silbermann

Frank Silbermann — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:36:00 +0000

Fortunately for Ms. Foster, her armed bodyguards (apparently) don't suffer from emotions.By the way, did the More Magazine interview discuss the attempted assassination of President Reagan — an event which Ms. Foster triggered through her stubborn refusal to date John Hinckley?I can understand that female celebrities may not wish to get involved with creepy men who become infatuated with them, but if it saves just one life isn't it worth it?

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Ned

Ned — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 05:15:00 +0000

Wow – an elitist claiming that people shouldn't have access to life or death situations. Despite that being the second stupidest thing I think I've ever read, just how in the world does one avoid "access to a life or death situation?"I take this to mean that people should not have the tools necessary to fight off an attacker in a "life or death situation."In a fairy tale world, people would all "just all get along." But we don't live in any such utopian society. Bad things happen to good people all the time. There are guys out there who could kill me (and you Jodie, and your bodyguards) with one punch. It's a typical elitist view that people should somehow only have access to "safe" things. That precludes – well – everything except living in a rubber room. Even then, whomever is in charge of the rubber room can do the inhabitant therein harm.So I choose liberty, and the tools with which to defend myself.Check out Pink Pistols. These are a group of us who will not succumb to being beaten or killed for being gay. And they choose the tools with which to defend themselves. And I personally don't believe that everyone is a nut. If that premise was true, there would be no humans alive at this point.EVERYONE has access to the tools to do harm – whether it be a gallon of gasoline, an automobile, or a baseball bat, knife or gun.Seems that just yesterday, 230 million gun owners didn't kill anyone.I can see why Ms. Foster doesn't grant many interviews. Her twisted logic could become public.BTW – How many bodyguards do you have, Ms. Foster? I and my friends just can't afford one. So do we simply take the risk of being beaten or killed because someone doesn't like our lifestyles? Anyone who is for disarming those of us who are weaker are the ones who are truly nuts.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: The Mad Duck

The Mad Duck — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:21:00 +0000

Quote Mz Foster:"That's why I'm for gun control. Absolutely… I don't believe that people should have access to life-or-death situations at any emotional time in their life." I'm sure being assaulted or raped would be an "emotional time", But it would be a time I would want my gun.The scars left by an assault are more likely to cause more trauma emotional times, than chosing not to be a victim.

(Report comment to the moderator)