The NRA’s List of “Coolest Gun Movies” Is Astoundingly Dumb

The 2009 action-comedy "Zombieland," starring Jesse Eisenberg (above) and Emma Stone, is one of the films that the NRA's magazine has endorsed as really awesome.Columbia Pictures

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

When conservatives try to list their favorite pop-culture items to make a political point, the results are often baffling. In 2005, Human Events released the list of “Most Harmful Books” written in the 19th and 20th centuries (Charles Darwin and John Stuart Mill are put in the same league as Hitler and Mao). The following year, National Review compiled a much-discussed “50 greatest conservative rock songs,” which for whatever bizarre reason included Aerosmith’s “Janie’s Got a Gun.” In 2012, the Telegraph declared their brazenly idiotic “top 10 conservative movies of the modern era.” And just over a week ago, the American Enterprise Institute posted the “21 greatest conservative rap songs of all time,” which prominently features Justin Bieber.

And now American Rifleman, the National Rifle Association’s shooting and firearms consumer magazine, has published its official list of the 10 “Coolest Gun Movies.” Writes American Rifleman blogger Paul Rackley, “Many of these movies also take us back to simpler times, when dreaming of saving the day got us through that oh-so boring class.” Here’s his list:

As you may recall, the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre held a high-profile press conference in response to December’s Newtown massacre in which he unleashed a tirade against the stylized violence of Hollywood, cable TV, and the video game industry, blaming their products for gun deaths in America. So it’s a little weird that the organization’s “127-year-old flagship publication” is so eager to glorify what their leadership has decried as the “filthiest form of pornography.” (The NRA did not respond to Mother Jones‘ request for comment on the matter.)

What’s also ironic is that Rackley, who recently blogged in tribute to police officers who had been gunned down in the line of duty, is praising a film for portraying a criminal’s brutal rise to power, which includes audaciously gunning down a police captain in public. “Who has not dreamed of having the power and respect of Michael Corleone?” Rackley opines. “That he built his empire through violence is only that much more alluring.” Furthermore, it’s a huge stretch to classify The Godfather as a “gun movie,” as it is a modern Shakespearean tragedy about family and power where the gunplay is practically incidental. Calling it a gun movie is like calling Top Gun a romantic comedy simply because it includes funny moments and a romantic subplot.

The inclusion of Zombieland, which feels more like an appeal to younger audiences than a serious entry in an all-time top 10 list, comes with this odd assertion: “Sure, the idea of a zombie apocalypse is pretty far-fetched, but it has introduced a new group of people to preparedness and firearms.” There is no evidence anywhere that this 2009 genre homage starring Jesse Eisenberg and Emma Stone did anything to introduce more people to gun culture or prepper tactics anymore than Steve Carell’s Seeking a Friend for the End of the World did. For Christ’s sake, it’s a comedy about Woody Harrelson fighting zombies.

All in all, this list is a mix of puzzling and obvious entries backed up with logic that flies in the face of everything the NRA claims to stand for. Should American Rifleman again decide to plug “cool” gun movies that jibe with NRA sensibilities, I have one suggestion: G.I. Joe: Retaliation, a 2013 action flick in which the bad guy is a Democratic, foreign-born imposter of a president who is only stopped when a courageous team of gun-toting insurgents—led by a politically incorrect Army veteran who hoards a large arsenal of assault weapons in his home—takes matters into their own hands.

Also: If you’re looking for a “cool gun movie” that is a) fun, and b) actually does push back on NRA propaganda, check out 2007’s Shoot ‘Em Up, starring Clive Owen and Monica Bellucci. It is possibly the only over-the-top, blood-drenched popcorn movie ever made to gleefully trumpet a pro-gun-control message. Here’s the trailer:

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate