Eddie's anti gun rant during the the Mark Richards interview

[LetMeSleep]

I was bored a few hours ago. Now I am really bored of it.

[BurtReynolds]

I love this thread. It's like RM's communal cum receptacle.

[Heathen]

I love this thread. It's like RM's communal cum receptacle.

hey now, malice posted in it too

[stupidmop]

Cool, I get all that I guess, but I think personally if the band ran things got to a point where I thought they were sickening I'd have to step back from the band a little.

See, I don't understand how someone who agrees with Ed on most political issues, couldn't find it sickening. That's the irony. I don't really agree with him (most often). So, when he or the band do things that come across as hypocritical (on greed or whatnot), it kinda just shows his original POV was off. I would think that the band "selling-out" per se, would affect those against corporate greed, etc. more than someone who's a capitalist. Think about it.

I definitely believe the band should get a little shit for some of their recent decisions. Though, I say band because I know ed has the Mic and we get to hear what he has to say more than the other guys, he's not single handedly making the decisions, I have a niggling suspicion that at least some of the discrepancies between what ed says and the band does is down to him conceding to the band on things.

I understand your point. But, just using that interview, for example. Ed's the guy who did that. He said that. He's offered no apology. He's also the guy who did the axe throwing and so on. You can say, well axe toss competition stuff isn't as bad as guns. I get all that. The point is, the guy isn't really even considering it. I mean, if you're going to go into an interview and spout off on an issue like that. AND. You're going to have ads for your new album with you wielding deadly weapons... perhaps, you could at least apologize? Say it came out wrong. Or something. To me, I feel like it really did not come out wrong. Which I hope you'd agree, is fucked up "IF" that's the case.

On the band - I think Ed has pretty much all the control. If he says no, do that and we're through.... I think they listen.

Wasn't he best friends with johnny ramone who was a republican? I assume they had more than a few differing opinions. (I might be thinking about someone else here).

I could have predicted this on His one 'different' friend. Yes, I believe they were friends. That doesn't make Ed open-minded. To have one republican friend who was also a rock star doesn't take away what I was saying before. I don't think he's open-minded.

I guess to me I put down most of the discrepancies( though I don't usually think about this shit unless it comes up here) in what he says due to the fact that we're only getting snapshots or soundbites of him talking. Like everyone has already mentioned he's not the best or most comfortable public speaker, we don't know what its like to have an actual conversation with him, for all we know he could be an amazing conversationalist when there's not a camera in his face, or a reporter writing things down or thousands of people standing in front of him.

I honestly think it's possible to defend anyone of anything they've done or said with this sort of logic. In fact, I think Ed fans do that frequently. I think it's probably true that he's not a great public speaker. But, truth be told, I don't think he seems like he's having a tough time with interviews and I'm not so sure this really is "public speaking". I think he gets rambling and states what he feels. I actually think that's what he thinks.

I won't give him the pass on having a camera there or it being a "tough" interview because it's one of his friends in his band's practice studio. Seems kinda scapegoating to pretend it's the interview situation, to me. I truly believe this is who Ed is.

And you could say maybe he shouldnt be talking about things in public at all then, but I think he'd rather feel like he's raising awareness or getting people talking, which he is, if this thread is anything to go by. Plus its not like we've seen him shut down someone trying to have a debate with him, someone asked him a question and he answered.

I think he rambles. And I think he thinks about these things often. I don't believe he thinks about them critically, however. So, when he gets rambling, he thinks of one of these topics, and baam.... out comes a line that the press will talk about.

Do I think he could control this? Yes. I do. I think he doesn't want to. Once again, I bet he does think about these things. Critically - no. But, he does probably read what Zinn had to say or something of that nature. Which ironically, circles him back to passion, which circles him back to making these mistakes. Yet, they aren't mistakes... because we hear no apology.

He has never debated anyone - ever publically (other than an large portion of a crowd with the BUsh thing) to my knowlege. So, the part on a debate, not sure where that's coming from. In fact, that's kinda my point. He only allows himself to speak either when he has the mic or in interview situations where he won't be challenged. In a sense, he likes to live in a bubble.

I still think its easier to kill some one with a gun than an axe. Do you think if there were axe sprees at schools and in malls and on the streets on the regular, and people wanted to ban axes, he'd start ranting about his right to own an axe and chop his own wood?

I think it's easier to hurt someone accidentally with a axe tossing game situated in one's house, then it is to have a small fire arm (used for target practice) locked up upstairs. Let's just say they are equal. My point is - how does he get off telling "everyone" who has a gun (even those who are good with it) that he wishes them ill? I think that's kinda sick. I honestly can't see how anyone would defend it.

I guess we're just gonna disagree because when it comes down to it don't think him 'almost wishing bad things on people' is that big a deal. That's like the most polite non rant in the world. It's like when you see a car flying down the road way too fast and you think it'll serve him right if he crashes. Maybe because I'm a cold hearted asshole? British? Whatever

[stupidmop]

People are still engaging IlluminEddie in discussion?

I was bored

[Fuzzcharger]

Mark Richards is such an awkward looking dude in that interview.

[malice]

I love this thread. It's like RM's communal cum receptacle.

hey now, malice posted in it too

I'm stuck between wanting to beat the hell out of you and ...
nope, nm, just beating the hell out of you is fine

[IlluminEddie]

I guess we're just gonna disagree because when it comes down to it don't think him 'almost wishing bad things on people' is that big a deal. That's like the most polite non rant in the world. It's like when you see a car flying down the road way too fast and you think it'll serve him right if he crashes. Maybe because I'm a cold hearted asshole? British? Whatever

Better example would be a car flying down the road 'way too fast' and thinking it would serve the driver right if his kid in the backseat dies from a car crash. Wishing that upon the driver or the kid (to harm the driver) is f'd up. But, then the important thing is that if we apply this to Ed's example, he's saying this about ALL who have ever "went to fast" (all who own guns). Wishing harm upon all those who speed is lunacy.

So, yes, anyone who thinks this example or the harm via a gun example is cool or polite or whatever is a pretty much a cold-hearted asshole in my book. Anyone who would wish direct harm on someone else or harm to a person's kids so said person would be inflicted with indirect harm through the child's death (all because the person owns a gun) has serious, serious issues.

[malice]

[music.for.rhinos]

I think you've been quite clear about your opinion, illumineddie, so at this point you have to realize people either get it or they won't. Since we all love metaphors and analogies: you can keep beating it, but it can't get any more dead.

[onawave]

wtf.

trying to make sense of some of these posts.

big sweeping change is the hardest thing to pull off in government. im not "arguing" on the how it should be done. im making a point on that these kinds of program's work in other countries, your CURRENT government is trying to make some progress in making the USA a better place to live. (imho)

Yes, that's your opinion. And you're entitled to it. But, my opinion on your opinion is - most likely, whereever it is you live is quite small (population-wise, economy-wise, everything-wise) relative to the US. So, most likely, you have no idea what you're talking about.

i mean holy fuk. every time someone tries to change a law for the better over there, some idiot brings up the one of your amendments and pokes holes in it or hides behind it.

Let's stop for a moment. The law is thousands of pages long. The key wording here is "for the better". Earlier you said, I'm "not arguing how it should be done". I'd say, you kinda are. Do you honestly think that the thousands of pages could include some elements pretty much every single human could disagree with? In our country, this is known as pork. Why does one have to agree with a bill that includes loads of pork and other (largely unrelated) laws in order to pass the underlying initiative that they agree with?

Personally, I disagree with the basics behind the desire for this sort of law. I can understand that someone may disagree with me. However, supporting "this law" and how "this law" was "done" and saying it's "making things better" (at least thus far) is straight-up laughable.

basic healthcare for everyone? again im not arguing on how its been implemented, im on the side of the fence that this shit fuking works. its not going to be perfect, but holy shit it has to be better than what u have now.

How do you know it's better than what we have now? Once again, you probably don't. It's a counterfactual. The US is the largest economy in the world. Trying to change healthcare could result in a better system, or could even make things worse. The truth is - we're all just expressing "opinions".

im not even going to entertain the spying debate. read the topic.

You're not going to entertain the spying debate? Honestly, why? You're obviously from another country. So, you're OK with the US spying on everything your elected leaders do? Are you OK with them lying about it? Are you OK with them trying to silence and put the guy in a prison hole who made it public information? How about them spying on you? Is that cool? Every single thing you type, you say, etc. I'd say it's beyond f'd up. And if our favorite lead singer had any integrity to points he's made in the past (see Grievance), he'd agree.

In short, I suggest you read about it.

getting back to ed. i %100 agree with the dude. imagine if tighter gun controls just even saved one kids life. WINNING

What happens if they didn't? But, for arguments sake, let's say they do help save a few children's lives. But, once again, for argument's sake, what if the government did start to extend spying.... and started to behave more totalitarian. What if we fell into a depression and the US government got out of control? What if we were hit by another terrorist attack and more of our freedoms were removed? Seriously, this is "possible". Is it likely? Depends on perspective. But, it's possible. Some, crazy as it is, don't trust government. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that point of view.

Also, some use guns for recreational activities. Ed uses giant axes. I'd say giant axes, used in a game where they are thrown, are pretty dangerous. Should they be outlawed? Where's the line drawn? And - why? And - are we honoring the 2nd amendment in doing so? These are all reasonable questions.

now the counter argument is that people need these guns for self defence. if this is actually true, well america has lost the battle with itself already.

Huh?

[broken iris]

I guess we're just gonna disagree because when it comes down to it don't think him 'almost wishing bad things on people' is that big a deal. That's like the most polite non rant in the world. It's like when you see a car flying down the road way too fast and you think it'll serve him right if he crashes. Maybe because I'm a cold hearted asshole? British? Whatever

Ed rant history suggests to us that he doesn't mean it like you do, but I get your point. One of the Baristas at the Starbucks in my office building is really lazy and slows down the entire line to the point of the regulars rolling their eyes when they get in his queue. I often think "Hey asshole, you are in your late thirties and working at a cash register, do you think maybe it has something to with that neck tattoo that says "the chocolate factory?", but then I realize this guy could have had the shittiest life of all time and I shouldn't judge. I really never get that vibe from Vedder. On some issues, guns and God in particular, he seems pretty judge-y and unwilling to even look at the other side.

[stupidmop]

I haven't really heard him talk about guns much, but i always got the impression he was more agnostic than atheist...Like i'm sure i've heard him say stuff like 'if there is a god' etc. Theres a random speech from some concert somewhere where he starts talking about the light coming through the top of the arena or whatever and he says something about it looking like god..if there was a god....or some bullshit idk. Who the fuck knows really.

Even if he is bullheaded and judgy.....eh, what does it matter? maybe he's an asshole.The only rant i can think of off the top of my head, where i've thought he was a complete asshole was that 'mosquito bites' rant. But i'm always surprised when other people are surprised he would say something like this, like you said his views are pretty well documented, i don't think he's gonna start tempering his opinions lest he offends someone now. He's just a dude giving his opinion,not a politician, he doesn't have a responsibility to make sure his opinion is well reasoned, or giving both sides of the story or whatever. I doubt most people are getting the be all and end all of their information on gun laws off eddie vedder.

Maybe if mark richards had said 'really eddie? you don't think thats too harsh?' he'd have said 'you're right, i'm sorry', or he could have said 'naw fuck em', but we've never seen him in a situation where someone is going to give him a counter argument, he's not about to pull someone on stage and turn a concert into a debate (no one wants to see that), and i doubt he's gonna pop up on a tv debate anytime soon, leave that to the actual politicians.

I've spent way too much time in this thread stating an opinion that could be summed up by 'ehh'.

[broken iris]

I've spent way too much time in this thread stating an opinion that could be summed up by 'ehh'.

True enough. I think a lot of people are just disappointed more than offended by these types of remarks by Ed. He's written lyrics that strike very personal chords with listeners and sometimes carry a deep level of emotional understanding to characters and stories Gen-Xers can relate to and it would be nice if he expressed himself as eloquently and intelligently in these interviews as he does in his songs. It's like the first time hearing your dad say something stupid, the glass shatters and it's all down hill from there. Vedder cannot simultaneously be Gandhi and Jim Morrison, not should we expect him to be.

[IlluminEddie]

I think you've been quite clear about your opinion, illumineddie, so at this point you have to realize people either get it or they won't. Since we all love metaphors and analogies: you can keep beating it, but it can't get any more dead.

I get your point, but the last time I posted I didn't bring a new analogy into the discussion, I was responding to stupidmop's (kinda weak) analogy (on guns vs speeding) which he quoted me.

[IlluminEddie]

I guess we're just gonna disagree because when it comes down to it don't think him 'almost wishing bad things on people' is that big a deal. That's like the most polite non rant in the world. It's like when you see a car flying down the road way too fast and you think it'll serve him right if he crashes. Maybe because I'm a cold hearted asshole? British? Whatever

Ed rant history suggests to us that he doesn't mean it like you do, but I get your point. One of the Baristas at the Starbucks in my office building is really lazy and slows down the entire line to the point of the regulars rolling their eyes when they get in his queue. I often think "Hey asshole, you are in your late thirties and working at a cash register, do you think maybe it has something to with that neck tattoo that says "the chocolate factory?", but then I realize this guy could have had the shittiest life of all time and I shouldn't judge. I really never get that vibe from Vedder. On some issues, guns and God in particular, he seems pretty judge-y and unwilling to even look at the other side.

I agree with this whole-heartedly.

It's not just Ed, for me though. The other thing that bothers me is the few PJ fans, who may agree with the underlying political/religious point Ed's making (nothing wrong there), but can't quite seem to notice that Ed's often a douche in delivering it. One can be pro-gun control, an atheist, or anything politically and offer up their opinions while not being a douche to people who disagree. Then when Ed's douchey-ness is discussed (see threads like this one), these particular few fans blindly side with his "behavior" (not just the underlying issue). It's that sort of logic which makes the new PJ.com sheep figurines especially ironic. From a bird's eye view, who's being made out to seem outlandish? The NRA? Gun owners? Or PJ fans who buy them?

[harmless]

I think Ed has said some really stupid things before. I don't think this was really one of them. No big deal. I also think those sheep toys are stupid, but only because making Eddie Vedder your moral compass has always been stupid.

[harmless]

I guess I agree with stupidmop. Maybe British people are just judgmental and cynical, because I also wish bad things would happen to people who decide on terrible gun policy, just like I wish bad things would happen to people who remove disabled people's benefits as government policy, and people who put homophobic and misogynistic bullying at the top of their religious agenda.

[B]

Ed's just a fan of irony.

[dimejinky99]

I'm still a little baffled that he'd say such a thing. But it was a throwaway remark.


And the toys, they're goats. Not sheep. Get your Pj history on.