Actress Julianne Moore Believes There Should Be Limits On Number Of Guns One Should Own

Actress Julianne Moore apparently isn’t quite sure what to do when she goes off script. Without pages to memorize and regurgitate on command, she can easily get off message. That’s what seems to have happened when she was on The View recently.


The friendly hosts of “The View” brought her around to talking about Everytown For Gun Safety, offering her everything she needed to make the case to the American public that Everytown isn’t what people think.

Then she blew it. Watch:

Whoopi Goldberg sets her up beautifully by noting the name. “It’s not about control, it’s about safety.”

Moore, now giddy, replies that it is. Eventually, she quips, “People like to talk about it as if it’s a Second Amendment issue. It’s a safety issue. A gun is a machine.” She then goes on to talk about automotive fatalities prior to the introduction and mandating of safety devices like seatbelts and airbags, as well as regulations like speed limits. She doesn’t seem to grasp that all of these safety devices were created by the automotive industry to begin with or that they kill more people annually than guns, but whatever. Like John Belushi in Animal House, she’s rolling.

She then starts talking about the safety measures like registration and licensing–neither of which actually have a thing to do with safety–but then she gives the whole thing away.


Following her mention of background checks–something the killer in Las Vegas passed repeatedly, I might add–she added, “I also think, personally, limitations on the amount of firearms you can own.”


That’s a safety issue? I can own as many cars as I can afford, and cars kill more people every year, but owning more than X number of guns is a safety issue?

Of course, it isn’t. It’s a control issue. Moore tacitly admits it is when she steps away from the more benign talking points into her personal opinions. At no point is a limit on how many guns someone can own a safety issue. That is the very definition of control.

What Moore and Goldberg are both trying to do here is reframe the argument. By framing gun control as gun safety, they’re trying to use language to woe over the less informed. After all, who in their right mind would oppose gun safety? With a proliferation of low information voters in this country, they’re counting on language to help them persuade people who wouldn’t be persuaded on the merits of their arguments.


It’s a rhetorical trap they’re trying to lay.

Unfortunately, Moore’s made it clear that she’s not really interested in gun safety so much as gun control. She doesn’t like the idea of the plebian masses having access to firearms. She can afford private security–private armed security, to be specific–but the rest of us should be forced to make do with harsh language.

Moore and her friends at Everytown can frame it however they want, but the reality is that we know better. We know better and we’re not staying silent about it, either.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member