Eddie Vedder Pearl Jam guns

I have been a Pearl Jam fan since the early 90’s. I’ve seen countless shows. I’ve spent gobs of money buying PJ’s albums. I’ve written glowing reviews of documentaries about the band. I’ve found ways to promote its videos through my blog. And so, I find it rather odd that Eddie Vedder goes out of his way to say incredibly mean things about me, my friends and all the other Pearl Jam fans out there who also happen to be staunch defenders of the Second Amendment.

Here is what Mr. Vedder said in an interview with professional surfer Mark Richards:

“I get so angry that I almost wish bad things upon these people,” Vedder said. “But I don’t have to because it seems like they happen anyways. It seems like every week I’m reading about a 4-year-old either shooting their sister, their dad, their dog, their brother or themselves, because there’s fucking guns laying around. But I guess it’s ‘fun.'”

Break down Vedder’s logic, and what you get is a man who is so angry that he can’t even see how twisted he is. “I don’t have to” wish sorrow and misery upon people who disagree with me because there are enough bad things already happening to them that I can sit back and stew in my schadenfreude with like-minded surfers. Vedder essentially admits that dying children are a sick salve that soothes his inner frustration and prevents his mind from traveling down darker roads of intention.

If the members of Pearl Jam really want to change minds, do they think Eddie Vedder musing on the “bad things” that he “almost” wants to happen to gun owners will accomplish that goal? Is “almost” wishing pain and misery on someone like being “almost” pregnant? One could argue that divorce wreaks more havoc on society’s children than hand guns ever will, but I would never “almost” wish that upon those who I disagree with on social issues.

Perhaps even more bizarre is that Mr. Vedder can not see that his opposition to guns might stem from his own personal demons; he wants laws meant for mentally unstable individuals that he would apply to himself to now apply to an entire population of law-abiding Americans.

“If I didn’t have music to kind of at least get some of the aggression out or take the edge off, you wouldn’t want me having a gun either.”

Now we get to the heart of the matter: Eddie Vedder doesn’t trust himself with a gun. He has weird aggression issues, so the rest of us should pay the price with thousands of new local, state and federal regulations to pile on top of the thousands that are already in existence.

Question for Mr. Vedder: Are guns or NSA programs supported by gun-control advocate Sen. Diane Feinstein more dangerous to the nation? I would argue that the woman who a.) wants to limit access to guns on a large scale while b.) simultaneously arguing that she must spy on innocent Americans because they “might” become a terrorist “in the future,” deserves more of Pearl Jam’s attention than me — the former Army guy who loves his country and believes in the rule of law.

Finally, I’ll refrain from commenting at length about Mr. Vedder’s assertion that “90%” of the population want new gun laws, when it can be debunked with one question: “How many politicians do you know who would vote against a bill that 90% of their constituents supported?”

I really wanted to get excited about Pearl Jam’s new album. I was hoping to catch a show with my brother or my wife. Since Eddie Vedder had decided that needlessly alienating long-time fans is going to be a part of his promotional strategy, I think I’ll be sitting this one out. Sad.

Advertisements

About the Author Douglas Ernst

I'm a former Army guy who believes success comes through hard work, honesty, optimism, and perseverance. I believe seeing yourself as a victim creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. I believe in God. I'm a USC Trojan with an MA in Political Science from American University.

67 comments

    1. Indeed, it’s about projection. Vedder doesn’t trust himself with a gun, so he automatically doesn’t trust others with guns. It’s the typical anti-gun mindset.

      I like Pearl Jam, too, but their politics have always bothered me. I didn’t like “Do the Evolution” (the basic moral was humans = Satan, simply because they exist), and they lost me when I saw a clip of one of their concerts and they invited Noam Chomsky on stage there to speak… ugh.

    2. It’s been a tough ride for me too, Carl. On one hand I appreciate their musical talents. The band really is amazing. However, Eddie Vedder often goes out of his way to mock loyal fans like myself. It’s so weird.

      What’s even more hilarious (or sad), is that by framing his opponents as evil he creates enemies. He sews hatred in the hearts of other men by saying such mean things. I’m at a point in my life (thankfully) where I can objectively step back and say, “Why is he doing that? What is the point?” without all the anger, but there are plenty of people who will listen to his words and become livid. He is mentally and spiritually at war with those with whom he disagrees, and as a result he will always find himself faced with foot soldiers who are equally as entrenched in hatred as he is.

    3. People like Vedder tend to influence the dumber people (the LIVs, or Low Information Voters) in society with their idiotic political statements. Because he gets angry, they get angry and start acting irrational. He’s just another progressive celebrity who demonizes his countrymen because of simple political disagreements. I doubt he gets angry about the horrors in the Muslim world, probably because he and Pearl Jam were too busy protesting the war in Iraq. As I’ve said in the past, it’s just stupid to insult your fanbase like that and better to keep your beliefs to yourself when you’re a celebrity.

    4. Carl, oddly enough I wrote on musicians and Islamic extremism years ago: “The Mullah Baradar Pearl Jam Curiosity.”

      And yes, you’re right, his message does resonate with people who haven’t done their homework. I know because I used to be such a person! When I was 20 years old I didn’t really give a rip about politics, so emotional arguments by guys like Eddie Vedder resonated with me. I even tried to get a friend to go to check out Ralph Nader event with me in 2000! The thing is, once I started doing my homework I was able to put the needles emotional stuff aside. When you do that, a lot of what they preach falls flat.

      I respect Pearl Jam for injecting politics into their work because, even though I disagree with them, on some level it motivated me to be more politically aware. I’m able to agree to disagree with them on public policy issues; I’m not sure why Eddie Vedder feels the need to demonize guys like you and me.

    5. Card is one of my favorite writers, and when rabid progressive fanboys objected to him writing Superman because he believes in traditional marriage, I defended him. I agree that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that gay “marriage” (and marriage in general) is not something the government should be involved in.

    6. Well, on one hand, I think it’s refreshing when a celebrity with conservative speaks out. On the other hand, if I were in a celebrity, I’d probably keep the politics at a minimum.

    7. So, in other words, yes though, if you were in his shoes, you wouldn’t be so vocal about it.

    8. Person: Yeah, I wouldn’t be so vocal about it if I were a celebrity.

      Doug: LOL, Ralph Nader? That’s who my uncle (a registered independent) votes for in every election, because he doesn’t like either party.

    9. Indeed the government doesn’t have the right to determine what kind of marriage is legitimate. Our currency states that “In God we trust” marriage was an invention of god between man and woman that he had planned before he even gave life to Adam it’s part of our natural design. Neither religion nor atheism can justify homosexuality it is unnatural. This is not to say that I hate gays or would infringe on their “rights” but I cant condone their actions even by my silence. The existence and promotion of unnatural sexual behavior has always preceded destruction before the flood the demons came down to earth and gave birth to the Nephilim the flood was to cleanse the earth and eradicate these unnatural creatures violent rapist of enormous size. In Romans 1 Paul condemns homosexuality as something equally wrong. In Genesis the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because homosexuality was so rampant that there were not even ten people there that were redeemable. God Israel and Judah were destroyed after centuries of slapping their god in the face among these numerous insults was the presence of male (GAY) temple prostitutes. What does this mean? It means that we are living close to a time of divine punishment.

    10. haha that would be said on a blog about gun rights…making fun of a living individual who has inspired plenty of people by say he is less than another artist whom he respected that shot himself in the head with a gun. lol…thats fucing rich dude.

    11. Thanks for the comment “no guns = no people dying by guns.” Question for you: How is it working out for Cubans, North Koreans (or any citizen of a totalitarian regime, really) not to have guns?

    12. Typical anti-gun troll right there (why else would he/she use the name no guns = no people dying by guns”), adding nothing to the conversation.

    13. I couldn’t believe someone actually said that. However unintentional, they really impressed upon Ed’d point of view!

    1. Exactly. How many venues has Vedder played where there were armed security somewhere in attendance? We do not have a gun problem in America. We have a cultural crisis of epic proportions. Politicians don’t like to talk about that because then you start getting into issues of right and wrong, good and bad … and we can’t have that in 2013, can we? If Eddie Vedder cared about gun violence he’d discuss inner city crime, but oddly enough that doesn’t come up. I wonder why. Chicago (my home town) has some of the strictest gun-control laws in the nation, and yet they’re still slaughtering each other in droves. The criminals are still getting their hands on firearms. Shocker, I know. 😉

    2. Indeed, our culture has become so morally relativistic, it’s disgusting. You see it everywhere. The media, the politicians, Hollywood, etc.

    3. Interesting that you say that, Doug 🙂
      1.Fort Hood: registered Democrat and Muslim Jihadist terrorist
      2.Columbine too young to vote. Families were registered Democrats and progressive liberals.
      3.Virginia Tech: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff.
      4.Colorado Theater Registered Democrat: staff worker on the Ob*ma campaign: Occupy Wall Street participant: progressive liberal.
      5.Connecticut School Shooter registered Democrat: hated Christians
      6.Tucson Shooting: Jared Loughner was registered Independent HATED Bush, loved Abortion. and was angry with Giffords for not having done enough against Bush

    4. Jim, you forgot about Floyd Lee Corkins, the Family Research Council shooter who was stopped (thank God) by a security guard who took one to the arm in the process. Corkins was going to shoot up the place and then smash Chick-fil-A sandwiches in his victims’ faces.

      I generally don’t like to talk about the politics of mad men, but I think it’s relevant in the sense that when the media thinks a guy is conservative (e.g., ABC initially reporting that the the Colorado shooter was a tea party member) they foam at the mouth. Funny how Floyd Lee Corkins disappeared from the media’s radar when he started saying that liberal websites helped shape his decision to go on a rampage.

    5. Exactly. You haven’t heard anything about Corkins since he revealed that reading liberal websites (specifically the SPLC’s website) drove him to go on a rampage. The media is so busy looking for its conservative shooter boogeyman, that they refuse to acknowledge that many of the recent shooters (like Jim said) were progressives/registered Democrats and if when they are revealed to be liberal, they bury the stories.

      Sadly, when that shooting happened, there were liberal relatives and former classmates of mine on Facebook who remarkably agreed with this nutcase and thought he was “doing the right thing,” to quote that crazy relative of mine who also thought that the Boston Marathon had a “connection” to the OKC bombings and the Olympic bombings.

    6. I still have forgotten idiot Brian Ross of ABC reporting that the Colorado shooter was a Tea Party member, even though there was no evidence for that at all. Like I said, they want their conservative shooter boogeyman to be real so bad, they’ll resort to making stuff up.

    7. There was an incident some time back in the early 90’s where a mentally sick woman tried to drive her car at 60 mph into his house . And now that he has a family and such people are still out there,i can guarantee his security detail is packing the very thing he hates.

    8. Joseph, thanks for the comment. If I remember correctly, ‘Lukin’ was about that were situation. Great song…even if it is over in about 60 seconds.

      One would think that after being stalked by a crazy person that Mr. Vedder could understand why some people like to have firearms for personal safety in their home…

    9. You would think they would. The ironic part about anti-gun celebrities is that so many of them have armed bodyguards accompany them wherever they go.

  1. Duly noted. I’ll add Floyd to the list on my sidebar.

    “Never let the facts get in the way of a good story” — Ed Asner

  2. I just go thru life thinking of entertainers, musicians, actors, etc.. as just ‘rainman’ type savants. Makes it that much easier to ignore whatever nonsense they spew forth unrelated to thier ‘talent’. Bruce Dickinsons view on Syria? dont care, sing ‘Run to the Hills’

    1. “Right on Eddie. Why are gun owners always so angry?” (John Smith).

      Classic, John Smith. Classic.

      “I get so angry that I almost wish bad things upon these people,” (Eddie Vedder).

      “If I didn’t have music to kind of at least get some of the aggression out or take the edge off, you wouldn’t want me having a gun either,” (Eddie Vedder).

    2. Eddies anger is against a “more guns = safer world” mentality.

      I support hunters having guns and even range shooters having guns but this,” I have to have every assault wepon made”, is ludacris.

    3. And that is where we diverge, isn’t it? I would argue that “more guns in the hands of good men and women = safer world.” The existence of guns (even many guns) means nothing. Guns do not jump off the shelf and start shooting. It takes a person to do that. If you have a culture that is deteriorating, then I would suggest one of the symptoms of that deterioration would be increased gun violence.

      I’m not sure how you define “assault weapon,” but if you have a definition that could be of assistance to my readers feel free to share.

      Regardless, I’m not sure why Eddie Vedder feels the need to demonize fans who simply disagree with him on a serious public policy issue. Like I said, I’ve supported the band for years. You would think he’d use a little more tact.

      Anyway, thanks for taking the time to read and comment.

    4. You mean like Orwell’s vision of a big government going rampant with nanny like programs of invasive and intrusive surveillance on its own citizens because they “might” become terrorists, John Smith?

      On that note, are you against the “more government = safer world” mentality, or do you honestly believe that a “perfect government” run by flawed people is possible when time and time again, “Utopia” has proven an unattainable goal by human hands?

    5. Utopia cannot be attained by human hands the human race (and the demons behind the scenes) have been trying to attain “Utopia” for thousands of years it doesn’t work. Jeremiah says that it does not belong to man even to direct HIS OWN step let alone those of others. Time and time again we have learned that the trend is always fro man to dominate man to his injury. Am I a republican no I dislike all political parties and believe supporting them is spiritual treason but I cant argue with common sense mathematics, that religion is better than atheism and that less government is better than more.

  3. “Assault Weapons…”

    Ugh…this redundancy gets my knickers in such a twist that I honestly wonder if, in the future, if the gun-grabbers’ “perfect gun free society” is achieved, if they’ll label all of the numerous deaths by knives, fists, and feet that are going to occur and become the new “epidemic of our times” assault knives, assault fists, and assault feet and try to ban those too. Heck, I wonder if they’ll call spoons ‘assault spoons’ when people start using them to kill each other because knives, fists, and feet are all banned.

    Last I checked, weapons had both a defensive and offensive use, so calling something an “Assault Weapon”, aside from being a huge redundancy, is also a huge misnomer.

    1. I think Tom does the wise thing, which is to inject substantive points into a debate that would logically cause objective observers to occupy his philosophical space. By not overtly declaring “sides,” it makes it easier for someone to walk his direction.

      I like making people realize that they agreed with me all along. (They just didn’t realize it at the start of the conversation.)

    2. But…wait…I’m AGAINST gun-control…wouldn’t his comments actually be anti-gun control?

    3. Oh. You’re not annoyed that it took me so long to come to such an obvious conclusion, right Douglas?

    4. Pornography does have a definition it comes from the Greek word meaning the writings of prostitutes and constitutes any image or literature created for the specific purpose of arousing people. The Bible comments on such things when it urges us to Deaden Our Body Members.

    1. John, did you have a definition for “assault weapon” yet? I was hoping you could clarify that for readers so that we might have a more productive conversation.

  4. I know I’m in the lion’s den and NOTHING “productive” will ever come out of this conversation.
    Much like our government right now; Right wing nutjobs will never budge and inch.

    Good day.

    1. John,

      1. You started out by saying that we’re angry. I cited Eddie Vedder’s own words, which demonstrated quite clearly that he is angry.

      “I get so angry that I almost wish bad things upon these people,” (Eddie Vedder).

      “If I didn’t have music to kind of at least get some of the aggression out or take the edge off, you wouldn’t want me having a gun either,” (Eddie Vedder).

      2. You then began talking about “assault weapons,” at which point I asked you for a definition that we can work with. You refused to answer the question.

      3. When you decided to make sheep jokes instead of discussing the issue, I again asked you to define the weapon you have stated you want less of. Instead of admitting that you don’t have a definition, you went back to personal attacks and stated that “nothing” (forgive me if I abstain from abusing the caps-lock button) productive would “ever” happen. Perhaps, when you’re alone at your room at night, you should sit and reflect on who is really to blame for the public policy impasse. My bet is that if this back-and-forth between us was put before a jury, the verdict would not come out in your favor.

      Indeed, good day.

    2. LOL! I was going to comment on that, but Hube beat me to it! Ludacris is a rapper. Ludicrous is a synonym for ridiculous. Yeesh!

    3. See, that’s why I asked him to define “assault weapons.” It’s hard to find common ground when I’m talking about a Magpul AR-15 Carbine Mil-Spec Stock and he’s talking about … a rapper. 😉

  5. “…Perhaps, when you’re alone at your room at night, …”
    I sense hundreds of lonely nights in Mr. Smith’s past and future with his attitude and lack of common courtesy.

    Nice targeting, Mr. Ernst.

    1. Heh. Well, I didn’t really mean it as an insult … although I can see how your prediction would play out. Whether John wants to admit it or not, he knows that when it is quiet and he’s alone with his thoughts, he will seriously consider what I said because I spoke the truth. Deep down, he knows that in many ways he is culpable for the destruction of philosophical bridges guys like me offer him. Despite his nastiness, I tried to get him to really focus on the argument he was trying to make — and he balked. That is his choice.

      John has the declaration of “right wing nut jobs” as a defense mechanism on blogs like this, but like I said … alone in his room at night my words, very real truths, remain.

  6. When they hurl insults and indulge in ad hominem attacks, they concede the debate.

    Reason and logic fail the progressives proves that liberalism is in fact a mental disorder.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s