At TTAG, we really don’t care who likes or doesn’t like guns. Not our problem. And celebrity gossip is not our thing. The ONLY reason (and I mean the only reason) we find this newsworthy is that La Lohan has made our Irresponsible Gun Owner of the Day feature (twice!), only to subsequently deny, deny, deny that she’s ever owned a gun in the past all the way up to today. From that point of view, this becomes (to paraphrase Elaine on Seinfeld) “TTAG-worthy.” Just so’s you’ll know, we don’t relish getting down in the mud on this one, and for those of you who are afraid TTAG is going the way of Yellow Journalism and Tabloid trash, fear not. With that out of the way, we came by a tip that the starlet voted Most Likely to Trash Herself and Her Career Faster Than You Can Say “Dana Plato” is telling one whopper of a fib when she claimed she and guns don’t mix . . .

It comes as no surprise from where we sit, that ol’ Lins might be prone to tell a whopper or six. It’s not like she hasn’t done that before. A bunch. And she did tell Vanity Fair in Italy that she was a gun owner, only to deny it stateside later on. And then there’s the whole “on probation” thing, which usually precludes associating oneself with guns. And let’s not forget, she’s attempted suicide multiple times, has multiple DUIs, that whole “stealing jewelry” thing, and countless other stories that would suggest her personality is every bit as stable as nitro-glycerin on a glass tabletop, in the noonday sun, on a hot July day, in the middle of an overpass in downtown LA, durring a seismological event characterized as a major tectonic realignment in the San Andreas fault at about 7.9 on the Richter Scale. But the Lindsanator has a long, weird love/hate thang going with guns, as in here, and here, and here.

Our source reports that Lindsay does indeed own at least one gun. And she apparently likes to get it out and play with it. During sex.

(The details of the tryst can be left to your puerile imaginations, suffice it to say that Lohan’s sex toy du jour has a great deal more respect for firearms than does Her Kinkiness, and disarmed the lass, checked the weapon to make sure it was unloaded, and put it away.) Our sources (plural) are convincing, credible, and we’ll stand behind the story – and our journalistic right to protect our sources.

Lindsay Lohan is the poster child for Why Some People Shouldn’t Own Guns. Unfortunately, she’s also a shining testament to a couple of other truisms, namely that there is not a law either on the books or yet to be written that could effectively stop someone like Lohan from owning or having a gun. None. As Ron White opined, you can’t fix ‘stupid.’ I’d like to offer up a corollary to that one, you can’t fix ‘stubborn,’ or ‘spoiled-rotten,’ nor can you legislate common sense.’ (I know that’s not as catchy as Ron White’s thing. I’m working on it.)

Saving Lohan from herself at this point in her sad, twisted devolution would be a crap-shoot at best, a fool’s errand at worst. She seems completely devoted to but one thing, and that is her own self-destruction. If she doesn’t accomplish that by a gun, she will surely do it by drugs, alcohol, reckless driving, or one of a hundred other ways that someone can live fast, die young, and leave a corpse – one that is increasingly looking as if it was rode hard and hung up wet to dry.

About the best thing I can think of to save Lohan’s life would be throw her freckled ass in jail, preferably in solitary, where’d she’d have time to dry out, straighten up, and work through some of her demons. But the rich and famous are different than you and I (for those of you who count yourselves as TTAG literary critics, let me save you some effort – that’s an allusion to a famous misquote between Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald), for they have not only money, but a coterie of sycophants and hangers-on who are all too willing to cater to their every whim.

When all you interact with are Yes-men and people afraid to cross words with you for fear of their livelihoods, you create a sort of self-indulgent, closed-loop system designed from the get-go to screw you up.

Of further interest to the TTAG Armed Intelligentsia, why does La Lohan find it okay to tell the Italian press one thing, and take a 180º turn here in the heartland? Was she lying there, or here? (I’m thinkin’ here, having read the evidence.) Even more pertinent, why is it okay for Hollywood types to have a double (or triple) standard? Why is it okay for someone like Lohan to appear in a movie that glorifies guns and violence (generally in an inaccurate, sensationalized, visceral, cartoonish way), make public statements abhorring guns and violence to the point of making denials about owning a gun, and then actually DOES own a gun, and violates every gun safety rule on the books in the privacy of her own home. What’s up with that?

So, does Little Ms. Trainwreck own a gun? I’m going with “Yes.” Should she own one? I think the sane answer to that is “HELL to the NO.” Should she just keep her piehole shut about guns in general? That would be a great big YEP, if you ask me. And lastly, is there anything that the law can do to effectively stop someone like Lohan from being around guns and endangering the lives of herself and others? Nope. Not a damn thing.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

38 COMMENTS

  1. If she is on probation, her probation officer can search her residence without the need for a warrant or consent, can’t he/she/it?

  2. If Ted Nugent accidentally shot and killed himself with a gun, the press would say “What do you expect from a dumb redneck hick?”
    If LiLo accidentally shoots and kills herself, the press would say “What do you expect from a washed up drug addict/drunken former child star/attention whore?”
    If Nancy Pelosi accidentally shot and killed herself, the press would be all “ITS AN OUTRAGE!! ASSASSINATION PLOT AGAINST GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS!! THE GUN WAS 30 YARDS AWAY ON A TABLE AND IT JUST WENT OFF ON ITS OWN! GUNS MUST BE BANNED FOR OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS SAFETY!”

    The only thing in common between these 3 is an person with a gun not following the rules of gun safety, and a biased media.

  3. During sex? I bet it’s a long slide! But seriously, I don’t know if she owns a handgun or not, but she has a nice rack.

  4. She’s an idiot skag but she’s hot. If she whips out a shooter during whoopee then I’ll have to whip out my own so we clank heat while we see the lord.

  5. “If you’d have told me six months ago that we’d be posting anything about Lindsay Lohan on TTAG,…”

    Brad, I wasn’t able to see the photo or video or whatever it was you posted, but I don’t find it surprising at all that you wrote about Lindsay Lohan. You often post prurient material, how many times have I teased you about that, you soft-porn king, you?

    • Now why would I be surprised, Mike, that you’d hit up the prurient angle. Oh. Wait. I’m not. Believe it or not, neither RF nor I had any enthusiasm for anything connected to Lohan. (And if you’ll go back and look at the by-lines, this is my first post on Little Ms. Diva.) Your definition of prurient material differs from the mainstream by, oh, about ten million miles. I kinda think you would be more comfortable if Victoria’s Secret sold muumuus and burnooses, and likely find a bare ankle too titillating for words. (Ah, crap. There and I used the word “titillating.” Betcha you find that sexually-charged, too.)

      Your sexual hangups notwithstanding, my point is that I object to hypocrisy in any form. But in particular, I object to some Hollywood “starlet” who’s work glorifies guns, yet she maintains that she’s “anti-gun” but yet apparently lies about owning one. Then to top the hat trick, she plays with the gun during sex. I think you and I can agree that someone who is so reckless and cavalier with a firearm has no business owning one. And I hope you’d agree that hypocrisy is bad, in any form. So why is it wrong to point this out? Believe me, I had many more salacious details I could have shared with the class. I chose not to, because we’re not into tabloid journalism, and because it was not germaine to the point I was attempting to make.

    • Dude. Seriously. If you think the pictures here have been prurient, then you should run, not walk, to your local pshrink(TM) and get some help. Oh, and back away from the religion; I know from personal experience that religion can mess you up something *fierce*.

      • Rebecca:

        Pure anti-religious prejudice. I am a church goer and you would be shocked at the things i do! 🙂

  6. MikeB is so right! Women should immediately wear coverings, head to toe, to cover up their naughty, evil parts that tempt men into marriage and healthy sexual relationships. You see, they don’t have porn or horndogs over in civilized Europe. They do sex properly, with blindfolds and clothes still on. They only do what is necessary for Queen and Country. After that they do their best to drink enough and forget it ever happened. You would think they have topless beaches and newspapers with boobs being shown! Going by our low standards, that is!

    • No, that’s not what I say. My idea is it’s wrong for men to objectify women, period. Brad can rationalize it all he wants, but I call it bullshit.

      I actually laughed out loud at the Victoria’s Secret joke, so please don’t think I’m all heavy about this, I’m not. I just don’t want to let Brad and Robert to get away with their hypocritical double standard when it comes to sexifying women’s images and insisting it’s only about the guns. That’s bullshit.

      • Mike,

        How do you define objectify? What man objectified her in this picture that she chose to take and was presumably paid for?

        The issue with certain world views is the inherent nannyisim. If a woman makes the choice (note I said choice so don’t bring the tired old just doing what society tells them argument), to monetize her femininity are men objectifying them or are the women bartering how one might view them for some cold hard cash.

        Further why is it such an issue when women are “objectified” but when calvin kline wants to put up a bilboard of a dude in skimpy undies w/ six pack abs and the photo cuts off at the neck it’s not. That’s the same thing if not worse because often in fashion and magazine spreads men are literally made faceless but no one seems to mind

      • MikeB, sounds like you have a double-standard going there, yourself. Why is objectifying women wrong, if it’s not wrong to objectify men, too? Do you really think that women went to see Green Lantern because they like comic books and special effects? Every woman I know was drooling over the idea of Ryan Reynolds in that GL suit. So what?

        Now I’d agree with you that misogyny is wrong, evil, and has no place in society. I’d even agree with you that Hollywood and Madison Avenue traffic in sexual imagery, to the detriment of society, particularly our kids. But I differentiate between a picture of a sexy girl with a gun (or a story about a drug/alcohol abusing starlet who shouldn’t even OWN a gun) versus stories that pander to sexual urges.

        If Nancy Kulp were still alive, I’m sure you’d prefer her as a gun model. You’d be alone in that. Most well-adjusted guys I know appreciate looking an attractive woman. An attractive woman with a gun? Bonus! Should the day ever come where we’re promoting stories about turning your used 1911 into a vibrator (bringing a whole ‘nuther dimension to the phrase “Steely Dan,” as well as bringing it full-circle), THEN you can tag us with sexism, pandering, and misogyny. Until then, I think you’re best served by doing a little agonizing reappraisal of your own hangups. Because from where I sit, brother, you got ’em.

  7. I am soooooo worried about this I can’t sleep. As I see it, she has shown herself to be a user of schedule one narcotics and I would guess that would make her ineligdable to own a firearm. She prolly has one, but like Don Knotts on the Andy Griffith show, she is only allowed one boolit and it is kept nice and safe outta the gun. C’mon TTAG this is beneath you.

  8. Gun control is all about keeping weapons from the masses while the “privileged” are allowed to own them. It’s BS on every level. It’s especially a problem in California where residents are often told the straight faced lie from various Sheriff’s departments that they are a no issue state. Upon being pressed they have also said that you need not apply unless you are a celebrity. It’s obvious from this example that the privileged are often the people that should NOT own guns, and the rest of the masses are not safe from them. The Calguns Foundation is making slow progress out there and has recently succeeded in forcing some changes.

    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=452308&highlight=reverses+sheriff

    Although the “vote with your feet” alternative is is available to many, we should all cheer victories in Cali, Illinois and everyplace else that tries to deny our God given and Constitutionally confirmed rights.

  10. {Grumble} I can’t see the pic either, using IE7
    If there is prurient interest, I want a shot at it!

    • All I can think of is that you’re about two versions back on using the most crapalicous browser made. Seriously, I’d suggest you try Google Chrome (my personal fave) or the latest version of Firefox. Both are considerably more stable and secure than IE7. WordPress has dropped support for older technologies, and I think IE7 is on the depreciated list. Or if you really like Microsoft products, upgrade IE. (That may not be possible if you’re on XP or another older version of Windows.) In that case, Chrome, Firefox or Opera are your alternatives.

      • This is the only pic in the last 6 pages that won’t load. I call shenanigans!
        You are out to get me aren’t you. There really isn’t a pic there and everyone is in on it with you. They are just pretending to be able to see it, aren’t they? You are all trying to drive me crazy so you can seize my wealth!

        • You’re mad. You’re always losing things and hiding things and you can never find them, you don’t know where you’ve put them.

          But if you wanna see the picture, try this.

          • What was Lohan going for in your picture, Brad? A double head shot? (groin and face) HA HA!

      • On a more serious note, it is only occasionally, and it is usually one of your pics that won’t load. Do you use multiple systems or formats? For example the Whitey Bulger pics load fine, yet all I get here is a little red x in the upper left of the pic box.

        • Okay. I copied it from the original link and uploaded the bloody thing. Hopefully, you can see it now. Gonna be kinda anti-climactic, though. Except for Magoo. And MikeB.

  11. The photo won’t load for me in Google Chrome or IE8. That’s just an FYI. It’s ok with me if you never run another Lindsay Lohan item. You might have a fixation.

    • Believe it or not, Magoo, I agree with you that a ban on Lindsay Lohan would be just peachy. And I’m not just talking about on TTAG. I think we vote her off the island completely. Assign her to the obscurity she so richly deserves. Like that.

    • I’m with you. But if she keeps doing stupid, gun-related stuff, we’re gonna report it. It’s the nature of the biz. But I’d be VERY happy if I never heard her name again. Anywhere.

  13. Would you say she’s ‘Addicted’ to firearms? That she can’t shoot em up enough?
    That it gives the term ‘Loaded’ a whole new meaning?

Comments are closed.