Is James Bond being disarmed?

Disarmed? Perhaps. Castrated? Definitely.

Stephen Spielberg started this when he turned the FBI agents’ guns into cellphones in “E.T.” years ago, bowdlerizing his own film. Amazon Prime jyst guaranteed that no one will ever watch a 007 film again.

But 50 -60 years ago, didn't Bond posters drive nut cases to shoot people at random ? NO. And there weren't any 'Movie Ratings' either . Every kid saw them and cheered for 007.

Ah, yes! How prescient Bill Watterson was: "Quick! To the bat-fax!"

For the leftists who would have us all be serfs, we cannot have heroes who are armed. My goodness, then WE might imagine that being armed was the way to be strong, and capable of defending ourselves and the country! One of the many reasons that England in the late middle ages began to have a different relationship between the ordinary people and the barons, dukes and kings was that the English chose the might yew longbow as the weapon of the ordinary Englishman when fighting alongside the armored knights of the upper classes. No ordinary man could afford a war horse and a great sword and plate armor. The longbows use in war meant that the ordinary people had to practice with them, regularly. Only with years of practice was it possible to "bend" a 100 to 130 lb "pull weight" longbow by a man who might weight only 120 lbs himself. And pulling it time after time required strength, and hitting required practiced skills. So there were great prizes posted at regular archery tournaments which encouraged the ordinary Englishman to have his longbow and practice often. So, having a peasantry who all had a weapon which could contribute greatly in war (read about the battle of Agincourt, 1415, in the Hundred Years War) or, if the ordinary man felt badly oppressed, could be turned against an oppressive lord. So, now the rules flowing downward had to be at least somewhat reasonable to avoid arrows flying towards the oppressive baron. Robin Hood wasn't just a fantasy, it was written in light of the fact that armed citizens were a thing in Merry Old England. But, today's Brits are disarmed and the new overlords don't feel at all worried as they oppress them more and more each year.

007 is now a conflict resolution spirit guide with a charming accent.

They would have neutered the logo too if it wasn't trademarked.

Only a matter of time before James Bond becomes anti-West, but it would still be 'British', but being British would have its meaning twisted into something unrecognizable.

There was a brief movement, several years ago, to make Bond a woman. I shudder to think where it might go from there.

The only real James Bond was Sean Connery. The others were imitators. Never worked.

The thing that always bugged me about the Bond poses with his Walther, is that he always had his finger inside the trigger guard, which is a sure-fire tip of clueless unprofessionalism, particularly for one holding a legendary "license to kill." Whether military, law enforcement, or competitive shooter, the professional only puts a finger on the trigger, once certain of a clear background with the target isolated enough so as to not endanger innocent by-standers. The finger only enters the trigger guard slightly before squeezing off an aimed round at the intended target. Period.

Thank the Lord the move to make him a woman failed...I guess all that is left for the left if to put him in a dress and call him transgender...blah

Good thread for a Sunday. Mark Steyn once said of Ian Fleming, "He was incapable of writing a boring sentence." True. Fleming's original Bond books are immensely readable and surprisingly detailed. In the preface to one, he said he endeavored to get "the nuts and bolts correct." He sure did. His descriptions of places, shirts, weapons, cigarettes, cocktails, cars, and coffee are time capsules from a lost era. His non-fiction books, "Thrilling Cities" are a fascinating look back at what the jet set did in the great cities of the world. N Ian Fleming's reflect the language of their time, and should remain as they were written. The words that are being removed were not offensive the because, in part, it was a time when grown men and women would have thought it childish to be offended by them. Times have changed. So have we. And not always for the better.