Clooneys Pay Price for Rabid Anti-Gun Stance as ISIS Begins Posing Threat to Their Family

If you’re a celebrity and your life is threatened by any major terrorist organization, what’s the safest way to protect yourself? Guns, of course — whether it be a gun on your person or in the hands of trained security guards.

Whose lives are possibly being threatened by a terrorist organization? Those of actor George Clooney and his wife Amal, unfortunately. Amal is an attorney specializing in international law and human rights who has brought a court case against the Islamic State group in a French court. That’s bound to attract attention from the group, and it’s making George rightfully nervous.

Which celebrities have been conspicuously against guns? George and Amal Clooney, of course, who were major supporters of the March for Our Lives; Amal has blamed mass shootings in America on “guns, and how widely and easily available they are.”

So, let’s start with the basics.

According to the U.K. Daily Mail, George Clooney told a podcast that his family was in danger due to the case Amal was bringing on behalf of Nadia Murad, who claims Islamic State group terrorists captured her back in 2014. 

The Yazidi woman says that the group trafficked her as a sex slave. If the case succeeds, those who were responsible could face justice in an international court.

No matter what you think of the Clooneys, this is a pretty noble cause, I think anyone would admit. However, it comes with a certain amount of danger.

“My wife is taking the first case against ISIS to court. We have plenty of issues,” Clooney said on the podcast. “Real, proper, security issues that we have to deal with on a fairly daily basis. “We don’t want our kids to be targets, so we have to pay attention to that. But we also live our lives, we don’t hide in corners.”

And, as Clooney noted, it’s difficult to hide when you’re one of the most recognizable couples on the planet. 

“My wife and I wanted to walk with our kids in Central Park and that’s just not possible,” he said. “We’ve tried. We walk out the door and everyone surrounds us. There’s a bounty on my kids heads for a photo.”

So, how do you manage that kind of risk? Protection. But Clooney and his wife have both come out against the best constitutionally protected form of protection there is, the firearm.

Last year, Clooney and his wife gave a half-million dollars to the March for Our Lives, the series of pro-gun control protests after the Parkland shooting.

“Our family will be there on March 24 to stand side by side with this incredible generation of young people from all over the country, and in the name of our children Ella and Alexander, we’re donating 500,000 dollars to help pay for this groundbreaking event. Our children’s lives depend on it,” a statement from Clooney read, according to Reuters.

While Clooney declined to be interviewed by Parkland students for the event, he went on to co-sign the aims of young activists in a letter published in The U.K. Guardian. 

“The fact that no adults will speak on the stage in D.C. is a powerful message to the world that if we can’t do something about gun violence, then you will. The issue is going to be this, anyone you ask would feel proud to be interviewed by you, but it’s so much more effective if it’s young people,” he wrote.

“Amal and I stand behind you, in support of you, in gratitude to you,” he said. “You make me proud of my country again.”

The two attended the march, however, and Amal Clooney made it clear to Vogue that she believed guns were to blame for violence in America.

“I’ve seen lots of commentary where people have tried to say, ‘This isn’t about having too many guns or allowing semiautomatic and automatic weapons to be purchased too easily — surely this is about mental health, or about violence and movies,’” she said. “The fact is, there are violent movies all over the world, and there are mental-health issues in other countries. But this doesn’t happen in other developed countries. The difference is guns, and how widely and easily available they are.”

Statistics don’t bear this out, but whatever.

The point is that the couple is in grave danger, the kind of danger where self-defense would be highly useful.

Of course, the Clooneys could be availing themselves of protection of the armed sort, which would be better for them but profoundly hypocritical.

They wouldn’t be the only ones who believe in protection for me, but not for thee — as if your safety didn’t matter.

One would hope that this threat would shake Clooney out of his anti-gun stance.

Then again, the ability of Hollywood stars to handle cognitive dissonance knows no bounds.