Screen Shot 2016-01-09 at 8.59.35 AM

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Violence published the following at enoughletter.com. Make the jump to check out the list of 100 celebrity signatories.

Dear Mr. President:

Thank you. Thank you for having the courage and leadership to take Executive Action on preventing more unnecessary gun violence in this country. We are deeply thankful for the actions you took
this week. Countless lives will be saved as a result . . .

Like you, and like most Americans, we have had ENOUGH. We have had enough of seeing unthinkable tragedies happen and nothing being done. Two masked people walk into a center for the disabled and murder 14 co-workers celebrating the holidays. A group of churchgoers are slaughtered during a prayer service even as they welcome the young man full of hate to their group. And the horrific day when 20 first graders and six educators were massacred in their classroom. In each case, the guns used were far too easily available to people intent on doing harm.

This level of depravity should rattle anyone with a conscience. We have seen how it has visibly rattled you.

Roughly 33,000 people die from gun violence every year in this country. Every day, we lose 89 more. Since Sandy Hook, 160 schools have experienced shootings. The homicide rate in the United States is 20 times higher than 22 countries like us in wealth and population – combined.

No one is challenging the right of law abiding citizens to responsibly own a firearm. But like you, we believe that guns should be kept away from criminals, terrorists, domestic abusers, the dangerously mentally ill, and children. Your Executive Action will do exactly that – extending Brady background checks to gun shows and online sales.

Thank you for protecting our rights. The right to be safe. The right not to be afraid when you go into a public place. The right not to have a generation of scared kids raised on lockdown drills on what to do if a shooter enters their school. The right of our government to do what the overwhelming majority of people want.

We love this country. And one key reason we love it is that it was built on the principle that its people could change it. Thank you for doing so. We hope Members of Congress who have failed to act on the gun violence epidemic will support the will of most Americans and will take similar action to correct what has been a shameful period in our nation’s history. We deserve better than this.

Thank you for beginning to end this national disgrace and show your fellow citizens and the rest of the world that the United States of America does indeed stand for the principles on which it was founded.

Sincerely,

January 8th, 2016

Screen Shot 2016-01-09 at 8.58.01 AM

Recommended For You

165 Responses to 100 Celebrities Have Had #Enough of Not Having Enough Gun Control

  1. It seems there is a divide in the post executive order narrative of the progressive news media and gun control groups. One side is claiming complete victory for universal background checks (I will hold them to that assertion, even though I know it to be false), and the other is saying BO didn’t do anything meaningful. They better get a conference call going to get their bullshit stories straight. In the meantime, it’s fun watching certain people on derpbook explode when you point out these inconsistencies.

    Also, still waiting for these Hollywood elites to give up their armed security/bodyguard.

    • There’s very easy way to combat the stance of these brainless idiots against the Second Amendment. STOP PURCHASING their artistic products.

      • While I don’t disagree that the PoTG should not patronize the places/people that are against RKBA. Ultimately I don’t think it would make much of a difference. The great majority of people in the country are either oblivious or do not care enough about 2a issues to have enough of an impact on the people on the list to change anything.

      • Print this list .
        When a new movie comes out , Google the names of the actors in it and if any of these names are in it .
        Don’t go .
        Tell all your friends , don’t go .

    • “these Hollywood elites”

      Debra Winger. Yep. First name I think of when I hear “Hollywood elites.”

  2. Just as Obama (or more likely his handlers) intended: the clueless celebrating the meaningless. I did think Mandy Patinkin has a little more sense. Guess I was wrong.

        • He was excellent in a lot of different things. That’s what I admired–he could be convincing as everything from a transplanted space alien cop to a Jewish yeshiva student. But I guess Ralph hit it, none of that keeps someone from being a complete moonbat.

    • One sign of mental illness is singular obsession which impedes you ability to maintain and develop relationships with others. One example would be dedicating 20 years towards swordsmanship in a quest to kill the six fingered man who killed your father, along with alcoholism.

      I wonder if Mandy has an opinion on bladed weapon control. Especially when some show that they only carry in said quest for revenge.

    • Nah, when he started kvetching when Ted Cruz accurately quoted one of his lines from The Princess Bride (you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means) while campaigning, I am completely unsurprised to see his name on the list.

      The true disappointments for me are Clark Gregg, Bradley Cooper and Mark Ruffalo, as I enjoy the Marvel movies and TV series.

      Cooper is another level of hypocrisy altogether, what with him portraying Chris Kyle, a very staunch advocate of 2A rights, as his actions after separating from the Navy proved.

    • Bradley Cooper, Liam Neeson? Interesting. Guess I should get on the internet and round up a batch of shootin irons before the curtain comes down. Anybody have a link to one of the thousands of no BGC retail sites?

    • Most of the ones I have heard of are has beens. Jennifer Grey was blackballed by Hollywood when she got a nose job in 1988. Ed Norton hasn’t made a decent movie since American History X. The most significant appearance from Sarah Jessica Parker since Footloose is when the boys from South Park dressed her up as a moose so she’d be shot by a hunter. Mandy Moore? Debra Winger? Paul Rudd? Seriously, Paul Rudd?!?

    • I suspect that may be the point. Some of these unknown people may just be trying to break through to the next level in their careers. So they glom on to the current cause cé·lè·bre in hopes they’ll get better parts.

    • Looks to me like a list of almost famous who want to be thought of as relevant.

      MR Neeson can go back to Ireland and STFU. Haven’t watched any of his films since his stupid statement.

    • Agreed a bunch of “who are they????” , and at least a handful that are known , like Liam Neeson should give back all the money they have made with a gun as part of their character. Hell, Liam first big part was on Miami Vice as a terrorist.
      what a pile of HYPOCRITES !!!!

    • Someone being an actor/celebrity is a mark against them, to me, when considering their opinion on anything which requires thought of any kind, their entire claim to fame is that they do NOT think, just pretend to be somebody they are not. Off the top of my head, the only people that would disappoint me by having their names here would be Sandra Bullock and John Travolta, and they are not.

    • To paraphrase P.J. O’Rourke, there are more “celebrities” than there are things to be celebrated.

  3. All my favorites! This changes my mind on everything. Oh wait. Nope. Sorry. Clint Eastwood didn’t sign.

    Forget it.

      • I have read differing tales of his opinions. I’m still a fan of his work although I would appreciate some of his movies better if I knew that they supported private firearm ownership vs. government monopoly.

      • Doesn’t like guns? A few years back, when in DC for the Kennedy Center Awards, he managed to get Senator Leahy over to the NRA range in Fairfax for some friendly pistol competition.

        He likes guns. He just prefers it when he’s the one holding it.

        • No, he is not a supporter of gun rights, he is a FUDD at best. He is pro gun control, including background checks for all sales, a registry and a ban on so – called “assault” weapons. Big disappointment for me to read that pap.

  4. Most of the list consists of has beens or never will be’s struggling to maintain or achieve cultural relevance. I am sure Scott Fujita was a big get for this group…

    • I looked at the list out of curiosity, because I could care less what some celebrity has to say. Just because we have heard of them (most I hadn’t) makes their opinion noteworthy? It doesn’t, quite the opposite.
      Interestingly, Will Ferrell signed off on it, which gives me just more reason to dislike the flame deleted no talent actor.

      • The heart of my comment goes to the idea of “Really, this was the best you could do?” I would no more take advice on “gun violence” than I would ask him to change my oil or set my investment portfolio.

    • Just perused a click-bait from Yahoo today about “25 Hollywood celebrities who are Republicans”. Interesting – didn’t see any of their names on this list.

  5. “No one is challenging the right of law abiding citizens to responsibly own a firearm.”

    Except the NEW YORK TIMES, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE HILARY CLINTON, 4 JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT, AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

  6. Dear “celebrities”:

    Go F@ck yourselves. Those of you who’ve made millions of dollars depicting characters using guns, please donate those earnings in their entirety to charity, and sign a pledge to forego EVER taking a part in a movie with firearms. Bradley Cooper, you especially should be ashamed of yourself. Many of the rest of you on this list signed on hoping some lefty loon casting director will cast you in a Preparation H commercial, becasue you haven’t worked in years. I’m sure none of you are reading this website, anyway.

    • Good point. Would be interesting to see how many of those on that list have done in a show/movie where a firearm was used. I’m guessing 3/4 or more.

      They’ve had “Enough”……….as long as it doesn’t effect their pocket book.

      • I was going to post that as well. The majority of these Bolshevik Beauties have made money off films glorifying violence with GUNS.

      • Olivia Wilde played an alien (the good one) in “Cowboys and Aliens” and wore a six-shooter throughout the movie, which consisted of a lot of average citizens using firearms in self defense, then at the end of the movie (spoiler alert) used one of the bad alien’s weapons to totally destroy their spaceship.

        Hypocrite? Aren’t they all? Hollywood has know forever that movies and TV about good guys using firearms to defend themselves and their communities when the government cannot is big box office – obviously what the public wants and believes in – and yet they are consistently anti-gun. If there were any justice in the world no actor or performer who put their name on this list should be allowed to perform in any project where guns are involved, pro or con.

      • Bradley Cooper sat with Chris before his death to discuss the movie. After Chris’ death, he also spent time with Taya Kyle. He even wore Chris Kyle’s shoes while filming American Sniper. The other celebrities, whatever, but Cooper deserves to be kicked by a horse. Repeatedly.

      • Taya Kyle was vehemently pro-gun at Obama’s speech, I mean, err, “town hall.” She should be publicly ripping Cooper a new one right now.

  7. I started to read … got to “unnecessary gun violence” and thought “so what am I supposed to do if there is a need for it?” … got to “This level of depravity…” and just had to stop.

    Do these folks know where they live?

  8. “To prove our support, from this moment on we vow never to handle firearms of any kind in any future film or TV production.”

    HAH!

  9. Bradley Cooper, the actor who played Chris Kyle. I’m sure if Mr. Kyle was alive he would have some things to say about Mr. Cooper attaching his name to this list.

      • Kyle’s wife probably isn’t happy either. She was speaking up for gun rights on that CNN show with the president.

        • Chris and his dumbass wife are propaganda tools for a thoroughly corrupt government hellbent on the destruction of the constitution and all of the freedoms we take for granted…

    • I’m sure Bradley Cooper has no issue with the fact that Chris Kyle owned guns. C.K. was a government employee, after all.

    • Yep, what POS. Clearly he is taking the Liam Neeson path… I make all my money using guns but none for you respectable citizen.

      • Twice before. Once when I found out her ‘all natural’ company was using synthetics. BS!

        The second time was when she broke off the engagement with me.

        And by that I mean she called the cops to get me out of the bushes in front of her window.

        • hey – been there, done that. Shannon tried the whole restraining order thing. Cops needed me to explain why I was naked, in her bushes and had the tub of Crisco, the grape jelly, a cucumber and a bottle of tequila. Just keep your mouth shut (except to say “yo quiero un abogado, por favor”) and then your lawyer will cut a deal, esp if she or he has been good at greasing judges, I mean attending fundraisers. Hell, some of this ain’t even a crime in most states.

        • Your own fault, Hannibal. We already know the cops spent several hours questioning her about the problem, including demonstrations of how she was dressed at the time of the incident, before they ever came looking for you in the bushes, plenty of time to extricate yourself.

  10. A portion of them use guns in their shows or movies, fairly often. Liam Neeson, Bradley Cooper, Edward Norton and Clark Gregg are some that stick out to me.

  11. So, I’m assuming the people signing this list will never again be in a project where guns are used and will henceforth forego the services of armed security? Not.

  12. Ok, so I can’t ever watch television or movies again. I knew it was coming. And I’m not surprised to see Steve Earle on there.

    But Marshall Faulk? C’mon, man!

  13. Dear Mr. President:

    Thank you for not disarming our bodyguards. Because we are special.

    Sincerely,

    America’s Most Vapid Celebrities With a Collective IQ Approaching Room Temperature

  14. How many of those “celebrities” have any sort of relevance in the real world? They’ve all been playing make-believe for too long, it’s destroyed their grasp of reality.

    • Schwimmer was on NYPD Blue years ago. He had a gun and berated the detective trying to take it away from him. Then went on to preach about his 2nd amendment rights to the cop.

      I guess he was just playing a part.

      • To show Hollywood’s contempt of the subject, Schwimmer’s character’s name was never used on the show – he was always referred to as “3B”, his apartment number. When he was mugged in the laundry room he somehow managed to jump through enough hoops (in a ridiculously short amount of time that would only work in a Hollywood production) and get himself a permit and a pistol. Shortly thereafter he shot a mugger to death in the laundry room. Shortly after that, legal pistol and all, he was shot to death in retaliation, by the muggers loyal compatriots, if I recall.

        Once again “proving” that having a personal defense weapon is only going to get you killed, unless you are a trained professional/cop.

  15. But they’re CELEBRITIES!! they’re FAMOUS I tell you! Their opinions mean as much as at least 10 normal people!

  16. Gotta say, a lot of the names on the list don’t surprise me in the least. Some of them are dirty hypocrites for making money by “shooting” guns, then have the b@lls to say we don’t need them. F*** them. As for Bradley Cooper, hopefully some of Chris Kyle’s Navy SEAL buddies catch up with him. Or Clint Eastwood b#tch slaps him. I saw “Ferrell” and thought it was Colin Farrell for a second. Colin’s a REAL Irishman, Mr. Neeson. Take note.

  17. Why the court jesters think they have actual power is beyond me.

    Rich lefties support other rich lefties ideas. Surprised face.

  18. Well, when the roving conservative death squads are cleansing the country of the lefty rabbit people, we have a list of the first group of high profile Chilean Helicopter-Ride recipients.

  19. “Signed, people that pay others to take care of their every need and want”. Where’s my subsidy for body guards and late night food runners Mr. President?

  20. I don’t support hollywood. No cable, no satellite. No net flix or streaming whuzzit. I buy used DVD’s and look at free shite on you tube.

    Fuck hollywood.

  21. Dear Mr. President:

    Thank you for continuously infringing every American citizen’s free exercising of their right to keep and bear arms, as your beliefs have shown ever increasing numbers of my fellow citizens that your constant refrain of, “I am not here to take your guns” is exactly a lie. As you know, being a Constitutional law professor as you have stated numerous time in the past, the specific word, “infringed” used in the context of the 2nd Amendment when broken down means, “to act so as to limit or undermine (a thing); or encroach on” which EXACTLY explains your actions as President.

    1) Celebrities with their money are secure from harm, often by having armed professionals in their employ of which, President Obama also benefits from but the American populace doesn’t.
    2) Celebrities being appalled at the death of innocent people is not a cloak they can wrap themselves in if they oppose firearms, EVERYONE who is not a psycho also feels the horror of these tragedies but, we do not point fingers at anyone other than the individuals who perpetrated these acts, and you are you celebrity b**heads, for it is not American gun owners who are committing these atrocities but those individuals who are solely responsible for them.
    3) Firearms are not easily available to anyone but criminals as they do not adhere to the letter of the law, and the second a firearm is used in a crime by any citizen who has gone through the strenuous obstacles to owning them is at that exact moment by definition a criminal.
    4) Gun violence is a term used to promote a fear of firearms in the uninitiated, and we will allow its’ continued use in the American lexicon if we also start saying car violence, and hand violence and object violence and word violence, and alcohol violence etc… for all the times that anything other than a guilty human individual has perpetrated a crime on another person/s, exactly zero times in all recorded history.
    5) President Obama should be recognized for his tearful remembrance of all the innocents lost to this epidemic of gun violence in the same way that he should be recognized for authorizing the drone strikes against all of the foreign nationals and their foreign national wives and foreign national children that he has killed since taking office, to do any less would tarnish the luster of his legacy, wouldn’t it now?

    p.s. F* off you celebrity poofs, as you are not a part of reality, you exist to entertain and not lecture the rest of us on what we should be doing, for of the two, celebrities and the rest of us, you are the ones notorious for your perversions and crimes, and we keep that stuff private, so shut up and realize that the rest of us are trying to protect the last right we have in this bloated corpse of America.

  22. Thank you for protecting our rights. The right to be safe. The right not to be afraid when you go into a public place. The right not to have a generation of scared kids raised on lockdown drills on what to do if a shooter enters their school. The right of our government to do what the overwhelming majority of people want.

    Tacit evidence that such actors never passed even a sixth-grade Civics class.

    Shut up and act.

    • That sounds like a lot of feels over reals. Safety is not a right, it is a personal responsibility. Feeling safe is also subjective. I can be holed up in a giant vault at Fort Knox with a bunch of machineguns and not feel safe. Why? Because it is a feeling.

  23. At least several of those listed aren’t even Americans, the rest have abdicated and voided their cotizenship.

    Sadly, we’re still a year out from the US presidential election and the freaks haven’t all outed themselves yet. Patience.

    • It’s AMAZING how many (celebrities?) that are here with visas or ?,
      think they can spout off about what ever is on their mind…. Oh wait it’s allowed in OUR CONSTITUTION!!!
      If they don’t like it here…. THEN GO HOME!!!!

  24. Oh, now that does it, the almighty Celebrities have spoken.

    Celebrities really overestimate their importance, don’t they?

  25. Shit, guys, turn in your guns. They won. Rupert Friend and Suzy Shuster have put their foot down.

    What a shame, too. I was really enjoying exercising my rights for a while there.

  26. Has-beens the lot of them, also they can’t afford bodyguards. So they just posted a shopping list for criminals.

  27. I think you should have to sign with your government given name to even be considered relevant. In-Q is probably the only one using the name given to him by his grandma.

  28. Meh-Where are the usual suspects like Sean Penn and Alec Baldwin? Or Clooney? Or freakin’ Matt Damon? Pathetic “list”…

  29. Get off your high horse and stop preaching to us with your dumb ass supercilious attitude, you socialist nitwits. Nobody cares. You’re not half as important as you think you are. #Enough

  30. More people were killed in France in 2015 in mass shootings than here since Obama was elected. That’s not per capita, that’s the raw total. So they can’t possibly be including France in their boo hoo. But Bloomberg. France. Hypocrisy.

  31. Thank you for protecting our rights. The right to be safe. The right not to be afraid when you go into a public place. The right not to have a generation of scared kids raised on lockdown drills on what to do if a shooter enters their school. The right of our government to do what the overwhelming majority of people want.
    Freedom of speech.
    Freedom of religion.
    Freedom from want.
    Freedom from fear.
    Freedom from freedom.
    You do know that Tail Gunner Joe was more right than wrong when it came to subversives.

  32. Always nice to hear from the elitists who never mention their armed guards.
    Democrats & liberals are nothing more than modern day Tories.

  33. What, no Sean Penn? At least Liam Neeson is there to take up the slack for hypocrite gun wielding actor in schlocky B grade action movies.

    • Penn is too busy sucking up to narco bosses… you know, guys who have people killed just for looking at them the wrong way, or less…

    • Penn’s not about to fall for another anti-gun ploy this quickly. We all recall that he sold off his entire 65-gun collection just to buy relationship time with the lovely Charlize Theron, herself the daughter of a famous shootist.

      Well, “once bitten, twice shy,” as they say. Maybe.

    • I will now don my asbestos underwear to say, “How the hell did that (self censoring words like ‘no-talent’ and ‘hack’) guy ever have a SINGING career?”

  34. im still waiting for these actors and actresses to get rid of their armed security and also to refuse to any movies or tv shows where good guys use guns.

  35. I will admit to not being the most happening guy, but for 85% of the hoplophobes on that list I must say WHO ?!

  36. Actors, like politicians, are emotionally disturbed children in adult bodies who have learned how to fake normalcy.

  37. About half of those people I’ve never heard of and the rest are merely entertaining without any real credibility.
    Thanks for giving me a little list I can use to avoid spending my money on products. Jessica Alba won’t be getting dollars from me for her junk.

  38. Jenna Fischer?! Jessica Alba?! Noooo! I wonder if any of them actually signed this. If they did how many of them got tricked into it? I mean how hard would it be to run up to them on the street and say “I love your work, blah blah blah. Could you sign this for me?” Maybe it was something their publishist or agent did for them. I’m sure that’s what happened, it must’ve been some kind of trick, yeah that’s what happened.

  39. Once again, lumping suicides with murders and using the same Bloomberg statistic for school shootings. It took about two minutes on factcheck.org to debunk that stat.

    They also forget that murder rates, including shootings, have been dropping in this country, while gun ownership and number of carry permit holders has gone up. Also, these shootings always occur in gun free zones. An armed man stops a shooting and we hear nothing about it from the MSM. Confirmation bias, anyone?

    I need to keep that list on file, so I know wherer not to spend my money.

  40. I’ve always believed that part of being a talented actor must require having a serious emotional disorder with a jerry-rigged lightswitch in the back of one’s brain. That plus a hyperinflated sense of self-worth and the occasional desperate need for $$$ are what drive these people to latch on to cheap political fads. I don’t even recognize half the names on this list.

    The sad part is when guys who grew up shooting and hunting like Chris Pratt have to take their views underground or face the wrath of the Marxist dinosaurs who’ve been running Hollywood for decades. Even the ones who “made it” like Vince Vaughn have to lay low.

  41. Weren’t a bunch of these folks pledging themselves to serve Ptesident Obama during the 08 campaign. I mean, creepy. “Pledge myself to serve…” looking right into the camera n emoting n stuff.

    Well, they followed through, didnt they?

    Call them out on that -being shills n suck ups.

    You just know politics will come up when they’re promoting something or other. “Oh, I dont listen to that. That ‘dear leader’ bit in 08 was creepy. I wonder what the rate is for that. Bloomie has money, so…”

  42. “Interesting timing. So, their marching orders… do they go out by phone tree, or something more modern like Journolist. ‘Shill-o-list’, maybe.”

    “Also, love your work in those drink / car / travel / shoe ads, you know in Japan – the ones you wont do in the US. How’s that pay?”

  43. I think it’s just so precious that they think their opinions matter to me. It’s like a little kid who believes in Santa Claus…

    • A list of suck-ups trying to get some brownie points from the people who could help advance their B and C list status.

  44. The Second Amendment requires arms regulation: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Regulation is not confiscation.

    • So how do you “regulate” a right that “shall not be infringed'”? Work on that one awhile and then come back.

      • In the context of the language in the late 1700s when the Bill Of Rights was drafted, regulated meant practised or refined, as in a “well regulated watch” or “well regulated machine”.

        To wit, a well regulated militia would be one that had access to arms, and the freedom to organize and train with them both at an individual proficiency level, i.e marksmanship, as well as squad/platoon and above to train as a cohesive unit.

        And just to cut any argument short about the National Guard and the reserves of the other branches, they’re only *one* part of the militia, per the following:

        10 U.S. Code § 311 – Militia: composition and classes

        (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
        (b) The classes of the militia are—
        (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
        (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

        https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

        • In the context of the times in which the Constitution was ratified, America was completely financially insolvent from Revolutionary War debts and with almost no income with which to pay those debts. The militia “army” that fought and won the War was owed back wages for their service, and was nearly totally disbanded as its members went back to their homes to restart their civilian lives. There was no money with which to provide for defense after the War was won. The Country was essentially defenseless against any and all foreign (and even domestic) entities with ambitions against the newly forming Government. The 2nd Amendment was one major part of a solution to provide for some measure of defense that didn’t require funds that the Government couldn’t raise and had few prospects of obtaining. The other major part of the solution to provide for defense without Government funding was the Militia Act of 1792, which George Washington signed into law, which required every free able-bodied white male citizen within the ages of 18 and 45 to provide himself with a firearm and ammunition. Google “militia act 1792”. The 2ndA and Militia Act were all about defense of the Country and its Government, and the 2A phrase “well regulated Militia” was meant to put limits on the Right to keep and bear Arms to State militias, i.e., organized groups regulated by the individual States.

        • In the 1700s the word “regulated” had all the various meanings as it does today. In a document as terse and economical with its language as the Constitution, it’s impossible that the word “regulated” would be used to describe a requirement that’s so completely obvious as the necessity that militias should be trained and competent for their intended function. That necessity is simply assumed to be self-evident. A militia that’s not trained and competent isn’t really a militia, it’s a mob or rabble of anarchists. That leaves the correct definition to be the one that can’t automatically be assumed to be self-evident, i.e., a limitation of use or behavior in accordance with the defense of the State and the common good.

        • it’s impossible that the word “regulated” would be used to describe a requirement that’s so completely obvious as the necessity that militias should be trained and competent for their intended function.

          Except, a militia with no firearms and no training would not serve well to ensure the security of a free state – therefore, the government has a vested interest in the ability of the militia to serve its purpose. The government could not provide the militia with firearms; therefore, the militia was armed from privately owned firearms, wielded by their owners. If the government imposed infringements upon the ability of the people to keep and bear arms, the militia would suffer.

          That necessity is simply assumed to be self-evident.

          You mean, as self-evident as, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

          A militia that’s not trained and competent isn’t really a militia, it’s a mob or rabble of anarchists.

          Which is why the people explicitly prevented the government from having any authority to prevent the men in the militia from arming themselves – and which is also why the people prefaced that restriction on the government with a statement regarding the importance of having a well-regulated militia.

          That leaves the correct definition to be the one that can’t automatically be assumed to be self-evident, i.e., a limitation of use or behavior in accordance with the defense of the State and the common good.

          Yes, that’s exactly how the militia is used.

          It also has absolutely nothing to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which is an inherent right, and which is constitutionally protected against infringement by the government.

          The militia depends upon the free exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, not the other way around. The constitution is grammatically, syntactically, and historically clear on this point.

      • I suggest that YOU “Work on that one awhile and then come back.” The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say that regulation is less important than non-infringement, therefore those concepts carry equal weight and it is our duty and responsibility to uphold each equally. The stipulation of “well regulated” isn’t a meaningless filler phrase, even though the gun community treats it as such. “Regulated” “keep[ing] and bear[ing] of Arms” doesn’t automatically “infringe”, although the gun community automatically conflates the two to be synonymous. Historical legal precedence of every Constitutional Right includes limitations for the common good. The gun community irrationally and emotionally fails to accept that the common good is the basis of the Constitution, and that individual rights have always been subject to limitations to allow for the necessities of the greater civil society.

        • The stipulation of “well regulated” isn’t a meaningless filler phrase, even though the gun community treats it as such. “Regulated” “keep[ing] and bear[ing] of Arms” doesn’t automatically “infringe”…

          Would you kindly cite the part of the second amendment that applies the adjective “regulated” to the right to keep and bear arms?

          I’ll wait.

    • The Second Amendment requires arms regulation…

      No, it doesn’t. Try reading it again. The second amendment references the necessity of a well-regulated militia, and then states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      • Your tortured interpretation of syntax only fools the foolish. “Militia” and “people” are synonymous in the context of the syntax, the document, and historical legal precedence going all the way back to English Common Law (upon which much of the Constitution is derived).

        • Your tortured interpretation of syntax only fools the foolish.

          Hey now: I’m not the one claiming that the phrase, “well-regulated militia” actually says, “regulated right to keep and bear arms”.

          What “tortured syntax” is required to assert, as stated word-for-word in the constitution, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

          A proper understanding of the second amendment, free of “tortured syntax”, would be as follows:

          The security of a free state depends on the ability of the people to defend the state. The ability of the people to defend the state depends on the ability of the people to assemble as a militia, armed and well-functioning. Because of that dependency, the right of the people to keep and bear arms (which exists inherently) is protected against any form of government infringement.

          The second amendment implies that the right to keep and bear arms is inherent, and the militia clause merely provides a reason that the people have constrained the government from infringing upon that right.

          “Militia” and “people” are synonymous in the context of the syntax…

          Nice try, but nope. “Militia” refers to the collection of the people in a specific context. “People” refers to the people, in all contexts.

          …the document…

          Again, nice try. The Bill of Rights enumerates several individual rights – that is, the rights are inherent to the people. The right to keep and bear arms – that which the government may not infringe – is among those enumerated, individual rights.

          …and historical legal precedence going all the way back to English Common Law (upon which much of the Constitution is derived).

          For the sake of the argument regarding applicability to the US, the constitution is founded on the principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence. The right to keep and bear arms derives from the right to self-defense, which derives from the right to life.

    • Well, I’ll be signing off from this thread now. I always end up regretting my futile attempts to reason with moral absolutists (google “Moral Absolutism”). I believe every competent person has a Right to self-protection, but I also believe that the common good requires civilized restraint in the exercise of that Right. I’m convinced that the only solution to the debate is to remove the legal ambiguity by amending the Constitution with precise, unambiguous, language. If the language was currently unambiguous, there wouldn’t be a debate. If a new unambiguous Amendment is contrary to any individual citizen’s preferences, well, at least we can all agree that we all know exactly what the law intends, and then deal with any consequences unambiguously instead of the futility of never-ending debates without solutions.

      • …but I also believe that the common good requires civilized restraint in the exercise of that Right.

        The logic failure in this position is that the civilized are already self-restrained, and the uncivilized will not be restrained, either by themselves or by laws. Passing more laws, and burdening those who are already demonstrably self-restrained, will not lead to any greater “common good”; it can only hinder the self-restrained when faced with threats from those who are unrestrained.

        I’m convinced that the only solution to the debate is to remove the legal ambiguity by amending the Constitution with precise, unambiguous, language.

        Kudos to you, at least, for this much. I urge you to begin the process.

  45. I’m sure other people have said the same, but I don’t even know who most of these people are. Great job, Brady. May as well have just made up a bunch of names.

    I’d be far more interested to see a list of 100 “celebrities” who vocally support 2A rights. Preferably celebrities people actually know about.

  46. “Thank you. Thank you for having the courage and leadership to take Executive Action on preventing more unnecessary gun violence in this country. We are deeply thankful for the actions you took
    this week. Countless lives will be saved as a result . . .”

    Can’t they count to zero?

  47. Yawn… I’ve only heard of 8 of these nitwits, but I have not had TV in 10 years or so, and don’t read People, Us or USA Today.

  48. Dear Celebrities,

    You have enough money to live anywhere in the world you like. I hear Europe has “common sense” gun control laws, and they never have shootings there. Plus, they need more rich taxpayers to help keep the welfare state and the gun control paradise running. Perhaps you should move to a country that will genuinely appreciate your contributions and the political climate is more to your liking.

    Sincerely,
    The Rest of Us

  49. Liam Neeson? C’mon man… Your entire catalog nowadays is you using guns on bad guys! Lemme guess what your next your next project is? Taken 4: Taken Your Rights

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *