The NRA vs. Luke Skywalker: Don’t Bring a Lightsaber to a Gunfight

The NRA on Mark Hamill's gun (and blaster) control advocacy

courtesy ibtimes.co.in

Shut up and kill some more stormtroopers: The NRA Ridicules Mark Hamill For His Gun Control Beliefs: ‘What If The Galactic Republic Outlawed Lightsabers And Ray Guns?’

During a recent broadcast, (Grant) Stinchfield — who once chastised the press for describing guns as “weapons” — turned his attention to comments Hamill made about gun control in an interview with Australia’s Herald Sun. While promoting The Last Jedi, the actor revealed his own backstory for Luke Skywalker was based on his thoughts about gun control. “America has a lot of crazy people and the gun laws are just totally wrong and disproportionate for what we need,” he said while explaining a tragic lightsaber accident he devised to help him with his performance. The line prompted Stinchfield to reinterpret the entire Star Wars saga:

“Once again we get a Hollywood millionaire, protected on set by armed body guards 24/7, and he thinks our gun laws are too strict. He’s also a hypocrite. Star Wars was and is a violent movie. All of them are. Shoot ’em up thrillers at their best. What if the Galactic Republic outlawed lightsabers and ray guns? No more armed spaceships. Darth Vader’s evil empire would have run ramshod over Skywalker. Han Solo would have died who knows how many movies ago. In fact, the lightsabers and laser guns are what gave the good guys in every Star Wars movie a fighting chance.”

Stinchfield apparently caused a great disturbance in the Force. Calling blasters “ray guns” caused a million basement-dwelling dweebs to suddenly tweet out in terror. Unfortunately, they still haven’t been suddenly silenced.

comments

  1. avatar Alex Waits says:

    The movie sucks anyway.

    1. avatar How_Terrible says:

      It wasn’t bad, but think Rouge One was better.

      1. avatar Rick the Bear says:

        Did you mean “Rogue”? 8>)

        1. avatar JimK says:

          Red One, standing by

        2. avatar NYC2AZ says:

          “Red 2, standing by…”

        3. avatar Barnbwt says:

          “Rouge Three th-tanding by-eeee”

        4. avatar Big Bill says:

          “Rouge Three standing by. Ooh, R2, keep that up!”

        5. avatar Eric says:

          C, R2 could Jabba on my 3PO anytime!

      2. avatar YaDaddy says:

        No…it was a long drawn out and terribly confused movie with more illogical (even for a fantasy universe) horse-shite than any one movie should have in it.

        It was bad. Really bad. In the first 5 minutes of the film I actually said out loud “ I have a bad feeling about this.” Good thing that I did, because the last Jedi is the first Star Wars anthology film where no one utters that classic line.

        I so wanted this movie to be good, but it was such a letdown. I was hoping that, after the debacle of the force awakens, rogue one had turned things around and Kathleen Kennedy had changed her ways.

        …but alas there is a 2nd SW movie that I will only see once.

        1. avatar Roymond says:

          After seeing the scathing reviews of the apparent love of imbecile tactics on the part of the good guys, I’m afraid to go see it. I certainly won’t pay to!

    2. avatar Bitchnuts says:

      I could have done without the not-so-subtle class warfare narrative in the middle of the movie. Guess they had to appease their major stockholders in backwards, communist China.

      1. avatar Alex says:

        I wasn’t a huge fan of that either, but I like that they at least acknowledged it is more complicated than “rich people bad, poor people good” even if it was only a brief scene where they showed that the rich people sell to the resistance as well.

  2. avatar Madcapp says:

    In other news that new Churchill movie opens in 2 days. You know…for those who are interested in the story of a real superhero.

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      A big government statist who supported restrictions on the civil liberties of his own people, supported Stalin, and conspired to get the Lusitania sunk, so the Wilson administration would have a pretext for getting into WWI?
      What a great guy.

      1. avatar Madcapp says:

        Real people are complicated…some day, even you might understand that.

        1. avatar California Richard says:

          “Great and good are seldom the same man.” – Winston Churchill

          Churchill knew he was shaking hands with the devil which leads me to an other quote…

          “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” – Otto von Bismarck

        2. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

          I imagine that he was paraphrasing Lord Acton’s “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men,..” when he said that. Lord Acton was probably also paraphrasing some one much earlier than him. I think it appears that Churchill was one of those great men.

      2. avatar How_Terrible says:

        I would just like to point out that RMS Lusitania was sunk around a year and a half before the US declared war. The real decisive factor in the US declaring war was the Germans decision to resume unrestricted submarine warfare.

        In many ways Germany was its own worst enemy in both worlds wars.

        1. avatar Ogre says:

          Don’t forget the Imperial German government’s Zimmerman telegram, which was handily intercepted by the Brits and provided to the U.S. government, trying to bring Mexico into the war against the U.S. by guaranteeing repatriation of parts of the SW U.S. (which was Mexican territory before the 1846 Mexican-American War) back to Mexico. The Mexicans were not too happy with the U.S. over the 1916 military expedition into Mexico to try to capture Pancho Villa and his men. The Zimmerman incident was sensationalized by the pro-war media and influenced Congress to declare war on Germany in 1917. The Lusitania sinking (in which many U.S. citizens died) also contributed significantly to the pro-war mood in the U.S.

        2. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

          The rules of sea warfare were of much advantage to the Brits. You can hardly conduct submarine warfare and abide by them. The US was also not acting at all neutral by shipping materials to Britain but not Germany. I posit that that there were no good guys in that war.

      3. avatar Hank says:

        “Supported Stalin”… so did we. And the Soviet Union in fact, supported us during the war too. We had to work with the Soviets to defeat the Nazis. The fact that idiots like yourself don’t understand that these days speaks to the poor state of our public schools. If we had any sense these days, we’d work with Putin too, to eradicate extremist Islam, which poses a far greater threat to the west than Russia.

        1. avatar ATTAG Reader says:

          Indeed the spectacle of the Democratic Party calling out Trump for being too friendly to “Russia” is poetic hypocrisy at its best. I happen to agree with the Donald and Hank that so long as we “trust but verify”, finding common ground with Russia/Putin at least on radical Islam would be a good thing. Just don’t trust too much, and continue building the THAAD and other anti-missile defenses.

        2. avatar What About Bob says:

          I don’t think Jason has the slightest idea about how close all three countries were to falling to Nazism. Indeed it was a complicated relationship, with distrust and each country vascillating between defeating Germany and looking out for itself.

          I thought I knew the story of the war, but just read an 800 page history of it, and it was breathtaking. Incredibly tough to read, even harder to comprehend. The pure evil, courage, the thousands killed on a weekly basis, the plight of civilians, especially the Polish.

          Americans today, bitching about being offended at the slightest slight, would simply implode.

        3. avatar JasonM says:

          “Supported Stalin”… so did we.

          I didn’t support Stalin. And had I been alive I would have supported neither Stalin, who was just as terrible as, and possibly more dangerous than Hitler, nor Roosevelt, who was one of the most dangerous presidents in history (gun control, gold confiscation, court packing, the welfare state, cronyism, and so forth). Robert “Mr. Republican” Taft, the founder of modern conservatism, opposed supporting Stalin, and getting involved in WWII.
          And I’d wager my knowledge of history is far superior to yours Hank.

          I don’t think Jason has the slightest idea about how close all three countries were to falling to Nazism.

          The Russians moved most of their production east of the Urals, before the Germans attacked. The winter of 1941-1942 nearly destroyed the German army. Their tanks couldn’t handle the cold. Their uniforms weren’t up to the task. The German military had to take up a clothing drive with the civilian population to get cold weather gear that could resist the Russian winter. The Germans lacked the manpower to occupy Ukraine, Belarus, and western Russia, and still fight a war. The Soviet military failed miserably in the first part of Operation Barbarossa, in part due to surprise, but mostly due to the purges of qualified officers. But by the end of 1942, they had recovered and were pushing the Germans back, with minimal assistance from the British or Americans. So historical evidence would place the odds of a German victory on the eastern front at none.

          The Germans couldn’t cross the English Channel. Operation Sea Lion rested on destroying the British navy (the largest in the world in 1941). To do that they’d have needed total air superiority. They maybe could have wiped out the RAF during the Battle of Britain, because they were able to replace losses faster. But after the British were able to bomb Berlin, their idiotic dictator pivoted from military targets to civilian terror targets. So the probability of the UK falling to Nazism was miniscule. Once the Russians got involved in the summer of 1941, the Germans could not focus enough power to invade the UK.

          The Germans had no possible way of getting even a company sized assault force across the Atlantic: they had virtually no surface navy, and no aircraft carriers. Every German male of fighting age would not have been a large enough force to invade the US. So our chances of falling to Nazism were zero. The only real threat of American fascism was from Roosevelt, but he died.

          As Pat Buchanan pointed out in his book Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, the war started because Churchill backed the Poles when the Germans were trying to negotiate to get Danzig back. The war had a galvanizing effect on the German people (as war tends to do). Without it, Hitler would have likely lost support and been ousted. Yet another reason to dislike Churchill.

        4. avatar ironicatbest says:

          Yes Putin. Animosity aside, he’s the modern day Teddie Roosevelt. …. Support your Local Law Enforcement, and shop at wall Mart, support Communism, made in China

        5. avatar Hank says:

          Pat Buchanan is a fucking moron and if we’d have followed a path he wanted we’d all be speaking German right now. I’m very aware of his flawed interpretations and revisionist history. Get a clue, bonehead.

        6. avatar 4808 N says:

          Another example is our support of Saddam Hussein in the late 70’s. He fought a WW I static trench war against Iran. Why, you ask? Because ayatollah Khomeini was a much bigger threat to us at the time. They fought eight years over one letter. Go figure.

        7. avatar GeorgiaBob says:

          Jason,

          Most of your facts are close to accurate, but you leave out critical details and have failed to incorporate the greater picture. For instance, you assert that Germany lacked to manpower to “occupy” conquered Soviet territory and maintain an offensive. As a point of FACT, the Germans did not need to allocate combat forces to occupy those border countries they overran in ’41 and ’42 – for the most part the people there were thrilled to be out from under Stalin and the Soviets, and were willing to self police under German occupation. Even many Poles in the Soviet occupied zone were calling the Germans “rescuers” by December of ’41!

          The attack on the USSR by Hitler was as poor a decision for Germany as his declaration of war against the USA in December of ’41. Notably, Hitler’s physician was likely “treating” tremors and fatigue by daily injections of the methamphetamine the Reich had recently developed. Hitler was probably stoned out of his gourd, and aggressive as Heil from daily drug concoctions administered between July of 1941 until January or February of 1945.

          Compounding Hitler’s intoxicated decisions, Churchill’s decision to reinforce UK forces in North Africa (and fire an incapable general) was a significant problem for German High Command. It was the hold English and Aussie forces maintained in North Africa that allowed the Allies to later create a “second front.” Although Stalin kept demanding the the US and UK invade France, that second front in Africa was the only reason the Soviets did not collapse in ’42. You may argue Soviet war production east of the Urals, until you turn blue – but all of those new rifles, tanks and aircraft were not stopping modern German divisions – until Germany had to split their forces and send over 20 divisions to the Med.

          Germany lost because Hitler was drugged out of his mind, because Churchill kept England from giving up, because the US entered the war at a critical period with material resources that Germany could never hope counter, and because millions of good guys with guns beat back the armies of a really evil regime!

        8. avatar JasonM says:

          Hank, please enlighten us as to how the Germans, who couldn’t cross the 20 miles to England would get across the Atlantic. The Man in the High Castle is a work of fiction.

      4. avatar Eric Lawrence says:

        And I’d wager my knowledge of history is far superior to yours Hank.

        “Your knowledge is all well and good, but your analysis is severely failing.”

        But by the end of 1942, they had recovered and were pushing the Germans back, with minimal assistance from the British or Americans. So historical evidence would place the odds of a German victory on the eastern front at none.

        “I should remind you here that the Eastern Front was hardly a settled argument in November 1942 when operation Torch turned North Africa into a two front theater for Germany. The battle of Staligrad was not decided until Feb 1943, Zhukov would suffer his worst defeat at Rzhev in December 1942, the Third Battle of Kharkov in Feb-Mar 1943 would result in 86 thousand Soviet casualties against 11 thousand German casualties, and the Battle of Kursk would be fought later in the summer of 1943 and was only a victory for the Soviets because of their numerical superiority in men and equipment (during Citadel alone the Russians suffered three to four times more casualties and lost 5 times more tanks than the Germans). With the Torch landings the Germans were forced to reoccupy Vichy France with troops that would have been better used on the Eastern Front, the Afrika Corps retreated from 150 miles west of Alexandria to Lybia and had to replace Fench troops that switched to Allied forces with more Italian and German troops and equipment, especially the XC Army Corps and 5th Panzer Army. It would be foolhardy to think those units would not have been critical to the Germans on the Eastern Front instead of fighting the Americans and British in Africa.”

        Once the Russians got involved in the summer of 1941, the Germans could not focus enough power to invade the UK.

        “Operation Sea Lion was a last resort for the German military. Documents written by Hitler himself have made it clear that he never wanted to invade, but to starve Britain into signing a Peace treaty. The requirements in the plan for Sea Lion of naval and air superiority were there almost as insurance to ensure they plan would not proceed until Britain would already have signed a treaty. With the U-Boats enjoying amazing success from June 1940 to October 1941 the possibility of the British being starved to the point of suing for peace was a likely possibility. If that happened the the Afrika Corps would have been freed up to be used on the Eastern front, Operation Torch would not have happened and the Vichy French would not have been needed to be replaced in late 1942. What happens if the Battle of Stalingrad was a German victory?”

        1. avatar JasonM says:

          The Russians were able to sustain more losses than the Germans, because they had a much larger population to draw from.
          Even had it been a war between only Germany and Russia, I believe the Germans would have lost…eventually. The Russians had vast numerical superiority and were fighting the war on their territory, which was an excellent boost for morale. The German equipment had significant issues with the autumn mud and the winter cold. The Germans were unable to reach the oil fields of the Caucasus, which they desperately needed to fuel their army. Had they reached them, the Soviets’ scorched earth policy would have denied them any oil production. With the British blockading imports from everywhere outside of Europe, the Germans were starving for resources. They were cannibalizing materials from the civilian population and conquered peoples to feed their industry.
          The Germans might have slowly pushed east, but each meter they won was costing them far more than it was worth. The Russians, on the other hand, were fighting “the great patriotic war” against a foreign invader. They had no choice. Dictatorship or not, Germany would have had to react to growing antiwar sentiment if the war in the east dragged on. And eventually one of the assassins would have gotten to Hitler.

          Also, I don’t see much of a down side to sitting back and watching the two worst ideologies of the 20th century destroy each other.

  3. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

    Just give it time. They’ll smart off and mommy will unplug their routers.

  4. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    I remember that event. I used like Mark Hamill until he started shooting off his mouth and showed that he’s just another crazy, elitist SJW….I fired back similar comments…Nothing says “The right to keep and bear arms” than leading an armed *rebellion* against a Galactic Empire with a Satanic type political core element….

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      I don’t know about satanic… They were always basically space nazis. I mean seriously, half their wardrobe would have fit right in at oberkommando der wehrmacht.

      1. avatar JasonM says:

        The original empire was based more on the British navy, hence all the English accents.

        1. avatar How_Terrible says:

          Also, the movie did a lot of filming at oinewood studios in England so that is where most of the less important actors came from.

      2. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

        Reference to the Darkside of the Force. The “Evil ” satanic Metaphysical power that was drive it…A theocracy, with an obviously tangable supernatural presences….And the Jedi were still derived from the Seven Samurai, and Bushido code…

        1. avatar Robert Farago says:

          You know, the whole Star Wars thing came out the “shorts” that used to play before a main feature. Flash Gordon episodes. Which were simply a rollicking good time, not a lesson in Eastern mysticism (despite the presence of Ming the Merciless).

          The Star Wars franchise has had its head up its ass for a long time now, hijacked by sci fi nerds. The only reason it still interests me: JWT convinced me that the rebels are terrorist scum. If only the filmmakers went there.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          In what sense is the Galactic Empire a theocracy? Did you even watch the first movie where Vader has to choke a bitch because the entire command staff is mocking his hokey old “religion”? Again… Space Nazis.

    2. avatar BLoving says:

      The Galactic Empire had it’s issues, to be sure…
      But it should be noted that they never really tried to disarm the populace – at least no attempt that was mentioned…
      So how tyrannical could it have been?

      1. avatar anonymoose says:

        Yeah, forget disarming people. Just shoot anyone before they shoot you, then torch their family homes.

      2. avatar Slicer87 says:

        In a deleted scene from A New Hope, it was explained that the Empire was nationalizing all trade in the core systems.

  5. avatar pwrserge says:

    Given how throughly the feminazis have taken over the Star Wars franchise, I can’t even bring myself to give a shit about what a washed up actor famous for exactly one role says. I mean seriously, look at his IMDB page. His last memorable role was in the first Kingsman movie where he was a side character. If it wasn’t for basically milking Luke Skywalker, he hasn’t had a major role in a full movie in years.

    1. avatar Cloud says:

      Hamil is a giant douche but to be fair he’s to this day the best Joker.

      1. avatar How_Terrible says:

        To me he will always be the true joker. The animated Batman series was what introduced me to Batman when I was a little kid in the 90s.

      2. avatar pwrserge says:

        I rather liked Heath Ledger.

        1. avatar What About Bob says:

          Agree, that was an amazing performance.

        2. avatar anonymoose says:

          Cesar Romero, tho.

  6. avatar Maxi says:

    You can go to the new star wars. Just like you could go to a womans march.
    Both will have the same result: your brain shrinks to half it’s original size and you wasted 2 hours of your life on listening to commie sjw shit.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      People sacrificing themselves in large numbers in the hope of restoring a proper Republic that has fallen into the hands of tyrannical madmen and been forcefully reorganized into an empire is “commie sjw shit”?

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        The new movie contains exactly none of those elements. It’s basically nazis insurgents fighting SJW commie insurgents in a massive civil war. (The latter as supposed to be the “good” guys.)

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          I’ve seen the movie. I failed to see how the resistance is SJW or commie.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Name one male resistance leader who wasn’t a holdover from the original trilogy or completely emasculated on screen.

    2. avatar JasonM says:

      The only “SJW” elements I’ve seen in the recent Star Wars movies are the many non-white and female characters. Part of that might be because of multiculturalism, but I’m sure a significant part is because they want to appeal to foreign audiences. Also, our country isn’t 80% white like it was 40 years ago, so there are more non-white actors.

      The theme is still very anti-authoritarian, and everybody is well armed.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Except for the constant emasculation of all the male main characters. Hell, even the token black stormtrooper has been relegated to little more than window dressing by the latest diversity hire “hero”.
        https://youtu.be/LPsRp7uUXUk

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          No comments allowed. Hardly surprising since the guy who made that video clearly knows exactly fuck all about Star Wars outside of the movies.

          Maybe if he bothered to read the book he’d understand some of it. Hell, he’d do better if he just paid attention to the movies. But… sadly enough, shitposting moronic videos is what YouTube is all about these days.

          Also he comes across as a complete jerkoff.

        2. avatar Tim says:

          “Maybe if he bothered to read the book he’d understand some of it. Hell, he’d do better if he just paid attention to the movies. But… sadly enough, shitposting moronic videos is what YouTube is all about these days.”

          WHO the hell is talking about books?? Was Mark Hamill in the BOOKS???

          If you want to debate someone, maybe actually provide something logical.

          The new movies do seem very heavy on multi-cultural and feminist non-sense. Might be to primarily sell tickets, but it doesn’t make it any less BS. Women have limited roles in combat. Always have, always will. Except in silly-ass FANTASY movies.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          What are you talking about? The video has over 8000 comments.

      2. avatar Scoutino says:

        Yeah, our country is demographically nothing like when it was 80% white – today it is 77.1% white. Huuuge difference!

      3. avatar Slicer87 says:

        There is also the super powered Mary Sue Rey who somehow without training is more powerful than either Luke or Anakin. Silly boys need training while girls have girl power to do anything.

  7. avatar strych9 says:

    “Once again we get a Hollywood millionaire, protected on set by armed body guards 24/7, and he thinks our gun laws are too strict.”

    If he thinks that the current gun laws are “too strict” doesn’t that put him on our side?

    1. avatar Tim says:

      seems like a rather important typo

  8. avatar former water walker says:

    What a big ole girl. Nothing worse than whining about America overseas. My kids offered to take me to the “new” Star Bores. Nope. I can’t support this putz or the boring story line. Better keep those bodyguards Lukie boy…

  9. avatar Nanashi says:

    The Empire put heavy restrictions on civilian weapon ownership. Pocket pistols were totally illegal and ships having all but the smallest arms (officially for clearing asteroids and other debris) were heavily restricted. It was canon.

    Also: Is a lightersaber an illegal switchblade under the 1958 Switchblade act?

    1. avatar Eric Lawrence says:

      I think since the mechanism of the light saber works much the same way of an OTF automatic knife the regulations that apply to a Benchmade Infidel apply to the good old light saber.

  10. avatar No one of consequence says:

    Don’t bring a lightsaber to a blaster fight.

    Or, perhaps we all should go back to the days when an accident of birth and genetics gave some people the ability to more readily impose their will upon others. Here on earth that’s called muscles, in the Star Wars universe it’s called midichlorians (or however the heck you spell space hepatitis).

    1. avatar Anymouse says:

      “Don’t bring a lightsaber to a blaster fight.”
      The opposite is true for people who can use the Force to sense the incoming bolts and deflect them with the lightsaber. They’re impervious, and the shooter is defenseless.

      1. avatar jwtaylor says:

        Yeah….and the troopers are all lousy shots.
        Tell that to literally ALL of the dead Jedi, killed by blaster fire, from troopers.

        1. avatar Mark Hamill Melanoma Counter says:

          Set your blasters to “miss!”

  11. avatar Hank says:

    Star Wars sucks. Every fucking episode is blowing up the Death Star. How many Fucking times you gonna do that? Eat a chode.

    1. avatar Nanashi says:

      “What the Empire would have done was build a super-colossal Yuuzhan Vong–killing battle machine. They would have called it the Nova Colossus or the Galaxy Destructor or the Nostril of Palpatine or something equally grandiose. They would have spent billions of credits, employed thousands of contractors and subcontractors, and equipped it with the latest in death-dealing technology. And you know what would have happened? It wouldn’t have worked. They’d forget to bolt down a metal plate over an access hatch leading to the main reactors, or some other mistake, and a hotshot enemy pilot would drop a bomb down there and blow the whole thing up. Now that’s what the Empire would have done”

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Rogue One explains the flaw in the Death Star.

        It’s intentional sabotage by an engineer who was forced to work on the thing.

        1. avatar Eric Lawrence says:

          Didn’t Randy Quaid do that in Independence Day?

        2. avatar JJ48 says:

          Right. And there were no other engineers reviewing any of it, nor any Quality Assurance folks inspecting any of the work. I think Rogue One was a pretty good movie, but trying to retcon the flaw into being intentional was one of it’s weakest points.

        3. avatar Slicer87 says:

          Especially since the Death Star was designed by those CIS bug guys on Geonossis.

  12. avatar Dek says:

    I thought SJW was “single Jewish whiteguy”
    I stand corrected thanks google….

  13. avatar HP says:

    So after 30 years, Mark Hamill finally gets his time in the spotlight again, and this is what he does.

  14. avatar Ralph says:

    It seems like Hamill injured more than his face in that car crash back in ’76. Surgeons had to use part of his ear to rebuild Hamill’s nose, and part of his ass to rebuild his brain.

  15. avatar jwtaylor says:

    Hamil has spent too much time method acting Skywalker, the jihadi who killed tens of thousands in multiple terrorist attacks. The character is nothing but an uneducated cave dwelling brat who got brainwashed by an ancient religion into committing atrocities against a duly elected government.
    He’s a terrorist pawn, plain and simple.

    1. avatar JJ48 says:

      I wonder if real-life terrorists would find more public support if they carried lightsabers.

  16. LOL, how come when I click on the link in this article for “ray guns”, a browser window opens to a Brownells window for the “CHIAPPA FIREARMS – DOUBLE BADGER 19IN 20 GAUGE | 22 LR BLUE 2RD”?

    Now, I could understand if the link took me to a Beretta U22 Neos, which looks like a Star Wars blaster, but someone at Brownells has a weird sense of humor linking “ray gun” to a wood and steel Chiappa over-under combination 20gauge shotgun/22LR rifle!

    1. Apparently putting “ray guns” in quotes disrupted the link.
      Here I’ll try ray guns without quotes and see if this instance of ray guns links to the Chiappa.

  17. avatar Mark Hamill Melanoma Counter says:

    You guys need to all watch the Plinkett Reviews of the New(er) and New Star Wars movies on Youtube. The one for Episode II had me in stitches. Also, he makes very good points on why they *ALL* suck (except the original 3).

    1. avatar Slicer87 says:

      Yeah but the same guy liked the awful The Force Awakens besides not knowing what an ensemble plot is, have to take his views with a bucket of salt. Nothing says loser more than a guy whk whines for 4 hours about a movie that cam out 15 years ago.

  18. avatar Johnny108 says:

    This guy used to bullseye womp rats with his t-16 back home, and he lectures ME on gun control!?

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email