Brent Spiner, Hollywood Hypocrite, Is Only Too Glad to Have Men With Guns Protecting His Property

brent spiner malibu looting gun control

courtesy avclub.com

You remember Brent Spiner. Or maybe you don’t. He was imaginatively-named android character Data on Star Trek: The Next Generation. He also payed a bit part in the Independence Day flicks. Like so many of his Hollywood pals, Spiner’s never been much of a fan of his fans owning firearms. The way he sees it, the average tube-watching rube simply can’t be trusted with firearms.

As Twitchy documented back in 2013, Spiner got into a Twitter debate over the Second Amendment and civilian gun rights and expressed the view that gun owners are inherently dangerous.

But there’s apparently a caveat to that. If those people with guns in their hands happen to be protecting his Malibu home in the midst of an emergency, then Spiner’s just fine with civilian gun ownership. In fact, he’s downright grateful for it.

Again via Twitchy:

It seems that the scorched ultra-high end real estate in Malibu has proved to be an attractive target for would-be looters. As a result, some residents have taken up arms and are letting it be known that looters enter at their own risk. Twitchy noticed because one of those armed men is married to pop singer Pink.

Among those whose property is apparently being protected by those men with guns: none other than Brent Spiner.

Isn’t that nice? Did Spiner know that so many of his neighbors were gun owners? That they value their property enough to stand guard and protect it from opportunistic predators who would take advantage of crisis? Does this change Spiner’s view of civilian gun ownership?

Don’t count on it.

comments

  1. avatar Joel IV says:

    What was the old joke my grandfather told? A Republican is just a Democrat who has been mugged?

    1. avatar New Continental Army says:

      It originally went: A conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged by reality. I think Barry Goldwater came up with it, or at least was the one to popularize it.

  2. avatar dph says:

    Looters will be shot on site as opposed to taking them somewhere else to be shot.

  3. avatar GS650G says:

    Once again who cares what a person who pretends to be someone else thinks.

    1. avatar CarlosT says:

      Politics is downstream of culture. If more people who are in the public eye were honest about civilian gun ownership, then maybe votes like I-1639 go differently. As it is, people who are well known by millions spout off ignorantly/deceitfully about guns and the public is influenced.

      1. avatar Elaine D. says:

        @Carlos

        Media and celebrity figures tend to be liberal for the most part.

        Liberal gun owners don’t speak up much because why bother.

  4. IF he can afford it why not! The typical Celebrity Bodyguard makes approximately $250-K to $1-Million per year, depending on the Celebrities Fame Status…

    1. avatar After out West says:

      The dude played a secondary role in a TV show 30 years ago (a TV show which I much enjoyed as a junior high school student). He doesn’t seem to have done much else (kinda like George Takei – 50 years ago for George).

      I don’t imagine he is super duper rich. Just a hypocritical liberal

      1. avatar I1uluz says:

        Watched The Green Berets with John Wayne, I never noticed George Takei was in it. Grant you it had been decades since I watched, but still good gun porn movie.

    2. avatar ozzallos says:

      The fact that he can afford it isn’t the point. By his own admission, the people protecting his house are super dangerous to everyone around them and should likely be disarmed on the spot… Unless they’re protecting his property.

      Now if you can afford that protection? Good for you, just don’t be a hypocrite about it.

  5. avatar James W Crawford says:

    One should not casually dismiss the possibility that Mr Spinner might revaluate his opinion of gun owners given new evidence. However; one should not bet on it.

  6. avatar HP says:

    Don’t be decieved – this isn’t Data saying these things, it’s Lore. Data was logical and would have understood the importance of firearms. Lore was evil and insane, I think it’s pretty obvious that’s who we’re dealing with here.

    1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      Don’t forget that Spinner played a character named Arik Soong who very firmly believed in and practiced

      Eugenics.

      Star Trek Enterprise

      1. avatar HP says:

        Lore killed Noonien Soong, his father. We can’t trust Lore, or his positions on firearms. Hell, he even collaborated with the Borg later on. I haven’t forgotten and neither should any of you.

  7. avatar CZJay says:

    Why don’t they just file an insurance claim? Your Lambo or jewelry isn’t worth a Mexican’s or black’s life.

    Open carry is illegal in California. Someone doesn’t follow the gun control laws. They kind of look like white supremacists who think the law doesn’t apply to white males.

    Funny how helpful they have been to fellow white well off people compared to situations where the victims weren’t so light skinned or wealthy. Lot’s of heart warming stories of the well off getting rapid response and aid for free from their community. I wonder if they will help out all those people who are also homeless but not because of the fires. Don’t stop being personally charitable when there are a bunch of blacks and Mexicans in need. There shouldn’t be a need for laws that force corporations to help them out.

    1. avatar OBOB says:

      why did you go all racist??

      so if the looter is black or mexican (mexican is a race now?) give them a free pass, but if ‘white’ kill them is your stance?

      In my house, come in to steal or ???
      shoot on sight!

    2. avatar Mark N. says:

      The looters and thieves arrested in and around Paradise have all been white. And they are stealing from people who have nothing.

      1. avatar Huntmaster says:

        I’ve always liked to think this was a reality based website. Isn’t that kind of like, mathematically impossible?

    3. avatar Lugnut says:

      Insane people do not know they are insane. Consider your racist ass informed.

    4. avatar Robert says:

      Sir, you are a racist idiot. I am a 60 year old white male in a middle class area. I don’t care what race the intruder/looter is. They come through my door, I’m not waiting to check his race. Depending on the situation, I might give him a warning shout, then I’m shooting him/them as the case may be. Center mass.

  8. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    WGAF what Mr Spinner thinks or doesn’t.

  9. avatar Ralph says:

    I liked him better as the Independence Day: Resurgence gay scientist rocking straight up woman hair and high water pants after a 20 year coma.

  10. avatar Salty Bear says:

    What, do you think everyone should be able to own photon torpedoes?! Only trained graduates of Starfleet Academy should have high-output, phase-rotating assault phasers. If the Borg attack, the Federation will save you.

    Go choke on a bussard collector, P’takh!

    1. avatar OBOB says:

      “Son…that was a prime example of treky nerd being spoken by a full blown native…take note! You don’t see them much in these parts!”

    2. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Being a sci-fi fan, but not a trekkie, I did understand the statement.

      But I also prefer a good old fashioned slug thrower for “Close Encounters”.

  11. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Every person with an operating vehicle’s steering wheel in hand is dangerous as well. Does that mean we should be hysterical and spout off all sorts of nonsense? Neither should we be hysterical and spout off all sorts of nonsense about firearm owners who have a firearm in hand.

  12. avatar Larry says:

    Couldn’t we use a photo where our side knew “ sight “ from “ site “ .

    1. avatar CarlosT says:

      They are letting you know you won’t be taken somewhere else, then shot.

  13. avatar HEGEMON says:

    SPINER-LESS

  14. avatar CTstooge says:

    Having a hard time giving a shit about Malibu. Does that make me a bad person?

    1. avatar former water walker says:

      Nope…😄😎😏

    2. avatar Southof16 says:

      ‘Cept for the fact that my tax dollars will be spent to rebuild everything for these mfers…

  15. avatar Shire-man says:

    Like any elitist its all good when its you or your peers. When I was at an ivy way more faculty than youd ever imagine owned guns and yet still fought for every inch of fun control they could get because, you know, it wouldn’t apply to them or their peers. Gun control was just for those poor, unclean folks. The same folks they claim as token friends at dinner parties to bolster their cosmopolitan image.

  16. avatar TexTed says:

    At risk of being made into a flambe’d pariah, I could argue that that’s not what Spiner said.

    He said “anyone with a gun IN THEIR HAND” is dangerous.”

    Does anyone disagree with that? We cannot, legally, go around with guns in our hands. Even in open carry states, they have to be holstered. If that gun is out of the holster and IN YOUR HANDS, then — you’re dangerous. And you mean to be, don’t you? Otherwise, why did you draw?

    Someone on the range with a gun in their hands is dangerous. That’s why we have range safety officers, and the four rules. Once the gun is pulled, it is dangerous. That doesn’t inherently make it bad; I mean, in a DGU that’s the whole point.

    1. avatar RMS 1911 says:

      Which part of the second amendment says you can’t carry your armaments in your hand?
      I can show you the part that says you can.
      Hint ( the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed)
      Where does it say holstered?

  17. avatar strych9 says:

    “I believe anyone with a gun in their hand is dangerous”

    OK, let’s bring in Webster… His first definition for “dangerous” is “involving possible injury, pain, harm, or loss”

    Involving possible… Oh, so it’s not a guaranteed type thing. Like, maybe like someone can have a gun in their possession, be “dangerous” and never harm anyone. It’s just like, maybe a possibility that, like, they could harm someone if maybe, like, the right circumstances arose and shit.

    This knowledge might lead some to ask serious (Dare I say… dangerous?) questions such as “As long as the person is law abiding and sane what’s wrong with being ‘dangerous’? Because if they’re law abiding and sane then they’re only ‘dangerous’ to those who are criminals and/or insane, right?”

    That’s what I want to know. What’s wrong with being “dangerous” so long as that danger is directed in the right direction? Are Navy SEALs or other SOF members “dangerous”? You bet your ass. Is there any reason for most Americans to fear them? No, not unless you do something stupid like start a fight with one. Same thing with skilled martial artists, skilled archers, skilled swordsman etc. They could all be considered “dangerous” but is there really any danger TO YOU or John Q. Public? No.

    1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      There’s a big difference between being dangerous and being a threat. I walk around with a .357 on my hip. I’m capable of killing anybody I come across. That makes me dangerous. But unless you threaten me with bodily harm or threaten my wife (no kids) or perhaps commit a violent felony against another person in my presence I am not a threat.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Exactly.

        My problem with the original comment is that it was clearly meant to suggest that someone with a gun is a threat to the safety of those around them, which isn’t necessarily true. If they’re like you or I there is no threat. If they’re like, say Omar Mateen, then the story might be different.

        I just object to the vilification of everyone who has a gun on them which is clearly what Spiner was engaged in here.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          To take it to the next logical step, nobody has a clue about the .357 on my hip. Anybody could be armed and you have no way of knowing. If you tell the non-threat citizens that they’re not allowed to go armed under penalty of law, that does nothing to prevent those who are a threat from going armed. Anybody can also be armed with a knife and you have no way of knowing, so even if you could un-invent the firearm there would still be the same proportion of society walking around posing a lethal threat to their neighbors. But perhaps for some, being unable to SEE the weapon in the persons hand lets them go about their daily lives in blissful ignorance?

    2. avatar Huntmaster says:

      Webster’s dictionary is for writing books, letters, and everyday reference. I don’t think it’s going to carry much weight in front of a Judge.

  18. avatar OBOB says:

    LOL Brent Spiner

    If I was there and guarding home, then knew his anti-gun stance
    I’d point out his home to the LOOTERS

    “Hey go in that one, he is unarmed and I will not stop you at all…have fun!”

  19. avatar AZgunner says:

    Who even cares what these people think? I couldn’t care less what some pampered “artist” thinks about how the world works. These people live in a bubble.

  20. avatar OBOB says:

    all I can say is this.

    I cheered, clapped and hooted every time I saw a multi-million dollar mansion go up in smoke on TV!

    didn’t you????

    but hummm…build, buy or get somehow a home worth well over 5 million siting DEAD middle in a brushy area that might as well be stacked cans of GAS and not spend on dime on a home fire suppression system…a good one is only like 50k and runs itself!
    rich don’t =brains!

  21. avatar Timothy K. Toroian says:

    Joel IV, the saying actually is ‘ a Republican is a Democrat who has just been mugged. The only difference is the location of the word just. Spiner is a mook. My I.Q. is in the top 4% of the population. And a target shooting friend of mine has one of 169. Brent probably can’t comprehend the concept of UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. Check the definition of unalienable. The end meaning is a right that cannot be taken or GIVEN away/surrendered.

  22. avatar ollie says:

    Gun control supporters should not own firearms and should be required to have “GUN FREE HOME” signs in their front yard if they want to avoid being hypocrites.

  23. avatar Specialist38 says:

    Damned right they are dangerous. Thats the point.

    Crimnals and thugs dont usually shy away from “harmless”.

  24. avatar New Continental Army says:

    Dude comes off as a creep. F him. Let the fire and looters rob him of his gun control loving millions.

  25. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    The best way to deal with hypocrites is to publicly call them out and then hammer them with it. Most actors are hypocrites pigs, when it comes to guns.

  26. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Just another who gives a crap what he thinks quasi celebrity. Who if he wasnt on 1 particular TV show. No one would know his a$$ from his elbow or care what he thinks.
    I know I don’t care what he says or thinks about anything.
    He is of no importance to anyone but his family and a bunch of comi con nutcases.
    I don’t know why this blog even bothers with his ilk??

  27. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    “I believe anyone with a gun in their hand is dangerous.” — The Masterwork of “Often Wrong” Sung

    We need to have a care: this is a rhetorical two-fer the anti-people use, pivoting on “dangerous.” A gun is power, dangerous to whom it is used upon. Whether someone with a gun in their hand is “dangerous” depends on that capability, plus their intention, judgment, and skill.

    “Dangerous” means both an active threat, and a power. A “dangerous man” means intent, judgment, while a “dangerous” chain saw refers to its power. The “dangerous” guy because of a chain saw in his hand Jason, of the horror movies: he’s dangerous with a chain saw because he’s deranged.

    The words get tangled if you go with “dangerous”, because of its several related meanings. When the anti-people say “dangerous”, I use “power” and “choice.”

  28. avatar Michael says:

    Not dangerous, only consistent. There is only one predator out there that consistently behaves in a conta-survival manner when things get sketchy…and that one frequently travels in packs, walks on two legs and is positively always a threat. It only shows it’s true nature when the risk/reward ratio is in their favor and they don’t fear being caught, shot or both. Otherwise, they behave like any other opportunist scavanger…buzzard, coyote or hyena and pretty much will all wind up as some other creatures meal. -30-

  29. avatar Michael says:

    The “others”, who else? -30-

  30. avatar DaveL says:

    Free people are always regarded as dangerous, by those who consider themselves their enemies.

  31. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    In this natural disaster you still can’t carry a gun with you, open or concealed, in California. I wonder how many people lost the only firearm they own to this firestorm? Since they can’t even have it in their car without government permission.

    At least 10 days to wait just to get a new one? The fire may cause even longer delays for background checks to buy a gun.

    The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

  32. avatar Iron Cat Beast says:

    Ah yes, Data; the only robot that even C-3PO would consider “kinda fruity.”

  33. avatar raptor jesus says:

    Yeah I’m dangerous. That’s the whole point of having a gun. It turns me from unarmed victim to armed defender.

  34. avatar Robert says:

    Spinner is typical Hollywood. Nothing new here. Most of them are anti-gun until everything goes sideways then they want someone with a gun to show up and save their butts.

  35. avatar steve clark says:

    Well, it’s okay if they’re *trained*, whatever THAT means….

  36. avatar VieteranGunsmith says:

    Brent Spiner does have one thing going for him, at least the people who bear arms around him who are hired security professionals have been trained in the use of deadly force as well as other levels of response to assault, whereas the rest of civilians who own guns have little to no experience in handling firearms in those situations, with the exception of military veterans and retired police officers.

    However, he failed to qualify his statement so it is understandable how one could interpret his words as hypocrisy. Most people who own a firearm for self defense only know point and shoot, and barely grasp the concepts of cover vs concealment so in a way he isn’t too far off the mark.

    It is the responsibility for every gun owner to get training in how to effectively use their weapon, and how to avoid having to. Of all the things to criticize liberals for, they do have somewhat of a point here. Most of the people who buy their first defensive firearm do not get trained in how and when it is appropriate to use it, and that is a problem that we as gun owners must do something about. If you are trained and you know someone who is considering buying a firearm, take the time to train them – if you are not qualified to do that, refer them to someone who is a certified NRA training expert, so eventually every firearm owner will know the basics of safety and some tactical insights as well as being able to remove yourself from dangerous confrontations before they escalate to shots fired. Other training such as finding cover versus concealment can save your life. Just ask your friend if they know the difference between cover and concealment. Another area where most people need training is in keeping a situational awareness mindset.

    So this is an education problem and it is one we as gun owners can remedy. When we do our part and get the training we need, the liberals like Spiner and others become misinformed spreaders of lies, which is a role they seem to excel at.

    Mr. Spiner may still be a hypocrite, but that does not excuse us from being responsible gun owners and getting trained.

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