Previous Post
Next Post

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Yes, enough of the BS. Ax em how its been going in court lately, lol. I’d forgive them but “they’re all bad”, Randy

  2. Why would they give a damn? They’re rich entitled “special” people and won’t lose their rights like we will.

    There will be some sort of special license that costs $1.5m or any of them that get caught with an illegal item will get a slap on the wrist from the courts because they can afford a multi-million dollar law team.

    Look at how many of these useless wastes of space are involved in DUI’s, drug charges, shop lifting, shootings, assaults, weapon charges (under current rules), arson, rape etc. and never serve a standard sentence? At most they pay a fine, attend some sort of pansy-ass counselling or check into a rehab facility none of which a normal American could afford to do nor would we EVER be given the chance since we’re not “special”.

    (sorry, bit of a rant)

  3. The one there that actually bothers me a bit is Jessica Alba. The rest of them are playing roles, and may dislike guns in their real lives. She’s actually at a range in real life, looking like she’s having fun. That’s real cognitive dissonance from where I’m sitting.

    • I think there are at least two others: the guy who says something like “Alright, let’s kill this thing” and Conan unleashing with the full auto (not sure what it was and don’t feel like re-watching the vid).

      I’m also reminded of the episode of Anthony “Douchebag McThumbRings” Bourdain show where he goes shooting with Uncle Ted and after firing an M-60 (or a SAW?) he says: “Curiously satisfying”…..

    • The only thing that really bothers me is that she married Cash Warren, rather than me. Ditto Selena Gomez, who is shtupping another, younger Canuck. Alba is an ardent Obama supporter, so her political leanings should not be a surprise.

      The only thing that amazes me is that these celebrities actually think the public gives a cr@p, beyond consuming their art and whacking off to pictures of them. Yet we have singers, actors, and others opining about everything from politics to medicine. And remember that the media-telecom sector supports the Democrats for a host of other reasons (e.g., copyright enforcement, radio spectrum allocation), and the glitterati–as employees of this machine–function as this lobby’s mouthpieces.

  4. OK – Here is a plan. Governments around the world (not just the U.S. DoD) cut their defense budgets in half. Their guns eventually find their way to the surplus market. These guns are used in crimes around America and the world. Also, the sales of miltary versions of these firearms help make it possible for the civilian versions to reach the general public; cut the miltary sales the civilian sales will follow.

    If guns/weapons corrupt people and institutions then we (civilians) are trusting everything to the most corrupt and evil institutions on earth. Demand a plan from the gov that brought the world some of the worst of these guns to begin w/ (like the AR)? Demand a plan from the gov that dropped the A-bomb?

    Its called leading by example – beat your swords into plowshares I dare you!

  5. Actors portraying violence with guns along with the media making murders famous bear responsibility for motivating some of the violent to take Act.

  6. tbh some of the inclusions seem a bit reaching. that female comedian, silverstein or something? the still with her holding a gun was from a video in essence to criticize how voting ID’s are handled, hardly in any way either promoting or profiteering from employing guns like most of the other actors.

  7. These people want me to demand action from my “leaders”? Look, politicians are meant to be our governors. They are supposed to safeguard our liberties. They are supposed to uphold the law. But they are not, nor will they ever be, my “leaders”.

  8. And you all are aware that the posh private school attended by the Children of Obama and David Gregory has ELEVEN armed guards, right?

    Note, as well, that in California, Canada, etc., the only people allowed to own such dangerous, scary things as full-auto firearms are generally film properties companies and movie studios.

    Actors are ‘phonies’–surprise! Really, this is why some of us have given up on live action, and begun watching MLP:Firearms are Magic:

    (You will never see Pinkamena doing one of those ads.)

  9. More good parodies:

    Again, gun control is a feel-good issue for these people to flog–unlike, say, network-friendly spectrum allocation policies, or tough copyright laws, which is all their masters in the media-telecom sector really care about. But there is a sense of self-importance amongst these entertainers, and it might come as a real shock to them that nobody really cares what they think.

  10. Supporting gun control and being an actor aren’t opposites…
    There are ex-militaries, police, hunters etc. that wish for weapon restrictive laws as well.
    Putting a gun in every home will lead to more violence and bloodshed than ever. Several studies show that the more weapons that circulate in society, alas the less restrictive the nations gun laws, the greater the rate of murder, violence and crime in general.
    I have no idea how grown men can support the cause of such disgusting evil, but feel free to educate me. I am open minded. I have my own rifles for hunting purposes locked up in the basement, but there’s not a fiber in my body that believes in anything else than gun restriction.

    • LOL, That’s a very good parody of a real anti-gun nut, you should put the sarcasm note to show you really were being funny.

      • Yes, I’m laughing like crazy here.
        While you have my attention, why don’t you prove me wrong.
        Haven’t heard any actual arguments so far.

    • Unfortunately for tens of millions of innocents, your argument was more convincing in the original German, Russian, Chinese etc. ….

    • People, when banned certain weapons will create new ones where they can, of course outlaws, drug cartels, and terrorists will never be hindered by any law forbidding them to own any weapon.

      Explain to the Mexican citizens how that holds true, They cannot own a gun by law. Only the Military and Police may possess a gun in Mexico, YET… the drug cartels have them (They have money… lots of it… drug money that is) and are absorbing defecting police and military who take all the guns they can carry with them. The regular citizen still cannot own a gun… and they are getting killed left and right, not to mention becoming forced labor for the cartels at gun point. Gun control has done nothing for Mexico but make it dangerous to live in.

      Germany, pre WWII, demanded everyone give up their guns… after that was done, came the removal of undesirable groups for execution, slave labor, and human experimentation. Believe me, YOU wouldn’t have wanted to be a guest in ANY of their camps for their undesirables.

      There’s been studies in the past that show a surplus of guns in the law-abiding citizen’s hands have that, at the least little or no effect on the crime rate, in most instances the crime rate has decreased.

      Where is the source(s) of the study(/ies) you mentioned?

      • A law that prohibits people from purchasing and owning weapons will of course hinder criminals from obtaining guns. They can’t buy them legally, they can’t steal them from homes and common people and they can be prosecuted for being caught with one.

        I’m not going in depth on the Mexican drug cartels, but it’s a problematic comparison. Some claim around 90% of the drug war murders occur within the organized crime cartels. Their government is corrupt and their society is shattered by poverty and crime. Giving a gun to every person to defend themselves against the crossfire of a war between heavily armed military forces and large cartels will most likely cause more problems, I think.

        As for Germany, I think you may be mistaken. The gun laws introduced by the Nazis were liberating to its predecessor. They replaced the 1928 “Law on Firearms & Ammunition” with the “Weapons Law” in 1938, which made it easier to acquire firearms for the general population.
        Feel free to have a read about it,

        I’m not sure what study you refer to, but any law-abiding citizen in possession of a firearm naturally has none or little effect on crime rates. Though when the same legally acquired and owned weapons gets into the wrong hands, for instance like in Newtown and possibly also Columbine, there is a hopelessly tragic problem.

        I have a bunch of sources, enjoy a selection;

        • Youre kidding right? You think criminals are looking to legally buy guns? You make some valid arguments then contradict yourself. Im not saying one way or the other is wrong. I merely want to point out that id rather have the option to shoot back should i need to rather than hope the shooter just blatantly misses.

        • Andy;

          I respect your opinion, but I don’t think that is how things work. I doubt its a particularly common situation to find yourself with a loaded weapon in your hand ready to protect yourself against an armed and possibly planned attack.
          I speak for the statistics when I doubt the dependability of firearms as a mean of defence. This study from the University of Philadelphia suggests that victims of crime in possession of a firearm is 4,2 times more likely to be killed and 4,5 times more likely to be injured than an unarmed victim ( ).

          This collection of studies and journals explains some of the various problems with guns possessed for self-defence ( ).

          It’s simply never as easy as you presented it. No one will challenge you to a formal gun duel in your garden and wait for you to fetch your arsenal. Gun availability will cause societal and social problems to escalate and crime rates to steadily increase for as long as weapons are tolerated. The circumstances of self-defence are complicated, and liberating gun laws is not the answer. Firearms are tools designed to destroy, and not to be taken lightly in any aspect.

        • Oh dont get me wrong. Im all for gun control. I believe only people capable of owning, operating, and maintaining weapons should own them. And to prove it so i dont mind showing off doing a little more extensive testing. I enjoy testing my range capabilities.

          And im wondering where the statistics came from whether it was surveying a nice rural town in a noncarry state as opposed to carrying concealed in houston texas(not to bang on my own turf).

        • Very good observation, I did not think of that. Thank you for pointing that out.

          The statistics descended from the study of around 1400 victims of firearm injuries, all within the city of Philadelphia. I’m not particularly familiar with the social environments of American cities, so I took the liberty of doing a ‘crime rate comparison’ at AreaConnect. I will not confirm the reliability of this source, but I will refer to it either way.
          I believe I recently read that Chicago has suffered some heavy issues with weapon-related crimes, so I compared Chicago to Philadelphia:
          And since you mentioned Texas, I also compared Houston:

          I hope this answers you question!

    • I cant say that it does. The crime rate is high… people susceptible to violence are more to likely carry… and hence gun violence. It would make more sense to do a double study of an area where gun laws arent as restrictive and the crime rates are low. And see a true correlation between violence and specifically gun violence if you get what im saying. But its nice to compare perspective with someone who isnt hellbent on getting rid of guns or someone whos ready to arm every man woman and child.

      • Well, I feel the same. I agree with you that there should be very clear requirements to allow a common person to carry a weapon. I live in Sweden and think our weapon laws, aiming to reduce crimes without affecting sporting and profession aspects are pretty decent. It is the hellbent people you mention that scare me. I want more people to understand the positive aspects of gun control, because really, the whole world suffers to hear of all the tragedies that occur in the US.

  11. Alex — Enjoying your insights, *and* enjoying the fact that TTAG has a nice, open forum.

    A point I am currently developing – I certainly do not claim it is original, or that I will do an outstanding job of delivering it – is that one of the key issues at stake, here, is American legal and cultural sovereignty. (I have a video in the pipeline on this subject.)

    I lived in the UK for 6 years, and in China for 10 — I am, in fact, back in the US for the holidays only, and will return soon to China. Laws and policies apropos of firearms appropriate to the peoples of the UK may or may not work well for them — bearing in mind that field-sports, stalking, and shooting have and have long had a class-element about them absent in the US. Their turn-in/hand-over program, and their “restrictivism”, may work there (although that is debatable), and the feasibility of legislative projects subsequent to Dunblane (I was in Aberdeen at the time) were, perhaps, appropriate to the peoples of the UK. But it should hardly require a thesis to point out that what works in country A may not work in country B. As an American who has lived/worked outwith my native US for 1/3rd my life, I resent “Internationalist” intellectuals here at home telling the American people that “we” should follow the reforms and best-practices of (e.g.) Japan, or Denmark. This debate about the limits of permissivism is *our* debate, for our peoples and communities; and while the data (etc.) of other peoples and polities may be instructive, they cannot be veridical.

    As for China, I would have thought that there was no point in looking to PRC-style restrictivism for good-ideas or insights into how a civilized polity manages civilian access to firearms; but one of Piers Morgan’s guests (on a program days after Sandy Hook) had the temerity to say “Well, take China for example…”. Wow. Didn’t see *that* coming.

    And so this is the point I’d love to see all firearm-owners make to our lawmakers, and to the public at large: Deaths caused or occasioned by firearms, whether in the course of the commission of a crime, through negligence, or in the wake of other non-malicious misadventure, are problems that we as a people need to deal with on our terms, in light of our political and cultural values — and to hell with “convergence upon international norms”. Many “enlightened” sorts are now rallying around epidemiologists (etc.) who want to cast the entire debate in terms of “public health” — that is, restriction to firearms access as a non-normative “health and safety issue”, carved-off from the unique and important Constitutional safeguards upon which this republic rests, and severed from the distinctly political nature of the Second Amendment, upon which our government enjoys some of its legitimacy.

    Check out the WHO 2002 Report on Global Violence — this URL should direct you to a link for the PDF. It is scary reading — and it is the playbook for the restrictivist-minded intellectuals of the 2013 Congress.

    Apologies for the length of this.


  12. Thank you for such a thorough answer. It’s obvious you have an above-average understanding of the subject.
    What I’m curious to know is what You think is the proper actual restrictions that should be applied to weapon laws. They differ very greatly from nation to nation but make all the concrete difference since it is what regulates actual use and impacts on society.
    I wonder what you think should be the exact requirement to;
    -Purchase an automatic weapon, handheld pistol, bolt-action rifle and weapon mainly utilizing explosive projectiles.
    -Publicly carry these types of weapons.
    -Under what circumstances the weapon may be fired.
    -What safety measures are required to keep a weapon in the home.

    I would be very interested to hear your opinions. Also I can not seem to find the WHO link you mentioned, but would be very thankful if you could retype the link!

    Thank you for your tolerance of my unveridical data-based opinions 🙂

  13. Morning, Alex (et al.).

    The WHO report, here:

    I offer some cursory remarks re: the difference between a firearm and a weapon, here:

    (I will do a stand-alone vid on that point soon.)

    Regarding restrictions of access, etc. to firearms — and as briefly as I can:

    Hunters and sportsmen are beneficiaries of the 2ndA, but they and their activities were not contemplated by it. Allowing even for the fact that the technical and functional gap between an early 18th century “fowling piece” and the rifle an infantryman of the same period would drill with was/is smaller than the functional gap (etc.) between a 21st century goose-gun and an AR/AK platform, the 2ndA is the teeth and muscle of Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms of expression, communication, association, assembly, etc. These are all “the fourth estate” of the American Republic — the 4th branch of government, and the one which legitimizes the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.

    If this reading of Constitutional history (etc.) is correct, then, the 2ndA contemplates specifically firearms that would be most relevant to the practical defense of liberty — which is to say, hardware that would be associated with the armed-forces and federal law-enforcement. We try, as is right, to balance this with legitimate public safety concerns, and hence: extremely limited civilian access to full-auto/selective fire (rightly, IMO), and rocket-ballistics, etc. But removing semi-auto rifles (etc.) with detachable mags from the citizenry would likely be contra-Constitutional. (The problem: Many younger Americans see this as a dangerous anachronism — and they cite other democracies as examples of how retrograde and toxic this interpretation of civil history is.)

    As a strategic compromise position (2013), I would not reject a four-year trial period on a limited mag-cap to 10 rounds for any such platform, as an act of goodwill to the American people (currently whipped-up into a froth about “assault rifles”) — if this was necessary to avoid a tout court ban on the platforms themselves. They need time to be better-educated about the real issues, and what’s at stake; and in order to give them a chance to be cool-headed and get used to the facts rather than the spin, perhaps a concession on mag-cap would be tactically appropriate. Maybe.

    I would also stagger the age at which civilians (ex. LEOs and active-dutiy mil personnel) have lawful access to firearms:
    – 18: eligible to purchase, own, possess, etc., any long-gun which is not semi-auto in operation;
    – 21: eligible to purchase, own, etc., also, any handgun which is not semi-auto, but such a right would not include the right to conceal-carry or to have loaded in one’s possession a non-semi-auto handgun on one’s person outside the home, except at an appropriate firing range, or as may be necessary for hunting.
    – 25: eligible to purchase, own, etc., any firearm not proscribed by federal law, subject to the laws and policies of one’s jurisdiction; local firearms officer/licensing authority shall (must) endorse license for concealed carry for any platform of handgun, except when there is compelling evidence to refuse such an endorsement;
    – 4-year trial restriction – sales or carriage – on plus-ten mags for any platform, though plus-ten mags currently in lawful possession may remain in the owner’s possession; possession of a loaded plus-ten mag outside of one’s place of residence or a firing range would attract criminal liability.
    – In exchange for this, such a bill would authorize a national right-to-carry/reciprocity among and between all states.

    Again, this would be a strategic offer to the Feinsteins (et al) of the Beltway. The only part of this aenemic and very rough sketch I actually favour (apart from the “reciprocity” part) is the graduated age requirements. It has never seemed to me a good idea to allow (ceteris paribus) people to carry handguns the same year they are allowed lawfully to buy booze. I am also in favour of allowing 21 year-olds a while to get used to the responsibility of a handgun (best-practices for use, safe-storage, etc) before permitting access to semi-autos. Also: Between 18 and 21 LE has three years more evidence to decide whether their are significant and non-trivial reasons to consider not endorsing the license for handguns; between 21 and 25, four more years worth of data re: the applicant’s possible criminal record, red-flags, etc. This is to be preferred to a mandatory psych-evaluation: The DSM IV(R) and mental health nosology (etc.) is thick thick thick with non-scientific evaluation and very bad science. I recommend “staging” licensing with modest, useful, and locally-actioned training/qualification requirements. That will serve us better than “21” *plus* a battery of psychological and psychiatric testing.

    Perfect? Hell no — but it is better than a full lurch to the Left, which compromises access by civilians to *platforms*. Give on mag-cap? If it is smart to bend rather than break, yes. Offer age restrictions? Preferable to fighting about “assault weapons”, losing, and losing other liberties along the way. Perfect: No.

    But to finish answering a little your question: In the same way that the 2ndA benefits but does not contemplate hunters (etc.), it fails also to speak to handguns for concealed-carry and PD outside one’s residence. And therein lies the rub: The 2ndA *does* extend to “black guns”, because of the 2ndA’s inherently philosophical and political nature; but it does not specifically contemplate “sporting arms”, or handguns for PD.

    The good news is: There are excellent cultural, historical, and practical reasons not to over-regulate access to so-called “sporting arms”, and to protect the legitimate interests of hunters (etc.) — the 2ndA is irrelevant, here, in the American context. Ditto for handguns for EDC/PD: It is, for sure, a different set of arguments that is needed to justify a very permissivist approach to the legitimacy of lawful civilian access to handguns for personal-defense; but they are very good arguments (in the American context), even when important and potentially countervailing “public safety” (but not: “public health”) issues are considered.

    I’ll address this in greater detail on my blog — I think it is a blogspot URL under the name Humanist Hoplite, but there’s nothing on it at the moment. (My site is for other things.)

    Thoughts? [email protected]. I think I am on Twitter now, for what that’s worth.

    Thanks RF (et al.) for letting me reply at length to Alex. Again: Love your site. If I could afford a sizable donation to your project, I’d have made one a long time back.

    Happy New Year, folks,



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here