Previous Post
Next Post

“The original mandate of the NRA was to train responsible gun ownership and the NRA should handle it. They should train excellence in gun ownership. They should create the short list of guns that are allowed at home. And every other gun that they say is legal like people-killers and nuclear-tipped semi-automatics should be held in armories owned and controlled by the NRA. Not the government.” – Richard Dreyfuss, Actor Richard Dreyfuss: “The NRA is Not the Enemy, They Should Be Thought of as Heroes [at]

(h/t DrVino)

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. “…people-killers and nuclear-tipped semi-automatics…”
    I do not even know where to start with this lunacy.

    • Well, according to Bloomberg, U.S. tanks fire nuclear rounds, so I can see where not doing any research and then running your mouth can lead to stupid statements.

      • There indeed ARE depleted Uranium tank rounds, so it’s not untrue to say, “nuclear tank rounds”. And they’ve made every U.S. battleground radioactive for about 4.5 BILLION years, which is supposedly the amount of time left before the Sun goes supernova. Ipso facto, these areas are radioactive FOREVER.

        And there are also nuclear-armed heavy artillery rounds, but I don’t think they’ve been able to make nuclear-armed tank rounds. Yet. The problem is that tank rounds don’t go far enough to make firing one from a tank safe for the tank crew. Not that that would necessarily stop them.

        • The name of the material in question is “depleted Uranium”. Depleted means it’s no longer radioactive to the same extent as U-235. The alpha particles it emits are blocked by clothing or skin. Your assertion of radioactivity for 4.5 million years is just absurd. DU is primarily a chemical hazard, not a radiation hazard, and is no different than lead in this regard. It is used in munitions due to its density, not its nuclear properties. There is no nuclear explosion, or anything like that.

          Tank rounds are designed to destroy other tanks. No need for nuclear rounds; conventional works just fine.

          • As per Wikipedia:

            “The use of DU in munitions is controversial because of questions about potential long-term health effects.[5][6] Normal functioning of the kidney, brain, liver, heart, and numerous other systems can be affected by uranium exposure, because uranium is a toxic metal.[7] It is only weakly radioactive because of its long radioactive half-life (4.468 billion years for uranium-238, 700 million years for uranium-235).”

            I said 4.5 billion years; pardon my 32-million year error. The problem of depleted U-238 is not the strength of the radiation, but the fact that it becomes aerosolized upon being exploded, as a fine dust. Which wind can eventually blow just about anywhere. When particles become embedded in lung tissue, a more than moderate lung cancer risk awaits its chance 15 or so years from inhalation.

            DU is used for tank rounds because it is one of the hardest substances known to man, and thus has tremendous penetrating power.

            • See, you’re showing your basic lack of understanding of how radioactivity works. A 4.5 billion year half-life means that it’s very stable, i.e. not terribly radioactive. U-238 is the primary form of uranium found in nature. Your example of “increased chance of lung cancer in 15 years” is theoretical at best, farcical at worst. The reactivity of U-238 is low enough that any increased chance of lung cancer is buried down among the noise floor of all the other “barely increased chances.” A soldier on that battlefield is more likely (probably by an order of magnitude or two) to develop lung cancer from second hand smoke and tank exhaust than from “aerosolized DU rounds.”

              • Correlation != causation. They specify generalized “toxins” of which depleted uranium could theoretically be one, but offer no evidence about depleted uranium specifically, or for that matter, any other specific agent. Their entire study consists of “shit happened here, and other shit happened, and the two must be related.”

                From the abstract of the study linked in that article:

                With the exception of crews of military vehicles having been hit by DU penetrators, no body burdens above the range of values for natural uranium have been found. Therefore, observable health effects are not expected and residual cancer risk estimates have to be based on theoretical considerations. They appear to be very minor for all post-conflict situations, i.e. a fraction of those expected from natural radiation.

                And also this:

                It is difficult to detect an increased cancer risk due to radiation at doses lower than 100 mSv because the excess risk at low doses is small in comparison to spontaneous rates of cancers of the same type. Therefore, no direct experimental or epidemiological evidence can be obtained. In the absence of any direct evidence UNSCEAR (1993) has estimated the increase of cancer risk due to low radiation doses by linear extrapolation from highly exposed human populations, such as the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These calculations show that the additional risk of a lethal cancer associated with a dose of 1 mSv is about 1 in 20,000. This represents only an insignificant increase in comparison with the normal cancer risk in Europe of about one in five, or 20%.

                So, “we don’t know what actually happens, because the values are so small as to be immeasurable. So all we can do is take other situations where people have been exposed to radiation of a different type at levels several orders of magnitude greater, and based on what they experienced, draw a line backwards to these infinitesimal and immeasurable amounts.”

                That sounds very scientific to me. And even then, their extrapolated numbers are, as I originally said, indistinguishable from the noise floor.

              • Mostly, you have just “disproved” arguments I didn’t make in the first place. I salute you. If it’s so safe, I bet you could order some and put it in your bedroom.

              • It’s pretty expensive, but except for that, sure. There are other things I do that will kill me long before that had any discernible effect.

              • I think the point is the effect it might have within a large population, not whether it will cause serious harm or death to any individual person, which is much less likely.

      • Bloomberg was referring most likely to the M109 155mm round, which was an armored vehicle with tracks and a big gun that thus looks like a “tank” and fired a battlefield nuclear bomb.

    • I think he was just using their own language against them. He just forgot to include “that thing that goes up” to the list.

    • I could go for some saboted depleted uranium AP rounds for my hunting rifle. That way if I spot a moose is behind a log cabin with my Eraser style scope I can shoot straight through the cabin instead of moving for a better shot.

      Not suitable for HD due to over-penetration.

      • Are you kidding? It’s freezing out there! With one of those scopes, I could defend my home in warmth and comfort. 😀

  2. “Today on Meet The Press,we have a random plumber from Los Angeles tonight to discuss his ideas on gun control”.

    Since when did Hollywood become a credible authority on firearms?

    • Standard media tactic: parade someone unqualified to answer a question in front of the cameras and call them an expert. Works every time.

      • Just not the plumber with a ccw that shot himself in his man parts with a .40 s&w glock 2 year’s ago. A ccw holder from Detroit, I think that ND caused him to loose his carry privilege in MI.

        • What about the FBI agent that shot himself while giving a class and declaring himself “the only one in the class qualified to be armed”….bang…oops ,”someone please call an ambulance”.

        • Nah, that guy shot himself in leg/foot, this plumber put a hole in his capt. Winky, luckily for him, and unfortunately for gene pool, the doctors were able to save it.

        • “Lose”, not “loose”. I can’t understand why so many people get the two confused, so often. One is an adjective, the other a verb.

  3. So…do us NRA members get free access those guns? I’m a life member, does that mean I can use the select fire stuff?

    • Ummm… didn’t you get the memo? As a life member, you’re one of the only ones allowed access to the nuclear tipped ammo.

  4. Let you know as soon as we figure out WTH are “nuclear-tipped semi-automatics”
    As far as “people killers” I have a non-nuclear-tipped Ruger SR .22, two .22 revolvers and chainsaw, hammers, screwdrivers and golf clubs in our garage. Anyone of these could be “people killers”

    • Don’t forget cars, swimming pools, and that pesky gravity. Most of the things we use everyday could be used to kill someone.

      • Earth’s gravity won’t kill you, though it may accelerate you to unsafe velocities. It takes somewhere upwards of 10 Gs of force to be lethal in a short period of time.

        People might say “what if you fall” but then it’s not gravity that will kill you, it’s the sudden stop at the end.

  5. As tempting as it sounds, I don’t think I could abide putting the NRA in charge of our gun rights, and I’m a life member.

    • Agreed. I don’t find that AT ALL palatable! I find it totally repugnant, as a matter of fact. I won’t accept ANYONE being “in charge” of my rights.

      • I have the same reaction when “one of our own” goes a bit to far and suggests that gun ownership should be mandatory. There is a reason that we have a bill of rights but not a corresponding bill of duties.

  6. I’m going to play Devil’s advocate here. I know Mr. Dreyfuss is a liberal, but look at what he said vs. what he didn’t say: he said the NRA trains people in excellence in firearms and the NRA should be in control of the guns, not the government. What he didn’t say was “Guns are the problem, ban the guns for the childrens’ sake! I am Trayvon!”
    I think the “nuclear people-killer” descriptor might come from the fact that he personally does not like guns, and the idea of them, period. Fine, his choice. But, it seems to me he’s saying that while he’s a pacifist and hates guns because they’re used in war and what-not, people who choose to own them for protection should be able to, and they should also be trained to be proficient with them.
    I’ll disagree that the NRA should make any list of guns that should be “allowed” in homes while keeping the “scary” ones in armories, but I like the fact that he didn’t call for disarmament as Piers was no-doubt hoping he would.

    (edit for spelling and clarification)

    • If I had a choice between the NRA or the current admin decideing what guns I can keep at home, I’m going with NRA.

      • Yeah, me, too. Of course, I don’t want anyone, even someone I like, telling me what guns I’m allowed to have, but if I was forced to choose between the two, NRA without question. My pipe dream is arm all private citizens in the world, and disarm all governments. Watch how fast war would stop.

        • Well, technically war would not stop we would see more war on a much smaller scale, thugs would continue to be thugs and form gangs…

        • The problem is many of the “scary” guns are the ones best suited for HD. Those are the ones they want to ban the most. They only want us to have hunting Fudd type firearms (for the time being) which are okay for hunting, but can be awkard for HD. Of course many hunting firearms are based on older miltary and sniper firearms which makes the whole idea BS.

        • ” Of course many hunting firearms are based on older miltary and sniper firearms which makes the whole idea BS.”
          Uh, you have it backwards. Sniper rifles ARE hunting firearms, accurized.

    • I agree Ben, he doesn’t seem like a total anti, though of course still quite flawed. I’m intrigued that he noted specifically not the government. My point is that many of the people who are against us are not necessarily stupid or have ill intent, but are more ignorant than anything else. Being able to clearly and calmly articulate our views while refraining from demonising the opposition could win us intelligent yet currently uninformed people. I’ve made it work. There are still many liberty minded liberals whom we can find common ground with in terms a distrust of over governance and curtailing of rights, but we have to learn how communicate in an appropriate and polite fashion.

  7. “They should create the short list of guns that are allowed at home.”

    So with a statement like this, hes against gun control?

    granted he looks like a saint next to that steaming pile of piers and doesnt share his equally fecal view entirely.

  8. Call me crazy but I think this idea could work.
    So the NRA gets to own all the guns, right? An annual membership is like 30 bucks a year. So 30 bucks a year to have access to ANY GUN YOU WANT. You ask for it, they toss it in a box and ship it straight to your door, like Netflix for guns. Don’t want it anymore? Send it back and they send you another one!

    • And since the NRA is a terrorist organization, they can get any guns they want! Its gold Jerry, gold!

    • Lol… Netflix for guns… that one cracked me up. “Hey Hun, what should we add to our queue for when we send back the Wilson Combat and the Arsenal? I think we should upgrade our membership to 4 at a time.”

      Methinks someone needs to make this happen.

    • Until they sell out due to bad management, 1960’s anyone?

      I’m a proud member, but I give them a short leash.

  9. Richard Dryfuss, who the hell is he? Just some actor. What’s the difference in asking for his opinions versus asking any random plumber or auto mechanic?

  10. The NRA can store the man-portable mortars, the RPGs, the SMAWs and the like, and we’ll keep the suppressed, SBR, full auto .300 BLK carbines at home without a silly stamp collection, okay? Okay.

    • No thanks. I want mortars RPGs and SMAWs, a Leopard 2A6M, a decent cache of Stingers, a howitzer, and maybe one or two of those fancy railguns the Navy is developing. Vicarious possession just doesn’t cut it for me.

  11. Richard Dreyfuss (consciences objector) is the douche who petitioned for the impeachment of Bush for violation of individual rights under the color of government. It’s funny with everything going on under this regime, he chooses this to discuss…

  12. Dreyfuss is a putz. If you don’t recall from a decade ago, he went about saying that he was going to abandon acting and go to medical school and become a doctor. He is one of those insulated Hollyweenie types that actually believe their own BS. He has a mediocre mind and one giant megaphone. Pity.

  13. I cannot tell if Mr. Dreyfuss is being sarcastic or serious. Perhaps his name would be more fitting if it was Richard Duffuss.

  14. “nuclear-tipped semi-automatics”

    Much like the 5.56 caliber AR and Glock 40mm…

    1. WTF?

    2. I want one and where can I find it?

  15. I live in an apartment with people above, below, on two sides and across the hall from me. I’m worried about overpenetration of conventional rounds. WTF am I gonna do with nuclear tips?

    • He sounds like he’s talking about the GUN, not the ammo….wouldn’t you like a U-235 flash hider?

      You could be the first, and coincidentally last, person in you neighborhood to own one….

  16. Only a deconstructionist finds the 2A ambiguous. We the people get to have weapons, maintain them, and train w/ them individually and corporately (that is the militia part). What part of “Bill of Rights” don’t you understand?

  17. And here I was, for just a second, thinking maybe Dreyfuss wasn’t as batty as the rest of the inbred Hollywood tribe. Hope springs eternal, I guess (I should know better).

  18. So where does one get one of these nuclear tipped semi-automatic people killers? My collection seems strangely lacking now that I’ve realized I don’t have one.

  19. So, what he’s saying is that the NRA isn’t a villain, but they should decide what firearms we’re allowed to own and lock up the rest? That’s exactly what our “villains” want to do!

    Dick, I loved you in Jaws, but this pundit thing just isn’t your bag.

  20. Bloomberg was likely referring to the M109 howitzer, which was an armored tracked vehicle with a big gun that thus looks like a “tank” to people for whom any armored tracked vehicle with a big gun is a tank as opposed to an actual battle tank. The M109 had a 155mm battlefield nuclear bomb that it could fire, called the W48.

  21. Pretty far out thoughts from Dreyfus. Wasn’t expecting such craziness.

    Government or NRA – i’ll hold on to my own gun, thanks.

  22. Two libtard turds. Doesn’t Dufus realize that those NRA Armories would be the first things taken over by ‘Big Gov’? Their love and fearlessness of statism can/will be their (and our) potential undoing.

    • “Libtard” is a stupid term; it makes the person who uses it look far worse than the person he’s trying to denigrate with it.

      Honestly, it does. It makes you look worse than you are when you use it.

      • Gentlemen, this entire gun grabbing problem…….is a liberal one. And its the democrats who embrace the liberal agenda. So, libtards. And really, how can someone look FAR worse than a person/movement that fights to remove our liberty (firearms) while trying to install a Statist/Big Gov nanny state?

        • I think his point is, using terms like “libtard” not only accomplishes nothing, it makes you sound like a 7-year-old schoolyard crybaby.

          • It’s OK, Rich. Last night he changed it up, to “libturd.” He left a comment in at least a half dozen threads last night that only consisted of two to four words, one of which was always “libturd,” e.g. “Dirty, libturd tactics.” or “Evil libturds.” or “Libturds……for the children.”

            Truly the depth and breadth of his imagination is staggering.

            • At least he was willing to change one letter. Progress, I’d say.

              Itty bitty, teenie-tiny progress.

        • As long as the association between gun grabbing, Big Gov, and liberalism (democrat) is accomplished, I will be satisfied. Sadly, too many voted for Barry.

        • Obummercare, giving 1/6 of the economy over to the tender mercies and infinite wisdom of the federal government. No wonder they hired thousands of IRS workers a few years back. Instead of using a scalpel to perform the delicate brain surgery of tweaking an important issue like health care (while not perfect in this country, was great, and could be made better)……they used an effing meat cleaver! Barry just thinks he is the smartest guy in the room, and wanted his name in history for bringing healthcare under the government yolk. Arrogance and inexperience.

          • When he’s alone, he IS the smartest guy in the room.

            Several people who knew him “back when”, have recently stated that the poor feller can put up an excellent front, but he’s just not all that bright, in a room full of bright folks.

Comments are closed.