More drivel from an anti gun Hollywood type...

[Hop]

Where do you even begin with people like this?

Jason Alexander-
TwitLonger — When you talk too much for Twitter

One of my favorite quotes: "There is no excuse for the propagation of these weapons. They are not guaranteed or protected by our constitution."

 

[MTC]

Where do you even begin with people like this?

Jason Alexander-
TwitLonger — When you talk too much for Twitter

One of my favorite quotes: "There is no excuse for the propagation of these weapons. They are not guaranteed or protected by our constitution."

Yep, that same pattern every single time. He follows that statement with the rocket launcher argument and an appeal to compromise for the "greater good".

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

Da, comrade! Banded together in the worldwide borderless utopia where all can be tracked, monitored, and controlled.
Patience, tovarishch.

There is no excuse for the propagation of such drivel, either. [STRIKE]It is not guaranteed or protected by our constitution[/strike]. Wait. Strike that. Both most certainly are. How one chooses to use them, or whether to use them at all, is up to oneself.

 

[aikidoka]

These twits think only muskets are protected. I'm sure they would be consistent with that when pointing out the 1st ammendment could not possibly protect tv broadcasts, cell phones, computers and cameras.

 

[hookedonjeep]

You want a compromise for the greater good? Put guns back in schools..... 100 years ago, everyone had guns. Good guys and bad. They also TAUGHT marksmanship in public schools! What a concept - to hit what you intend to. As for the recent tragedy in Aurora (used to work there years ago - was a sewage pit then too); if you had the majority of folks in the theater armed - as they very well would have been 100 years ago - what do you suppose the counts would have been? I propose that if more people were armed, the guy would have given up the idea from the start. If not, he may have gotten a couple, buy not before being lit up by people who refuse to be a victim.
Sorry, a bit of a rant; but can't help it. In my final piece of this rant - I was watching the second Batman movie and drew a correlation: In the film, Batman is trying to figure out what the Joker "wants", and can't figure it out. His butler tells him that perhaps he doesn't understand this man - and he never will. "Some men just want to watch the world burn..."

 

[repeter1977]

well, what is funny, is when you point out that cars are NOT a right protected in the constitution, so how would they like it if no car can hold more then 5 gallons of gas, after all, you really dont need to drive that far, do you? Or since no speed limit is more then 70, then make sure no car can go over 70. They have to undergo back ground testing in order to keep a license and continually pay for that privilege. See how fast they start crying about that, until you point out that all of those arguments have been used against guns, a RIGHT, not a privilege.

 

[Tebow]

"What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let's see - does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes."

I'm not an expert on ARs or hunting/sniper rifles but don't the hunting/sniper rifles reach farther and more accurately? On the wiki link he posted it said the effective range on an AR is 400-600 m but I've seen on the History Channel showing snipers hitting targets at distances of 1.5miles. More lethal payload? Again, I don't know much. Wouldn't a .308 or .50 be more lethal/devastating than a .223 or 5.56? Even though all bullets seem pretty lethal to me.

 

[rgrimm01]

That was disappointing... I hope that if he is ever in need or in danger that someone is there willing and able to help...

 

[repeter1977]

"What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let's see - does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes."

I'm not an expert on ARs or hunting/sniper rifles but don't the hunting/sniper rifles reach farther and more accurately? On the wiki link he posted it said the effective range on an AR is 400-600 m but I've seen on the History Channel showing snipers hitting targets at distances of 1.5miles. More lethal payload? Again, I don't know much. Wouldn't a .308 or .50 be more lethal/devastating than a .223 or 5.56? Even though all bullets seem pretty lethal to me.

HEY, how dare you confuse Hollyweird with facts. As for the what purpose does it serve? its an easy enough question, show me WHERE in the second amendment it says anything about hunting, or target shooting, or almost anything specific. Thats all you have to tell idiots. Least, thats all I tell them. And just so ya know, M16A2 ranges are 550 meters against a point target and 800 meters against a group. However, as you pointed out, hunting rifles tend to hit a bit further. Also, most would not consider the 5.56 an actual hunting round.

 

[btownie]

They are not the same as hunting rifles or sporting rifles. These weapons are designed for harm and death on big scales.

Funny thing is, other than the LEOs I know all the people I know that have ARs use them as sporting rifles. Not for "harm and death on big scales"..another thing, how many millions of civilians own these "assault type weapons" and DON'T GO ON SHOOTING SPREES. Maybe because they are RESPONSIBLE gun owners.
-end rant-

 

[miguel]

**** him.

He plays make believe for a living...and hasn't done **** since Seinfeld.

 

[repeter1977]

**** him.

He plays make believe for a living...and hasn't done **** since Seinfeld.

Including that garbage show, had he really done much else? Well, ok, Shallow Hal, but in real life, has he done a damn thing with his money? His time for a cause? Not that I much care, but if this is the only thing I am hearing from him, then he can really shut it. If he does all the other things, I still am not impressed, and he can still shut it. When I want to hear a celebrity say something, ill, well, lets just leave it to the imagination, but point is, i could care less what ANY of them think on ANYTHING

 

[Kmcinnes]

Let me get this straight....they want to ban guns just because of a couple stupid people? So why don't we ban cars because of Justin Beiber, or ban celebraties from getting married because lord knows they miss use that. Dumb butt heads need to move out of this country so we can be great again!

 

[CarmelHP]

He's apparently not above outright lies:

Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence...

The actual number is around 12,000 homicides per year involving firearms. This includes justifiable homicides.

 

[sprshggy07]

You want a compromise for the greater good? Put guns back in schools..... 100 years ago, everyone had guns. Good guys and bad. They also TAUGHT marksmanship in public schools! What a concept - to hit what you intend to. As for the recent tragedy in Aurora (used to work there years ago - was a sewage pit then too); if you had the majority of folks in the theater armed - as they very well would have been 100 years ago - what do you suppose the counts would have been? I propose that if more people were armed, the guy would have given up the idea from the start. If not, he may have gotten a couple, buy not before being lit up by people who refuse to be a victim.
Sorry, a bit of a rant; but can't help it. In my final piece of this rant - I was watching the second Batman movie and drew a correlation: In the film, Batman is trying to figure out what the Joker "wants", and can't figure it out. His butler tells him that perhaps he doesn't understand this man - and he never will. "Some men just want to watch the world burn..."

This is what I've been saying. There was a time in this country when you wouldn't dare try something like this because you would be outgunned by far.

 

[perry]

An interesting rebuttal to his tweet that Jason himself linked to: We Won’t Be Fooled Again — Oh, Hell; Yes We Will | The Grumpy Pundit

 

[.45 Dave]

What does George Costanza know about anything? Newman should kick his **s!

 

[ghuns]

An interesting rebuttal to his tweet that Jason himself linked to: We Won’t Be Fooled Again — Oh, Hell; Yes We Will | The Grumpy Pundit

I was right there with him, right up until the TSA/Homeland Sec. shrink showing up at my door cause I bought too much ammo this week

 

[repeter1977]

An interesting rebuttal to his tweet that Jason himself linked to: We Won’t Be Fooled Again — Oh, Hell; Yes We Will | The Grumpy Pundit

Agreed, I was with him until around the end. My way to stop it from happening again. Arm EVERYONE. It has been proven statistically, the more weapons in an American area, the lower the crime rates. No firearm cities have the worst crime rates in the whole US.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

What these morons can't seem to grasp is we don't care what they think. They are so egotistical that they think because we like to laugh at them, listen to their music or watch them pretend to be someone they aren't, that we clamor for their political views so we know what to believe and how to think.

Shut up and sing!

 

[Sigasaurus]

I support him in posting his views because me being the gun toting constitution supporting maniac I am I support all rights granted by our constitution. That includes race, religion, and yes ass hat. The right to be a complete ass hat is granted in our constitution. Poor guy hasn't had an acting gig in years cut him some slack he needed to drum up attention somehow.