Kurt Russell on Gun Control

Outside of being in the pocket of the gun lobby, I just can't understand why House Republicans think it's in the public's' best interest to allow severely mentally ill people to buy firearms. Not only to protect other people from being shot, including of course police officers, but also to protect them from themselves in terms of suicide.
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/02/51312...ma-rule-restricting-gun-sales-to-mentally-ill



 
Lex Bigelow said:
As a degenerate I relate to Downey Jr and his comments. Truth hit me in the face and I didn't want to be conservative. Currently waiting to see if I'm going to jail next month.
Click to expand...

There were a few surprising names for me. In addition to RDJ, Vince Vaughn and Adam Sandler also stood out.

Good luck next month. That sounds like a shitty situation to just have to sit around with something like that hanging over your head. I hope you remain a free man.
 
He doesn't "walk off" anything, the title is misleading. He may walk on the interviewer, but he doesn't walk off...
 
Cake4Breakfast said:
Outside of being in the pocket of the gun lobby, I just can't understand why House Republicans think it's in the public's' best interest to allow severely mentally ill people to buy firearms. Not only to protect other people from being shot, including of course police officers, but also to protect them from themselves in terms of suicide.
http://www.npr.org/2017/02/02/51312...ma-rule-restricting-gun-sales-to-mentally-ill



Click to expand...


I don't think anyone really wants guns in the hands of the insane. It's more they're just worried about the government making the decisions on who can, and cannot, possess the tools to protect themselves.
 
shadow_priest_x said:
I don't think anyone really wants guns in the hands of the insane. It's more they're just worried about the government making the decisions on who can, and cannot, possess the tools to protect themselves.
Click to expand...

That's a slippery slope argument though. Outside of trying to reduce danger for citizens (odds are 20 to 1 that a person will discharge a firearm on himself or a family member rather than an intruder), for a party that is so big on blue lives matter, you would think that there would be some interest in limiting the risk police officers face out there. Gun control discussions are driven by such extreme arguments on both sides that we can't come to a reasonable solution that serves to reduce some of the risk, while allowing the vast majority of people weapons for home defense and for when they want to go deer hunting.
 
Video title is weird, Kurt didn't walk off the interview. The 'snowflake' interviewer is the one who ended it abruptly, seemingly because he didn't like Kurt's opinion.
 
Cake4Breakfast said:
That's a slippery slope argument though. Outside of trying to reduce danger for citizens (odds are 20 to 1 that a person will discharge a firearm on himself or a family member rather than an intruder), for a party that is so big on blue lives matter, you would think that there would be some interest in limiting the risk police officers face out there. Gun control discussions are driven by such extreme arguments on both sides that we can't come to a reasonable solution that serves to reduce some of the risk, while allowing the vast majority of people weapons for home defense and for when they want to go deer hunting.
Click to expand...

A big part of the problem, for gun rights advocates such as myself, is that we know there are politicians out there who are actively working to limit our gun rights.

In 2008, the Supreme Court voted on whether or not the second amendment actually grants an individual who is not a member of a militia the right to own a firearm. This was DC vs Heller:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

In the end, the Court voted 5-4 that yes, the second amendment grants that right. 5-4 is not really confidence-inspiring though, especially considering that Supreme Court decisions can be overturned. It is literally the narrowest of margins.

And here's Hillary Clinton, one of the most powerful politicians of our time, saying that "the Supreme Court is wrong on the second amendment" and that she will "make that case every chance" she gets.





So gun-rights people like me are constantly nervous because it feels like the right is always hanging by a thread. What would've happened if the Supreme Court vote had gone 5-4 the other way?
 
Peteyandjia said:
Video title is weird, Kurt didn't walk off the interview. The 'snowflake' interviewer is the one who ended it abruptly, seemingly because he didn't like Kurt's opinion.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's mistitled. But not knowing anything about Kurt's views on the subject, I was just impressed that he's so strong of a second amendment supporter.
 
shadow_priest_x said:
Yeah, it's mistitled. But not knowing anything about Kurt's views on the subject, I was just impressed that he's so strong of a second amendment supporter.
Click to expand...

It doesn't surprise me. Jack Burton ain't taking no shit from anyone.
 
Russell's views remind me of Sam Harris when he talks about the cultural mindset towards self-defense and how if the mindset can be changed to one of being willing to fight back, then it will likely deter and prevent major acts of aggression.

 
Cake4Breakfast said:
That's a slippery slope argument though. Outside of trying to reduce danger for citizens (odds are 20 to 1 that a person will discharge a firearm on himself or a family member rather than an intruder), for a party that is so big on blue lives matter, you would think that there would be some interest in limiting the risk police officers face out there. Gun control discussions are driven by such extreme arguments on both sides that we can't come to a reasonable solution that serves to reduce some of the risk, while allowing the vast majority of people weapons for home defense and for when they want to go deer hunting.
Click to expand...


Pretty sure all those 20-1 stats are because of suicides. Too bad it's such a convenient way for people to die. I'm all for making sure people who shouldn't have guns aren't able to have them (or are punished for doing so), but that's not what gun control is about. Just look at states such as HI, CA, MA, etc.

 
shadow_priest_x said:
A big part of the problem, for gun rights advocates such as myself, is that we know there are politicians out there who are actively working to limit our gun rights.

In 2008, the Supreme Court voted on whether or not the second amendment actually grants an individual who is not a member of a militia the right to own a firearm. This was DC vs Heller:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

In the end, the Court voted 5-4 that yes, the second amendment grants that right. 5-4 is not really confidence-inspiring though, especially considering that Supreme Court decisions can be overturned.

And here's Hillary Clinton, one of the most powerful politicians of our time, saying that "the Supreme Court is wrong on the second amendment."





So gun-rights people like me are constantly nervous because it feels like the right is always hanging by a thread. What would've happened if the Supreme Court vote had gone 5-4 the other way?
Click to expand...


She was talking about assault weapons there though right? Personally, I don't think that people need assault weapons. The majority of people who own them will be fine, but in the wrong hands those weapons can do a lot of damage, with criminal gangs (like the 1930's gangsters used to do with their tommy guns against small town law enforcement and local vigilante groups who they could out gun) and also with mentally ill people (whether they are shooting people to impress ISIS or because they want to impress Jodie Foster, etc.,).

I agree that there are people out there who want to take all firearms away, but I don't think that the majority of liberals feel the need for it to go that far. For instance the dissenting opinion in the DC vs. Heller argument was : ""The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice." In a cursory reading of that case, it doesn't seem like it was about taking guns away (at least not by the dissenting justices) but rather about whether there could be any gun control laws.

I think though everyone agreeing to keep weapons (especially assault weapons) out of the hands of people who are not of sound enough mind to manage their own finances is reasonable, and giving up some ground on that one isn't going to lose the larger gun rights war for people who want weapons for hunting and for home defense.
 
Last edited:
MT7 said:
Pretty sure all those 20-1 stats are because of suicides. Too bad it's such a convenient way for people to die. I'm all for making sure people who shouldn't have guns aren't able to have them (or are punished for doing so), but that's not what gun control is about. Just look at states such as HI, CA, MA, etc.

Click to expand...


That's assault rifles though that Feinstein is talking about... You can have firearms for hunting and home defense in California, I have actually fired several guns in California (with a friend at a range). California is a crazy place with all of the gangs there:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/2...hot-8-guards-hospitalized-in-melee.print.html
 
Last edited:
Cake4Breakfast said:
That's assault rifles though that Feinstein is talking about. You can have firearms for hunting and home defense in California, I have actually fired several guns in California (with a friend at a range). California is a crazy place with all of the gangs there:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/2...hot-8-guards-hospitalized-in-melee.print.html
Click to expand...

An assault rifle, by definition, is a select-fire weapon. As far as I know, no crime has ever been committed by those. They're known as machine guns in the US. They require a special license, large sums of money, and are hard to get (and aren't allowed in states like CA). Politicians state that AR-15's are the exact same weapons as the M4's our troops use overseas. How can politicians make laws about things that they know nothing about? I go to CA often and have many friends there. I can say for a fact that LAW ABIDING gun owners there live in fear. Law after law after law.

They tell me they have to be up-to-date with the laws or risk becoming felons. Heck, even innocents get arrested once in a while because even the cops are confused by all the laws. CA politicians attempted to ban ALL semi-autos back in 2013 (I think) but failed. But they will try again, I'm sure. Semi-autos include handguns, shotguns, hunting rifles, and the so-called assault rifles like AR's and AK's. You are RIGHT about one thing, though. Both sides are extreme in their arguments. Republicans don't truly care if people with severe mental problems are able to get guns. Democrats, on the other hand, deny the 2nd amendment altogether. Something about muskets and different times.
 
MT7 said:
An assault rifle, by definition, is a select-fire weapon. As far as I know, no crime has ever been committed by those. They're known as machine guns in the US. They require a special license, large sums of money, and are hard to get (and aren't allowed in states like CA). Politicians state that AR-15's are the exact same weapons as the M4's our troops use overseas. How can politicians make laws about things that they know nothing about? I go to CA often and have many friends there. I can say for a fact that LAW ABIDING gun owners there live in fear. Law after law after law.

They tell me they have to be up-to-date with the laws or risk becoming felons. Heck, even innocents get arrested once in a while because even the cops are confused by all the laws. CA politicians attempted to ban ALL semi-autos back in 2013 (I think) but failed. But they will try again, I'm sure. Semi-autos include handguns, shotguns, hunting rifles, and the so-called assault rifles like AR's and AK's. You are RIGHT about one thing, though. Both sides are extreme in their arguments. Republicans don't truly care if people with severe mental problems are able to get guns. Democrats, on the other hand, deny the 2nd amendment altogether. Something about muskets and different times.
Click to expand...

There was a massacre at an elementary school in Stockton, CA back in 1989 (by a severely mentally ill guy with an "assault weapon." It resulted in a lot of legislation, and may have actually been at the start of the whole assault weapon debate (and may have been why Feinstein was fighting so hard in 1995 about the issue).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Elementary_School_shooting_(Stockton)


Overall though, yeah, gun control, like too many issues these days, is an area where rational and civil debate has descended into trolling, name calling, and hatred between groups who don't interact with each other, and hold up the worst of the other group as an example of an average member.
 
Last edited:
Cake4Breakfast said:
She was talking about assault weapons there though right?
Click to expand...

No, she is talking about the Supreme Court decision, which has nothing to do with assault weapons. The assault weapons ban was put in place by Bill and rolled back by Bush, and she did mention that, but that's not what she's talking about whens he says "the Supreme Court is wrong about the second amendment."

Cake4Breakfast said:
Personally, I don't think that people need assault weapons. The majority of people who own them will be fine, but in the wrong hands those weapons can do a lot of damage, with criminal gangs (like the 1930's gangsters used to do with their tommy guns against small town law enforcement and local vigilante groups who they could out gun) and also with mentally ill people (whether they are shooting people to impress ISIS or because they want to impress Jodie Foster, etc.,).
Click to expand...

The thing is, first, very little of the gun crime in America involves an assault weapon. It's nearly all handguns, statistically. But second, and more importantly, the REAL reason the founding fathers saw fit to include the second amendment was governmental tyranny. If the government gets out of hand, we need some way to fight back. You don't want the government to have ALL the high-powered shit. They already have most of it.

Cake4Breakfast said:
I agree that there are people out there who want to take all firearms away, but I don't think that the majority of liberals feel the need for it to go that far. For instance the dissenting opinion in the DC vs. Heller argument was : ""The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice." In a cursory reading of that case, it doesn't seem like it was about taking guns away (at least not by the dissenting justices) but rather about whether there could be any gun control laws.
Click to expand...

I would say read a little more deeply on the case. The first sentence of the Wikipedia article does a good job of summing it up:

"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5–4 decision that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

Cake4Breakfast said:
I think though everyone agreeing to keep weapons (especially assault weapons) out of the hands of people who are not of sound enough mind to manage their own finances is reasonable, and giving up some ground on that one isn't going to lose the larger gun rights war for people who want weapons for hunting and for home defense.
Click to expand...

Well again, hunting and home defense, while very important, are actually not THE reason for the second amendment. As it says in the Declaration of Independence:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

There's no doing this without weapons.

As for your statement on "the majority of liberals" wanting to take all firearms away, I dunno, maybe not a majority. I've met some liberals who were avid gun owners. Those people are certainly out there.

But just remember: 5-4. It doesn't get any closer than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,694
Messages
55,435,250
Members
174,775
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top