San Bernardino Shooting

Don't Even Think of Taking Kurt Russell's Guns

The libertarian acting legend stands up for self-defense.

|

Over at Hollywood Elsewhere, Kurt Russell, doing publicity for the new Tarantino film The Hateful Eight, has a pretty testy discussion about gun control and terrorism with Jeffrey Wells. There's audio and a loose transcript that reads in part:

Wells: Well, I think we all know…guns are a trope. Not a trope but a totem, a metaphor that disenfranchised white guys need…it makes them feel good about themselves.

Russell: You can say what you want. I don't agree with that. It's not my thing….

If you think gun control is going to change the terrorists' point of view, I think you're, like, out of your mind. I think anybody [who says that] is. I think it's absolutely insane. The problem, the problem that we're having right now to turn it around…you may think you've got me worried about you're gonna do? Dude, you're about to find out what I'm gonna do, and that's gonna worry you a lot more. And that's what we need. That will change the concept of gun culture, as you call it, to something [like] reality. Which is, if I'm a hockey team and I've got some guy bearing down on me as a goal tender, I'm not concerned about what he's gonna do — I'm gonna make him concerned about what I'm gonna do…to stop him. That's when things change. 

Bolding in original, btw. Wells is having little to none of this and pushes back on Russell's point that you can kill people with knives and cars, and make bombs pretty easily too:

Wells: They didn't kill the people in San Bernardino with cars.

Russell: But they've killed others that way, haven't they? Yeah, yeah. Whaddaya gonna do? Outlaw everything? That isn't the answer.

Wells: Just put some controls…

Russell: Put some controls? What, so the people, so the people who want to defend themselves can't?

Wells: No, not so you can't, just so the idiots can't get hold of them [so easily], that's all.

Russell: You really believe they're not going to? Are you serious about that? What good will that…? Oh my God. You and I just disagree….I understand that you think you can control the behavior of people that are dead set on taking your way of life away from you. You think you can control that? And there's only one thing you can do with that. And that's [to say] 'No, dude, that's not gonna happen. That's just not gonna happen.

Whole thing is here.

It's an interesting conversation for many reasons, but two in particular stick with me.

First, it's the journalist, not the movie star, who is talking dismissively about the people out there in flyover country, those disenfranchised white guys (who cling to religion, too, I'm sure) who use guns as substitute penises to maintain some sense of potency in a world that's passed them by. Wells talks about the palpable sense of anxiety he says permeates the country in the wake of Paris and SB, and he knows this because he read about in The New York Times (seriously). Russell, who over the years has described himself as a "flexible" libertarian, is the one who seems more grounded and respectful of the hoi polloi's ability to act responsibly.

Second, Russell's argument isn't grounded in Second Amendment jurisprudence or even appeals to the authority of the Constitution or Founding Fathers or even history. It's about self-defense and autonomy. This actually strikes me as the most convincing argument in the current moment, because it speaks to people's anxieties in ways that solemn appeals to the ideals of limited government or the sacrosanct nature of gun culture don't. The question isn't whether terrorism or violence is going to occur within the United States. It's what are you going to do when the shit hits the fan. Russell has a pretty strong answer that calls to mind Jacob Sullum's piece the other day: "Autonomous Terrorism Calls for Autonomous Defense."

Hat tip: IJ Review

Here's bonus vid of Russell in 2013 talking about gay marriage. Russell and Goldie Hawn have been together since the first Reagan admin but have never officially tied the knot. His answer—that nobody should get advantages simply because he or she is married—is pretty awesome and clearly discombobulates his interlocutor in a very good way:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

279 responses to “Don't Even Think of Taking Kurt Russell's Guns

  1. I thought you were dead!

    1. Not hardly…

      1. Why the John Wayne reference (Big Jake, I think)? Kurt Russell is certainly no Duke.

        1. Not a reference to Kurt.

          Responding to d3x’s comment “I thought you were dead” which prompted the Duke to say “not hardly” (correct, from Big Jake).

          1. Snake Plisskin reference.

          2. I Heard You Were Dead

            please, people, we’re talking about The Bible here. Get it right.

        2. John Wayne was a fag.

          1. Zeb, you fat bag of shit. Is there any website you don’t troll?

          2. The HELL HE WAS

          3. John Wayne was a fag.

            There’s that fag talk….

          4. “Oh, yes he was, you boys.” From one of my fav movies.

          5. I installed two way mirrors in his pad in Brentwood.

    2. I’ve always liked Kurt Russell since I was a kid about 55 years ago but I had no idea he was a Libertarian with a reasonable head on his shoulders. Fuckin’ A Kurt! You’re the man!

      1. He’s been involved with libertarian causes for a very long time and (according to him) his views are part of the reason he’s not in more films…because Hollywood liberals aren’t any more tolerant of non-liberal viewpoints than progressive liberals anywhere else.

    3. Comments on this site are pretty worthless. The first one I read being an example. It’s all about avoiding the subject at hand. I hope that’s not what Libertarianism is all about.

      1. It is. It really is all that Libertarianism has to offer. You’re far too good for the likes of us. No tricking this guy!

        1. May the wings of Liberty never lose a feather. – Jack Burton.

      2. Postrel? Is that you?

      3. Personally, I come here for the disparaging meta-meta-commentary.

  2. Everybody relax, I’m here.

    1. I’m a reasonable guy. But, I’ve just experienced some very unreasonable things.

    2. Whew

      Puts away loaded guns.

    3. What would Jack Burton do?

    4. Did you bring your 6-Demon Bag, by any chance?

  3. Wow, he’s even more awesome than I thought. That marriage response is great.

    Well, I think we all know?guns are a trope. Not a trope but a totem, a metaphor that disenfranchised white guys need?it makes them feel good about themselves.

    I don’t understand how someone can say this and not be embarrassed. As the yutes and the worst say, “SMH.”

    1. Dude, have you unpacked the obscene amounts of projection in that statement yet? He even used the animist term totem. It’s unreal.

      1. He even used the animist term totem.

        That’s what stuck out to me at first too. “Holy shit, an honest gun grabber who admits they see guns as magical totems… oh wait, he’s talking about bitter clingers… WTF?! Project much?”

    2. That, MJ, would require Wells to not be a fuckstick of epic proportions. Embarrassment requires a sense of humility and humanity to achieve. It is obvious, through his communications, that he is bereft of these things.

    3. Because he belives deep down that most people are a bloodthirsty, dumb mob that would go on a mass murdering rampage against the Other if given a change and an incendiary speech. The only possible way is to keep the mob as controlled as possible, and certainly disarming it is a necessary step.

      1. I made the mistake of reading some gun grabbers op-ed the other day and she out right admitted that there have been times in her life that had she been armed she would have killed someone for pissing her off. She can’t be trusted with a gun so no one else can either.

        1. If you scratch the surface, this is a common sentiment among gun grabbers.

          Intelligent they are not. And projecting? Oh that they are. In spades.

          1. “If I, an intelligent, latte-sipping, NPR-watching liberal, can get so full of murderous rage that I can’t be trusted with a gun, there’s no way some red neck will be able to restrain himself from spree-killing.”

            1. Yet they do. By the millions.

    4. Wow, he’s even more awesome than I thought. That marriage response is great.

      Agreed. One thing he should have mentioned was something about limiting government power. The government that can make something legal today can make it illegal again tomorrow.

  4. All that and a hockey analogy, too.

    I love this man.

    1. I think that’s the first time I’ve seen anyone in an interview advocate using “The Separator” to clear guys out of the crease.

  5. Wells: Well, I think we all know?guns are a trope. Not a trope but a totem, a metaphor that disenfranchised white guys need[…]

    A totem that can blow a rapist’s head off. So it’s more of a multi-tool totem.

    First, it’s the journalist, not the movie star, who is talking about the people out there in flyover country[…]

    You say that as if everybody else should raise their eyebrows or something. Not since the end of the Good War are journalists paragons of knowledge or wit like Ernest Hemingway or H. L. Mencken. Most of the time, they’re insular cretins who dedicate part of their living time talking to people as ignorant as they while feeling smug about their made-up worldliness.

    1. Yeah, but usually the movie star will agree with them and the whole conversation will devolve into an echo chamber/ circle jerk of smug self righteousness and ego stroking. I doubt Wells was expecting his idiocy to be challenged.

  6. I like this guy.. does he have a news letter?

    1. None of them are as cool as… Vince Vaughn!

      1. Don’t lie. You know you want to be on the same side as Busty Latina MILF from that sitcom you don’t watch.

        1. Either side would do just fine, thank you very much.

        2. Fun fact–Sofia Vergara’s native Colombia has a gun violence rate nearly 3 times as high as the US.

          1. Explains this — http://scontent.cdninstagram.c…..7572_n.jpg

    2. Why would celebrities know anything about stopping gun violence? Why should we accept what a boat load of actors and directors say about gun violence? The answer: they don’t; and we shouldn’t.

      It’s obvious that their collective solution is to confiscate guns. Why else would they be so sure? If there are no guns, there can be no gun violence. What a slick solution. It’s all really easy–don’t you see?

    3. Ron Swanson?! Nooooooooo!!!!!

      1. Nick Offerman is a shitlib supreme.

    4. JESUS H FUCKING CHRIST.

      I watched about thirty seconds of that, and HOLY SHIT IS IT EVER FUCKING INSANE.

      I am finally convinced that this PSA style, where everyone ends each others sentences, is how progs actually think. Isolated I’ll bet they just spew disjointed sentence fragments while sparks shoot out of their ears. Have any of you ever spoken to one alone?

    5. Most I recognize but, who is the guy in the green watchcap with what appear to be tampon strings hanging out of his nose?

    6. wow that video sucked. horrible misuse of arcade fire

  7. Snake Plisken for President! (sorry Rand, it was good while it lasted)

    1. *Plissken …hope he understands typos.

  8. I owe Kurt Russel a reach around.

    1. Or, you know, a mustache waxing…

      1. I’ll give him a mustache ride.

  9. We’ve come for the girl with the emerald eyes…

    1. You know what Jack Burton says at a time like this…

      1. He should’ve done the interview in 3rd person.

      2. Just remember what ol’ Jack Burton does when the earth quakes, and the poison arrows fall from the sky, and the pillars of Heaven shake. Yeah, Jack Burton just looks that big ol’ storm right square in the eye and he says, “Give me your best shot, pal. I can take it.”

  10. Why would you ask Kurt Russell about gun control or gay marriage?

    1. Because people care what Kurt thinks Hugh.

    2. Do you see his moustache? It’s like you don’t even see his moustache.

      1. If avatars ever make their way back to the comments, I sincerely hope you’ll use a pic of Kurt’s mustache, instead of Hypnotoad.

          1. ………shit.

            /kicks can down the sidewalk

      2. Goldie is a class act for staying with him in spite of that thing.

        1. So true.

        2. In all seriousness regarding your first question, it’s possible they asked Russell about gay marriage because it seems that both Goldie and Kurt aren’t big supporters of straight marriage.”

          God Bless them.

  11. Prohibition will work if the right TOP. MEN. are in charge.

    /derp

  12. Well, I think we all know?guns are a trope.

    We all know. I mean, I know it, you know it. It’s something that’s known. It’s known like Man Made Climate Change is Known. It’s Known… just… known. So now that we’ve got that out of the way so we don’t have to debate that issue– because there is no debate, because it’s Known.

    1. It is known, Khaleesi.

  13. There’s a totemic aspect to gun ownership, sure. Maybe “badge” is a better term – weapons are, after all, one of the traditional badges of being a free man. But it’s funny that this journalist thinks shouting “totem!” constitutes some sort of devastating putdown.

    1. In ancient Germanic societies openly carrying weapons, the spear in particular, was exactly this a symbol of a free man. The Romans attempting to outlaw this was one the contributing factors that led to the battle of Teutenburg Forest.

      1. I should also add that sometimes I think civilization is overrated.

      2. I recall that went really well for the Romans…

      3. That’s a great book-end to the Romans treatment of the soldier gladius as State property that could not be traded or sold, only issued and revoked.

    2. Well, you do realize the reason places like to make it impossible to get a carry permit if you’re not connected is for that exact same “totemic” reason, right? It’s a symbol of power, of having enough power that you are “allowed” to carry a weapon without fear of having it taken away. And that’s actually part of why the gun grabbers want to take people’s guns: they want to reduce everyone to the same defenseless level, because that’s “equal”. They don’t like it when people say “I’m carrying a weapon to defend myself, and fuck you”. That’s not equal enough.

      1. …that’s actually part of why the gun grabbers want to take people’s guns: they want to reduce everyone to the same defenseless level, because that’s “equal”.

        I like your theory. It makes good sense and ties gun grabbing back into socialism. They don’t just want to disarm the public, they also want everyone to be equally insecure and equally dependent on the state for protection.

  14. I think we all know that people like Jefferey Wells want to keep guns out of the hands of Jews.

    1. Hey, wait a minute. You know who else wanted disarmed Jews?

      1. Disarm?? Jefferey is better than that-he doesn’t want the guns getting to the Jews in the first place!

      2. Bin Laden?
        Khomeini?

      3. Jews have horns and eat babies, we all know it

        1. Totally untrue. We don’t have horns.

      4. Vespasia and Titus?

  15. one of the traditional badges of being a free man

    and often an object of worship in their own right. Is he arguing that gun nuts are literally pagans, I wonder?

    1. Nah. “Everybody knows” they’re CHRISTFAGZ!!1!!!!1111!!!!!

    2. I read “gun nuts” in this discussion about manhood and my mind immediately interpreted it as a couple of huevos dangling from the stock of a carbine. Guess it’s better than if they were dangling from the butt. Of the carbine, that is.

      1. You just gave me an idea for the most awesome gun accessory ever. Kind of like how you sometimes see tuck balls hanging from pickup truck’s trailer hitches.

        The ads write themselves:

        Fade in: a couple of stereotypical rednecks are hanging out a gun range. Redneck #1 pulls his AR-15 out of its carrying case, camera zooms in on the pair Gun Nutz(TM) dangling from the stock.

        RN#2: “What are those?”

        RN#1: ‘Gun nuts…”

        Both share a hearty laugh

        Now I just need to get a 3D printer and get them into stores by Christmas…

        1. I can’t wait to see you pitching your balls on Shark Tank.

          1. I might be able to get a chuckle out of Mark Cuban. He seems like someone with a sense of humor.

          1. Dammit! Oh well…

        2. If you make them out of super-conductor magnets they could catch oncoming bullets! And after you shoot some douche you can slap him/her across the face with the Gun Nutz(tm).

  16. Second, Russell’s argument isn’t grounded in Second Amendment jurisprudence or even appeals to the authority of the Constitution or Founding Fathers or even history. It’s about self-defense and autonomy.

    I like to think that if the Framers were alive today, unlike what many progressives have claimed, they’d want to see everyone armed to the fucking teeth. Because when you’ve got crazies taking orders from 10,000 miles away to shoot up people going to concerts and eating in restaurants, I think… I’d LIKE to think that their belief in the citizenry being a ready-fighting force would inform their opinion.

    1. No doubt in my mind.

      They lived in a place where any man could go armed, and many did so, and nobody said a fucking thing about it (other than the request of some property owners to please leave your guns at the door).

      They would be horrified and disgusted by the pusillanimous state of our society.

    2. We don’t have to wonder Paul, Jefferson wrote much to that effect. You are exactly right in thinking they would advocate an armed populace because they did.

      The grabbers who say otherwise are either lying or ignorant. Or both.

      1. Ah! But, see, Suthen, they only had muskets back then.

        And, of course, no one alive at that time had the intelligence to predict that technology grows and evolves. So, they couldn’t possibly foresee the awful, destructive armament we have today, and would never, ever, ever promote the citizenry of this country having access to it!

        /Why do you hate muskets, Suthen???

        1. I forgot where I originally saw this but there was a 22 round magazine-fed repeating rifle designed in the late 1700s. Thomas Jefferson actually gave 2 of these rifles to Louis and Clark to take on their expedition. So I don’t even think the claim that the founders couldn’t have envisioned “Assault Weapons” when drafting the BOR holds up to scrutiny.

          http://www.thefederalistpapers…..-air-rifle

          1. But, but, Dey….they were working on behalf of the government!! Of course they deserved to have those rifles!

            1. Yeah, I’m sure that’s what the typical anti-gunner would argue when presented with this. It does blow a hole in their whole “2A was written by slavers like a hundred years ago, they couldn’t have envisioned Semi-Automatic rifles with high capacity magazines” bullshit. But you’re right, it will inevitably devolve into “I never said the government couldn’t have weapons of war, after all it does say Well Regulated Malitia.”

          2. So I don’t even think the claim that the founders couldn’t have envisioned “Assault Weapons” when drafting the BOR holds up to scrutiny.

            Considering mass execution/murder by fusillade existed all the way back to the Roman Empire and before, the underlying premise doesn’t hold water. Not to mention that I don’t think the Founding Fathers envisioned a man like Jim Jones either (best said while handing someone a drink).

          3. Girandoni Air Rifle. One of several attempts of a rapid repeating rifle/firearm that dates back to the late 1500’s. The Girandoni was produced as early as 1780.

            “The 2A was for muskets” crowd really seems to think that the quest for reliable repeating firearms were not attempted before the scary black rifle. Like guys back during the Revolutionary War (and prior) never had the thought, “Gee, I wish I had a gun that fired more than 3 times a minute.”

            The reality is the only thing stopping an earlier mass production of repeating firearms was metallurgy. The imaginations of soldiers and inventors had thought up semi-auto firearms long before the 2A was ever drafted.

            1. The Girondoni is truly an interesting piece of work, in addition to being a rebuttal to the “2A was for muskets” argument.

              The other thing that’s funny about “2A is for muskets” trope is that the colonists had the same muskets as the British military at the time – not some lesser version. So really, to be in full accordance with the 2A, we should all be permitted to own select-fire M4 carbines and M249 SAWs (WITHOUT the mess of red tape).

  17. Second, Russell’s argument isn’t grounded in Second Amendment jurisprudence or even appeals to the authority of the Constitution or Founding Fathers or even history. It’s about self-defense and autonomy. This actually strikes me as the most convincing argument in the current moment, because it speaks to people’s anxieties in ways that solemn appeals to the ideals of limited government or the sacrosanct nature of gun culture don’t.

    I think this is the biggest reason why gun sales skyrocket after terrorist shootings.

    1. It’s more like the 2A is grounded in Russell’s argument.

  18. The worst part is when the journalist says that everyone who’s on the terror watch list is on there for a good reason. Pathetic.

    1. That will be the progs viewpoint up until the moment a Republican is in office.

  19. You guys never quote the best parts.

    I guess it wasn’t so much a discussion as a kind of argument, except it was more about Russell arguing with me than vice versa.

    1. Boy, he excels at being a victim, doesn’t he?

    2. “Yes, but I came here for an argument!”
      “Oh! Oh! I’m sorry! This is abuse!”

    3. No Nikki, that was the worst part.

    4. By the way, that ‘there I was, just minding my own business’ kind of response means you just got your ass handed to you.

      1. So now you admit it was the best part.

        1. I admit nothing. By ‘worst’ I meant paradoxically ‘the best’.

          1. I think you just got your ass handed to you, Paul. She really is the worst, isn’t she.

            1. Getting my ass handed to me is called ‘Thursday’ Episiarch.

  20. My respect for Kurt Russell just went way up.

  21. Also:

    Wells: Well, I think we all know?guns are a trope. Not a trope but a totem, a metaphor that disenfranchised white guys need?it makes them feel good about themselves.

    Russell: You can say what you want. I don’t agree with that. It’s not my thing.

    Wells: Well, it’s statistically irrefutable.

    1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh god this is comedy gold.

    2. a metaphor that disenfranchised white guys need

      So what are they to the people-of-color bangers on the south side of Chicago? Similes?

      1. The people of color are exactly the people the (white) proggies want to take the guns away from. But the (white) proggies say “white guy trope” to mask their desire to keep black people subservient to the wisdom of the (white) proggies. After all, they sorta like white people being subservient, too – that’s how you know they aren’t racists.

      2. All those armed folks in Mexico, the Middle East and Africa are just disenfranchised white men.

    3. Kurt should have said “is it? Can you explain how?” Oh god the spluttering would have been EPIC.

    4. Politics aside, what a douche-y interviewer. Kurt tries to let him down easy and he insists on continuing to be a stupid asshole

    5. Wells: Well, I think we all know?guns are a trope. Not a trope but a totem, a metaphor that disenfranchised white guys need?it makes them feel good about themselves.

      Wells: Well, it’s statistically irrefutable.

      Statistically irrefutable? A broad, unsupported claim about a large portion of the population is “statistically irrefutable”?! I think we may have just found the most profoundly stupid person on the planet. I wonder how he’d like it if someone did it to him:

      “Well, I think we all know?Progressive politics are a trope. Not a trope but a totem, a metaphor that disenfranchised white urban liberals need?it makes them feel good about themselves.

      Well, it’s statistically irrefutable.”

    6. I guess you could say the science is settled.

  22. Funny how “keep the Muslims out” is considered racist lunacy while “keep the guns out because white guys” is considered rational, adult thinking.

    1. Welcome to Social Justice.

  23. Well, I think we all know?

    Anytime I see this I think it’s safe to assume that everything that comes after is going to be an avalanche of bullshit.

    Kind of like how “I believe in freedom of speech, but…” is a signal that one can ignore everything that comes after because the person speaking is clearly a mendacious cunt that no one should listen to, ever.

    1. Well, I think we all know Nikki is the worst.

      1. There’s exceptions to every rule…

        1. Is there an exception to the rule that there are exceptions to every rule?

          1. It’s more of a guideline…

  24. See, that’s how you deal with this shit. You don’t grant their premises, or pretend they have a point, or any of that.

    Brutal dismissal and mockery. Full. Stop.

    Take some frickin’ notes, Reason writers.

    1. I think the commenters pick up the brutal dismissal and mockery slack just fine.

      1. Yeah, but its the articles that get way more eyeballs.

        Was it Robby yesterday saying some slackjawed proggy was right when they claimed the name “Lynch” Hall really was a putdown of black people, or somesuch?

        That’s what I’m getting at. Quit pretending these drooling morons have a point when they don’t. Just point and laugh, and/or humiliate them. Anything other than granting them credibility.

        1. Was it Robby yesterday saying some slackjawed proggy was right when they claimed the name “Lynch” Hall really was a putdown of black people, or somesuch?

          Yeah, except that’s not remotely what he said. He said it was true that the word “lynch” had upsetting connotations.

          1. He said it was true that the word “lynch” had upsetting connotations.

            And he should have mocked those people instead of patting them on the head.

          2. Here’s what he said:

            But students say the word “lynch” has negative racial connotations and is upsetting to black students.

            In a sense, they are right.

            Well, naturally, whether it is upsetting to black students is entirely possible. I think I teed off on him for saying it has “negative racial connotations”, which is bullshit.

            I think that “negative racial connotations” and “a putdown of black people” are not terribly far apart, so I give myself a grade of B- on recalling the idiocy he validated yesterday.

            1. It’s a fucking verb. If a verb triggers you, I…

              I… I dunno any more.

            2. I think we’re absolutely right to criticize Robby for his flaccidity when confronting SJWs. Saying that Lynch Hall is somehow related to lynching is like saying that Tigger is racist because it has an “eye double-guh urr” sound.

              When you do anything but blow them off, you legitimize their ridiculousness.

              1. He didn’t say that Lynch hall is somehow related to lynching. He said the word has negative racial connotations. Which it does. It’s also fucking stupid to demand the name of something that has nothing to do with lynching be changed because the name is the same as the word, and Robby could do well to be a bit less forgiving of that sort of thing, but he didn’t say anything that wasn’t true there.

                1. In context:

                  The facility is named after Dr. Clyde Lynch, who was president of the Pennsylvania college from 1932 to 1950. But students say the word “lynch” has negative racial connotations and is upsetting to black students.

                  In a sense, they are right. But the building isn’t named after “lynch” the verb, but rather “Lynch” the man. It seems fairly ridiculous to expect that a great many people?or even a few people?can’t tell the difference.

                  In no sense are they right. Why? Because “lynch” and “Lynch” are completely different from one another. They are different words that sound the same and are spelled the same. It’d be like saying that Johns Hopkins is inappropriate because “john” is slang for toilet. It’s inanity!

                  Using my example from above and modifying Robby’s excerpt:

                  The character is named Tigger, who is an orange feline with black stripes. But activists say the word “nigger” has negative racial connotations and is upsetting to black viewers.

                  In a sense, they are right. But the character isn’t a modified version of the word “nigger,” but rather of “tiger” the animal. It seems fairly ridiculous to expect that a great many people?or even a few people?can’t tell the difference.

                  No, they are not right in any sense. Just because something sounds like something else that has “negative racial connotations” doesn’t mean that they are right in any degree.

                  1. Because “lynch” and “Lynch” are completely different from one another

                    I concur.

        2. Do you…do you actually read Robby’s articles?

            1. Apparently not the same articles you’re reading, it seems.

              1. Look Epi, just acknowledge that Reason writers are all retarded hipster commie hacks, and that commenters here are the real Americans who use logic and brains and goddamn guts. I mean it’s so obvious.

                1. I just find it hilarious that the nitpicking they do to Robby’s (and others’) articles is completely reminiscent of SJWs finding some way to be offended at whatever someone they don’t like says. I mean, it’s pretty much the same thing.

                  1. Holy Science!

                    “You Yokel’s quit being big meanies to Rico!” If you do not agree with everything he says, you are big poopy heads and not cool like us?

                    That legal weed is starting to effect your brain, dude. RC is absolutely right, Rico should stop giving the SJW’s even a nod. But pointing that out is being one? Either throat the writer as deeply as you are attempting to do here or you are a SJW? Pathetic.

                    1. Marshall, Robby has stated multiple times that he sells these articles to other outlets, and these other outlets are pickier and more timid than reason, so he has to throw in some stuff to make it more palatable to them.

                      Nipping at his heels about it constantly is pointless, as you’re asking him to do more work (doing specific edits just for reason) to satisfy non-paying consumers (the commenters here) while focusing on those little details instead of the whole article.

                      It’s stupid and juvenile. And you know what? That’s exactly what SJW complaints are too.

                    2. I paid! It said waffles on the banner and everything!

                      But I agree, don’t hate Robby. If you don’t like cocktail parties just drink your craft beer at home by yourself in peace.

      2. We’re good for that.

    2. But the cocktail parties. Won’t anyone think of the god damn cocktail parties!?

      1. Kids that went to state school don’t get invited to cocktail parties. That’s reserved for Columbia grads and their ilk.

  25. I’VE BEEN TRIGGERED BY HERB BROOKS

      1. DON’T TALK SHIT ABOUT WKRP

        1. The episode where Jennifer moves into a new house is the show’s second best.

            1. Les: Why are Armenians eating lasagne?

              1. lol. For me, Les’ Epic Line will always be: Chai Chai Rodrugez

    1. Less fun than being triggered by Mel Brooks.

      (yes, there’s so much to choose, I went with my favorite)

  26. What is the obsession nowadays with the whole “disenfranchised white male” thing.

    “We only have guns cause of white men”
    “We only have hate because of white men”
    “White men can’t handle diversity which proves they’re racist, oh and by the way I’m going to rub it in white people’s faces that Hispanics will soon lord over them but I’m totally not racist and it’s totally cool that another color of people will do what I hate white people for”

    I also had no idea that “angry white man” was code for “flyover country”. Do these people not realize that everything they bitch about their enemies doing, they do it too? Especially finding a boogeyman to blame your problems on.

  27. Good for KR.

  28. Did anyone catch this little gem from Jefferey (OH, Jeffery!)?

    Jeffrey Wells Mod JR ? 4 days ago
    The conncept of green reeducation camps is, at heart, a positive, nurturing one because the idea is to bring people out of their caves — to introduce light and truth and facts into the murk of ignorance and rightwing bullshit.

    1. Gee, a leftist asshat pushing for “reeducation” camps. Where’s my shocked face…

      1. Yep.

        However, seeing it in print (when you normally don’t) is kinda like cold pool water on the balls*.

        /*yes, this is why etc etc.

  29. In the full interview, Russell tried to steer the conversation back to the movie, and the asshat interviewing him refused to budge. Yet he still claims it was Russell who was “arguing”. What a prick.

    1. To a left-winger diaperstain like him, any disagreement is an argument with a raving loon, and they’re always the calm one. And yes, he clearly is a prick. But he makes up for it by being an obnoxious asshole.

    2. “””HE REFUSED TO CONFIRM AND VALIDATE OUR COLLECTIVE FEELINGS!!!””

  30. Son of a bitch must pay.

    1. Yessir, the check is in the mail.

  31. Then there’s the fact that there exist countries with strict gun control laws and, not shockingly, very little gun death. Without knives and cars taking up the slack.

    The terrorists are happy to die in the course of their actions. I fail to see what some bluster from the white dude with a gun is gonna accomplish.

    1. I fail to see

      Tthat is correct, Tony. In fact, it describes you perfectly.

    2. So those countries have lower gun deaths only because guns are banned, but they also have lower knife and gun deaths because… Oh wait, best not follow that line of thinking where it leads.

      1. lower knife and car deaths*

      2. but they also have lower knife and gun deaths because…

        …because guns are banned, so they can’t emmit their murder-waves! Jesus, you libertarians are so blockheaded.

        Enough with your murder-waves, Gunriarty!

    3. The terrorists are happy to die in the course of their actions. I fail to see what some bluster from the white dude with a gun is gonna accomplish.

      Kill the terrorist before he kills many other people. It’s not the “bluster from the white dude with a gun” that does the trick, it’s the bullets being fired at the terrorist asshole.

      But I can you see how you can’t imagine someone actually physically trying to defend themselves and others – e.g. doing more than just “bluster” – since you’re a fucking pussy who would just roll over and die.

    4. Hey, we’ve got strict laws that solved the heroin and cocaine problem, so why not solve the gun problem the same way??

      1. What I don’t understand is why they don’t just quit pussy footing around and simply ban murder.

    5. In the 20th century, there have been 13 massacres involving guns in Canada.

      http://bit.ly/21SZYdd

      1. yeah but that was like a hundred years ago.

        1. http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-c…..countries/

          Not that he cares.

    6. Are you ever not a race baiting POS?

    7. Re: Tony the Marxian,

      Then there’s the fact that there exist countries with strict gun control laws and, not shockingly, very little gun death.

      Of course. Like North Korea, for instance.

    8. “Then there’s the fact that there exist countries with strict gun control laws and, not shockingly, very little gun death. ”

      And countries with strict gun control awash with the blood of people who have been shot.

      I wonder what this means.

    9. Then there’s the fact that there exist countries with strict gun control laws and, not shockingly, very little gun death.

      Of course, the actual correlation between gun ownership rates and overall homicide rates is modestly negative. But, don’t let facts get in the way of a good narrative.

    10. Then there’s the fact that there exist countries with strict gun control laws and, not shockingly, very little gun death.

      Then there’s the fact that there exist countries with strict gun control laws and, not shockingly, shitloads of gun death.
      It’s almost as if there’s no correlation between gun control and death caused by guns.

    11. The terrorists are happy to die in the course of their actions. I fail to see what some bluster from the white dude with a gun is gonna accomplish.

      Oh, I don’t know, shoot them dead before the body count gets to 10, instead of hiding under a table?

  32. Those Koreans who armed themselves during the riots were actually all white.

    The eternal mantra of gun control advocates is “Make it harder for bad guys to get guns”. But then they never offer specifics. And the few times they do, what they propose is unconstitutional.

    Farook was an American citizen and cleared background checks. Don’t sell guns to Muslims who might have had an argument with coworkers about religion? Restrict fiance visas from terrorist stricken nations. Brrr, that racism! Racism by right wingers! Donald Trump!

    1. Anyone who uses a gun to defend themselves or their property are now officially considered white.

      Except for black people, who are ignored. Especially when the person(s) they use the gun against are other black people.

  33. the baseball documentary about Bing Russell is great.

  34. Wow, a Kurt Russell thread and no one appears to have referenced his best movie.

    1. Really? You’re going to go with Tombstone (admittedly an excellent movie) over The Thing?

      I was going to make a 3000 Miles to Graceland joke, but I made myself sick and had to stop.

      1. GTFOH.

        Tango & Cash.

        1. No Captain Ron?!?

    2. That’s because Val Kilmer had all the best lines.

      1. Hugh, did you just say something correct for once? Hold on, I have to lie down.

        1. I’m sorry Epi, the correct response is “Actually Powers Boothe and Michael Biehn had some choice cuts too.” Whether to insult my ancestry in the process is up to you, naturally.

          1. Well, I’m sorry too, Hugh, but I only trade insults in Latin.

    3. no one has mentioned ‘Roadhouse’ ??!?

      1. I want you to imagine Max Wright, the dad from ALF, in Swayze’s role in that movie. Go ahead, I won’t hurt.

        1. ……Can we have ALF in Sam Elliott’s role, too?

          1. Okay, now that’s just ridiculous. Obviously it should be Scooter from the Muppets.

            1. Scooter: Hey, don’t forget about me! I’m Scooter, the band’s road manager.

              Floyd Pepper: Yeah, the road manager. We couldn’t go anywhere without him.

              Fozzie: He’s the man with the contacts?

              Dr. Teeth: No, he’s the man with the van.

        2. I already replace all 80’s action movies stars with the guy who played Ned Ryanson in Groundhog Day, also – O.T.- is there a word for a guy who reminds you of turtles?

          1. Shellfishism.

        3. *it won’t hurt.

    4. That was not a scene from Big Trouble in Little China, therefore everything about it was wrong

  35. There’s Big Trouble in Little New York.

  36. Ok you assholes, where the hell has Snark been and has anyone seen Florida Man?

    1. *Shrug*

    2. I am worried that Florida Man may have been et by a gator!

      1. It was bound to happen sooner or later.

        1. It was his fault for being such a hater.

    3. I think Florida Man is now Juvenile Bluster. I’m still wondering what happened to The Gobbler and killazontherun.

  37. WTF does this have to do with Trump?

    1. DONALD TRUMP: ‘CONCEALED CARRY A RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE’

      http://www.donaldjtrump.com/me…..-privilege

      1. TRUMP: CONCEALED CARRY IRRELEVANT, ALL GUNS WILL BE YUUUUUUGE!

        1. A CHICKEN IN EVERY POT AND A BAZOOKA IN EVERY CLOSET!

        2. TRUMP: A CHICKEN IN EVERY POT AND A BAZOOKA IN EVERY CLOSET!

          1. Make it an RPG-7 and you have a Somali vote locked down!

      2. I am starting to think a Trump presidency would be acceptable and worth watching him shit all over the establishment.

        1. He’s a giant bag of shit, and I for one want to set it on fire on the front porch of history, ring the bell, and run like hell laughing like a maniac 😉

        2. I’m starting to wonder about that, too… I find plenty to disagree with him on, but I don’t think he would be significantly worse than the last few presidents of ours. And the resulting prog butthurt would give me memories to cherish for the rest of my life.

      3. Well, there’s one reason I’d vote for him.

  38. Kurt – don’t you understand that when the socialists finally pass the gun control law that the criminals, terrorists, and crazed comply with – man – everything will be groovy.

    Those criminals, terrorists, and crazed will read those laws and say – man we better not do bad shit with these weapons because it’s against the law.

    Fuckin’ A!

  39. He’s coming for you, and hell is coming with him!

  40. p.s.: “the hoi polloi?” Bitch, please, a double article? Just “hoi polloi.”

    jk

  41. “”Well, I think we all know?””

    Fuck you.

  42. “His answer?that nobody should get advantages simply because he or she is married?is pretty awesome”

    My next question after Russell employs this standard right-wing dodge would have been: “so, Kurt, should the Blacks be allowed to marry the Whites?” It probably wouldn’t have shut up this out-of-touch Hollywood elitist, but maybe. One can wish, I guess.

    1. Is that some kind of “advantage”, or something?

      Can someone decode AmSoc’s shit?

      1. AmSoc:”so, Kurt, should the Blacks be allowed to marry the Whites?”
        Kurt: “absolutely”
        AmSoc:*pisses himself uncontrollably and begins whimpering*

        1. Thank you.

          Wanted an independent review on that.

        2. Ok, Kurt, so why explicitly support the right of Black and White people to get married, but not a White guy and a White guy? What’s the difference?

          1. Are you high? And, I don’t mean in the poetic ways of Agile Cyborg, either.

            Your posts usually make sense, as far as grammar and relevance to the discussion are concerned, even if they bat-shit.

            But this? Where did he even mention race/ethnicity in marriage, to begin with?? And you do understand that you’re trying to stump us with some kind of strawman, and that we can easily see it, right?

            WTF?

            1. It’s important not to generalize, but when a person says in response to a question about gay marriage that they aren’t for the benefits one gets from being married It’s probably not a good sign.

              1. So, principals over principles?

                And, removing anyone who could favor one group over another, making the playing field at least a bit more level, is somehow anti-gay marriage to you, is it?

                Never mind, I don’t want to know what you think. The stuff you get wrong could almost be crammed into the Grand Canyon.

              2. first time ive ever seen someone come straight out and say “i don’t care what the words mean it’s all about the social signaling”. thanks for the honesty!

          2. AmSoc:”Ok, Kurt, so why explicitly support the right of Black and White people to get married, but not a White guy and a White guy? What’s the difference?”
            Kurt:”What the fuck? You realize that I’m against government “goodies,” no matter the marriage involved, right? You do realize that i’ve been married for 20 years, but don’t have a government marriage license, right? Are you fucking high?”
            AmSoc: *Attempts to graciously remove his finger from his nose without anybody noticing, sees a giant booger, attempts to stealthily stick it in his mouth, begins choking*

            1. You’re the one being cute, Kurt. First you tell us that you aren’t for marriage
              when we talk about gay people, but then you say you aren’t for getting rid of marriage. Sophistry is unbecoming from the carpenter in Overboard.

              1. First you tell us that you aren’t for marriage

                That’s not at all what he said, moron. In fact, he said the exact opposite.

            2. “I don’t care” obviously means “Those queers can’t get married goddamnit!”

          3. A prime example of why you are a socialist, AmSoc. You can’t think.

            You are confusing Russel thinking that married people shouldn’t get special privileges with him thinking that people shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

            Good fuckin’ grief, you are an idiot.

            1. Damn. He really is fuckin’ dense.

      2. I think he was going for the “+3 Cudgel of Greater White Guilting” approach, not realizing that most Reason readers are immune to White Guilting spell effects.

        1. Where’s Tiamat when you need her?

        2. I am not even sure that most of the commentariat here are white. Or male.

          But yes, the whites here respond to white guilting by giving the finger, and rightly so.

      3. “Can someone decode AmSoc’s shit?”

        Yes. As someone here once said “When freedom arises its enemies rise to meet it.”

        Look at how they treat the Koch brothers. Fine human beings who not only advocate for liberty and prosperity but really put their money where their mouths are. They are everything that POS socialists are not. So naturally they are slandered and hated with the heat of a thousand suns.

        That is all that is going on here. Russel makes a strong case for liberty so AmSoc loses his shit.

        And you thought that bit about showing a crucifix to a vampire was just an old wives tale, didn’t you?

        1. Liberty is frightening…..

          /so scared….:whimper:

        2. Koch brothers. Fine human beings

          Let’s not go overboard here.

        3. I didn’t. These superstitious creeps have been everywhere forever. The more you quiz them, the more they–conservatives, communists, socialists, mohammedans, catholics, protestants–sound exactly alike. The common denominators are: 1. brain damage, 2. altruism and 3. the initiation of deadly force against others and themselves.

  43. Go ahead and skin it… Skin that Smoke Wagon and see what happens!

  44. I love how he tells the reporter “bad job”

  45. It is like I told my neighbor who doesn’t believe in guns or gun rights. When the bad guys come looking for easy prey there will be a sign in my front yard directing them to the gun free zone at their address.

  46. Wells: I think there’s a feeling about shootings and violence right now?I think it’s different in 2015 than it was in the mid ’90s. But Quentin is still playing the same game more or less.

    Really? The early and mid 90s were all about banning assault weapons because the gangs were at war over crack and all that shit.

    1. By “gangs” do you refer to the DEA and the mexicano smugglers government prohibition brought into existence?

  47. Lets head over te hills and through the woods!

    http://www.GoneAnon.tk

  48. The problem is, to some extent, both have some points in reality. There ARE a lot of guys who own guns, and video equipment, and they blow shit up with shotguns in their back yard, and post the videos on youtube. They are rubes. There are also people who own guns for personal protection, concealed on the night stand. And there are millions who own guns for sport. The bottom line is Wells thinks rubes being rubes isn’t good enough reason to have “loose” gun control, that the dangers are so clear and present that Cleetus and Stinkbutt having guns just isn’t worth it. Wells reduces gun ownership to its least denominator and uses outlier events as inputs into his public policy wish list. The total reality is millions of guns are owned by millions of people, from Cleetus the watermelon slayer on up to the heart surgeon who going to save your glutinous ass today. And the dangers with guns, from nutjobs to terrorists, are statistical outliers when it comes to the percentage of guns used. There’s no reason to harass Dr. Hearthealer OR Cleetus and Stinkbutt. And the vast majority of gun violence is in the black market territorial wars in major cities, and no amount of “control” on Cleetus or Dr. Hearthealer is going to make a dent on that front.

    1. Is this the “many words and many lies” demo?

  49. The problem is, to some extent, both have some points in reality. There ARE a lot of guys who own guns, and video equipment, and they blow shit up with shotguns in their back yard, and post the videos on youtube. They are rubes. There are also people who own guns for personal protection, concealed on the night stand. And there are millions who own guns for sport. The bottom line is Wells thinks rubes being rubes isn’t good enough reason to have “loose” gun control, that the dangers are so clear and present that Cleetus and Stinkbutt having guns just isn’t worth it. Wells reduces gun ownership to its least denominator and uses outlier events as inputs into his public policy wish list. The total reality is millions of guns are owned by millions of people, from Cleetus the watermelon slayer on up to the heart surgeon who going to save your glutinous ass today. And the dangers with guns, from nutjobs to terrorists, are statistical outliers when it comes to the percentage of guns used. There’s no reason to harass Dr. Hearthealer OR Cleetus and Stinkbutt. And the vast majority of gun violence is in the black market territorial wars in major cities, and no amount of “control” on Cleetus or Dr. Hearthealer is going to make a dent on that front.

  50. Kurt and Goldie are the only two actors I admire for their integrity. They’re good role models. Observe how the looter tried to push Kurt into wanting to force and subsidize or ban and arrest people for marriage. It shows the disconnect between us and them in very few words, like the NAP.

  51. He was pretty good in The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes too.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.