MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Jamie Lee Curtis: "I Fully Support the Second Amendment."

After being trolled by Fox News, the Halloween actress ends up echoing Reagan when it comes to waiting periods and assault-weapon bans.

FacebookFacebookDoes anyone else remember the 1990s, when conservatives and Republicans such as Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kansas) would attack Hollywood for making violent movies that he claimed caused violence in the real world? He also was happy to criticize movies he admitted he hadn't watched. To make matters worse, he also exempted the violent movies of Arnold Schwarzenegger from his opprobrium, because, well, Arnold was one of the few public Republicans in show biz.

Fast-forward a few decades and now conservatives are attacking Hollywood actors for playing characters who use guns in movies but call for gun control in real life. That's just what happened to Jamie Lee Curtis, whose new film is the latest installment in the Halloween franchise that helped make her a star. Writing at Fox News, Louis Casiano trolled Curtis because her character uses a gun in the movie.

Curtis's on-screen actions stand in contrast to her real-life persona as an advocate for gun control—one of several Hollywood actors who use firearms in their films while preaching against them away from the set....

For the "Halloween" reboot, Curtis tweeted a photo of a paper shooting target and said: First shot. 357. Feels good to have Laurie back on set for @halloweenmovie. #halloweenmovie."

The conundrum applies to other Hollywood A-listers like George Clooney, Matt Damon, Don Cheadle, Julianne Moore, Sally Field and Jim Carey, who have all made their living portraying gun-toting characters while calling for stricter gun reform.

Casiano posted a bunch of past tweets in which Curtis calls for a ban on "assault weapons." And then he goes here:

Some politicians have seized on the issue to call out what they perceive is Hollywood's hypocrisy.

"Hollywood liberals on gun control is akin to Hollywood liberals on global warming," U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told TMZ. "Which is they fly their private jets to a conference, step out and say, 'Global warming is terrible. Let's take away everything from the working men and women.' And then they get back on their private jet and fly back. Same thing on gun control. If you have a bevy of armed security officers protecting you, maybe you shouldn't be trying to strip Second Amendment rights from law-abiding citizens."

OK, fair enough, right. Absolutely. Curtis tells USA Today that she is indeed in favor of some forms of gun control, but...

"I am vocal about common-sense gun safety and gun laws," she says. "For instance, I fully support an assault weapon ban, I fully support a bump stock ban."

That doesn't make her anti-gun, she clarifies. "I fully support the Bill of Rights. And fully support the Second Amendment. And have absolutely no problem with people owning firearms if they have been trained, licensed, a background check has been conducted, a pause button has been pushed to give time for that process to take place. And they have to renew their license just like we do with automobiles – which are weapons also."

Read more here.

I don't agree with Jamie Lee Curtis on the effectiveness or sagacity of bump-stock bans or an assault-weapon ban (in fact, a ban has been tried and had no effect on gun-violence). But I actually kind of like the fact that she's willing to say she supports the Second Amendment. You can argue with her, but she's not saying private gun ownership should be banned or anything like that. Is she bullshitting when she supports the Second Amendment fully? I don't know, but her gun-control suggestions are kind of in line with Ronald Reagan's (he supported waiting periods and a ban on assault weapons too).

The lessons here? We really shouldn't look to celebrities for too much guidance when it comes to policy. Probably we shouldn't look to politicians, either. And our lives would be more interesting if we weren't constantly on the hunt for hypocrisy, too.

Watch "5 Facts About Guns, Schools, & Violence."

Photo Credit: Facebook

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.

  • Just Say'n||

    I was going to say that it's weird for an ostensibly libertarian publication to defend Curtis' position by noting how much more extreme conservatives have become on the 2nd Amendment, but then I realized that this was written by the same guy who wants us to be better to socialists. So this makes sense.

  • Tony||

    There's no virtue in being as extreme as possible

  • Just Say'n||

    Well, unless it's abortion, of course

  • Tony||

    Lions have to eat, and what can I say, they like the taste of Christians.

  • Just Say'n||

    Yeah, that doesn't make a lot of sense. Are you Gillespie?

  • ||

    Tony's been flailing rather hard today. Things don't seem to be going his way.

  • Just Say'n||

    He walked into that hypocrisy too easily

  • Tony||

    You seemed to be accusing me of having an extreme position on abortion. I obliged by suggesting that my position is so extreme that it sanctions the aborting of Christians. I hate explaining.

  • Woody Chip Hurrrrr?||

    Probably why, and because, you are so terrible at making up progspanations.

  • Just Say'n||

    Your explanation doesn't make a lot of sense either

  • Rockabilly||

    Tony - are you pregnant? Who is the father, or whatever they call themselves in the progressive world?

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Plausible theory. Tony may well have been hit by a bus lately, given the content of his recent posts.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Did someone plant the seed of life in Tony's backseat? When is the shitbaby due?

  • Agammamon||

    OK, how is that obliging? How does that even follow? Do the pro-abortion people eat fetuses or something? No Tony, that's just a non-sequitur you came up with because you got caught out in one of your own contradictions.

  • Live Free Or Diet||

    There's no virtue in being as extreme as possible

    Except extremely correct, rich, healthy, safe, free...

  • BigT||

    Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice...

  • Rebel Scum||

    Extreme is relative, Tony.

  • aajax||

    A closer reading would show that he defended Curtis, not her position.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Clearly Nick Gillespie and Jamie Lee Curtis do NOT support the 2nd amendment.

    No gun laws are allowed under the protections of the 2nd amendment. None.

    No background checks, no bans on bump stocks, no registrations, no automatic weapons bans.... nothing.

  • Johnimo||

    Right you are, loveconstitutin1789.

    The constitution does NOT say that you need proper training, or a license, or to have passed a test. It declares that you have right to keep and bear arms without any of the foregoing qualifications. It takes little, if any, training to point a shotgun at an intruder and say, "Please leave, or I'm going to gut you in half. Oh, excuse me, I meant CUT you in half."

  • Longtobefree||

    Yep. Love this joke>
    A burgler is rummaging around in a house when he hears this; "Friend, we in this house be Quakers, and would not harm thee for all the world, but I must tell you you are standing where I am about to shoot."

  • StackOfCoins||

    "It declares that you have right to keep and bear arms without any of the foregoing qualifications"

    Like most amendments, it's more about preventing the government from infringing a right than guaranteeing a positive right to access to firearms. Onerous requirements that make it impossible for a person who acts lawfully to possess a firearm are plainly unconstitutional.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Roger that. My parents had no problems with firearms. LSD was OK too, provided I be over 23, graduate from medical school, have a pharmacist license, never have a parking ticket, never have a speeding ticket, never run a stop sign, never smoke weed or tobacco, carry a 3.7 GPA in physical chemistry and organic chemistry, never stay out late, never have sex, attend church regularly, perform community service, accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior, avoid profane language, have short hair, dress like a nerd, wear brown shoes, never associate with riffraff, confess every Sunday, register for the draft, cheerfully kill Vietnamese children, set fire to villages, recite the scout's motto, buy my own house, join the Native American Church, join the Union of Plant Life Church, throw rocks at Richard Alpert, snitch on Timothy Leary, believe the coroner was lying and that Linkletter's daughter really was stoned and daddy did not drive her to suicide, fight Manson terrorists and Symbionese liberators, reject the communist and libertarian parties and volunteer to help bring back the Comstock laws. Then I could use some acid for religious and sacramental purposes.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Ok.............

  • BigT||

    Apparently you partook of too many sacraments.

  • Wise Old Fool||

    It's wrong to support someone's right to free speech and criticize fake news from fox saying she hates guns and wants them banned from a libertarian magazine? Color me surprised! Not.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I fully support the second amendment, but...

  • Just Say'n||

    Be better to socialists.

  • 68W58||

    Scary looking guns are scary.

    Bitch, empty the magazine into Michael Myers.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Michael Myers? Now I know 'The Love Guru' sucked, but isn't that a little extreme?

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    *sad trombone*

  • Wise Old Fool||

    Yeah that's why I don't understand her hauling around a revolver instead of an uzi or AR15. Makes no sense. She's seem him get right back from getting shot.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    An UZI or AR15? Mike Myers is portrayed as either near immortal or gifted with serial mortality (technically, he can die, but he doesn't stay dead). She should be packing a flame thrower and/or an anti-tank weapon.

    Let's see if he can come back after we bury the shoe box worth of remains that they manage to scrape off the pavement, after we blow him up and incinerate, him in 52 separate graves.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    As soon as anyone uses the phrase "assault weapon", they can just stop right there.

    Now I KNOW they are a fucking idiot and nothing they say next matters.

  • Tony||

    The mouth sounds we use to describe things, also known as words, are arbitrary. If you know what the words refer to then move on with your life and listen to the rest of the argument, because otherwise it seems like you're looking for an excuse not to listen.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Gotta go with Tony on this one (shivers). I've heard plenty of knowledgable people refer to assault weapons. It may not be accurate, but it's a phrase in common use.

  • Woody Chip Hurrrrr?||

    Yes, but it is only used out of ignorance, ie, by hoplophobes.

    If I said "I like Amerikkkans, but ..." or "I like kikes, but ..." would you read any further?

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    By "knowledgable people", I mean people with an extensive background in firearms, not the average maniacal political activist.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    You sure they did not use the term "Assault Rifle", which actually does have a definition beyond "it scares me and I hate it"?

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Yes.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Then I would challenge your definition of "Knowledgeable".

  • No Yards Penalty||

    ''hoplophobes''
    Are you sitll getting your talking points from The Big Fat Idiot's radio show?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Probably from the same place you pay for handjobs, NYP.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I thought NYP was a gloryhole attendant.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    Perhaps he just reminds you of the guy you use.

  • Agammamon||

    In common use - but without a common definition. And most of what definition there is is irrelevant or pointless.

    These are people that think a semi-automatic .223 Rem rifle, because its got a pistol grip, is more 'powerful' than a semi-automatic .30 cal rifle without one.

    People using the term 'assault weapon' non-ironically are talking about mostly *cosmetic features* of a rifle as if those are important to its lethality - and so should be laughed off.

  • Agammamon||

    People who use the term 'assault weapon' don't seem to know what the term refers to - and they're the ones who coined it. So how are the rest of us supposed to know what the hell they're talking about when they don't?

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    I get it.
    I have the same reaction whenever someone uses the terms, "illegal immigrant," "unborn babies" or "victim's rights or the gold standard of nonsense, "partial-birth abortions."

  • sparkstable||

    Except all those have widely understood definitions, even if you accept some variation from person to person. Assault weapons, however, refer to guns with particular irrelevant features that simply seem scary. The problem is that people who use the term dont mean that... they actually believe they are talking about a qualitatively deadlier weapon (either in rate of fire or kinetic potential).

    As pointed out above, a .223 with a pistol grip is deemed more "powerful" because of a cosmetic feature and therefore an assault weapon while a .30 is seen as less so because of the lack of the feature and not an assault weapon.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Actually, "assault weapon" has a widely understood definition: "Gun I want to ban."

    That's all it has ever meant.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "Except all those have widely understood definitions...."

    If that were true, I wouldn't have made my comment.

    The term "illegal immigrant" is both grammatically unsound and is used to describe anyone who came to America in a manner the speaker doesn't like or from a country the speaker disapproves of regardless of whether that person is following the law or not.

    "Unborn babies" don't exist. Neither do "partial birth-abortions" they are used to make a woman's right to make her own health care decisions "simply seem scary.."

    Since victims have the same rights as all Americans, the term "victim's rights" don't realize what they are talking about is diminishing the rights we already have.

  • Wise Old Fool||

    That doesn't work that way. You will have walk away not to hear the rest. You can't infringe on my right to free speech, even if it is to annoy.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    I fully support the second amendment, but...

    ...but I think it should cover directed energy weapons and railguns as well.

  • Live Free Or Diet||

    In the founding times, people often owned and carried better weapons than the typical infantry arms. Washington heavily recruited riflemen like Peter Salem when muskets were milspec.

  • CE||

    THey also broke the unwritten rule of not targeting enemy officers.

  • Longtobefree||

    If it ain't written, it ain't a rule.

  • Wise Old Fool||

    why wouldn't one target enemy officers? They'd be the first person to shoot if you wanted to win. Seems like that is just a rule made up by officers. I don't think ever stopped anyone.

  • MatthewSlyfield||

    Because the rule of warfare in Europe at the time (which dates back to the medieval period) is you line all the pawns up in parallel formations on opposite sides of an open field and march them at each other. Going after the officers before all the pawns have been slaughtered was uncouth.

  • BigT||

    Those officers were often the upper class and simply wanted to protect themselves from the mob of infantry. Many were not competent in military affairs, having been appointed due to social connections. Frederick the Great, I think, professionalized the military.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    What about a Type II hand phaser? Or a Romulan disruptir?

  • Comrade Cosmoturf||

    Those are fine.

    Not fine:
    - Type II 'assault hand phaser'
    - Romulan 'assault disrupter'

  • An Owl Named Dur||

    "And they have to renew their license just like we do with automobiles – which are weapons also."

    I'm sorry Sweetie, which amendment says that the right of the people to keep and drive cars shall not be infringed?

  • Mock-star||

    The Ninth?

  • Johnimo||

    Amen, Owl. You're exactly right.

  • Kevin Tyssen||

    Except you don't even need a license to own or drive a car (nor insurance or registration) provided the car is only driven on private property.

    Driver's licenses are more akin to concealed carry permits, and I'm sure we can guess where she stands on treating those like driver's licenses

  • Wise Old Fool||

    They're again to license which allow you to do something because of some (usually arbitrary) official region. that covers all sorts of things both boring and deadly. Most states allow you own unlicensed weapons. It's a state thing, not a USA thing although it should be a USA thing.

  • Kevin Tyssen||

    Except you don't even need a license to own or drive a car (nor insurance or registration) provided the car is only driven on private property.

    Driver's licenses are more akin to concealed carry permits, and I'm sure we can guess where she stands on treating those like driver's licenses

  • Kevin Tyssen||

    Except you don't even need a license to own or drive a car (nor insurance or registration) provided the car is only driven on private property.

    Driver's licenses are more akin to concealed carry permits, and I'm sure we can guess where she stands on treating those like driver's licenses

  • operagost||

    Actually, there are some (fascist) states like New Jersey where even non-running cars must be registered.

  • Hattori Hanzo||

    Yes. Nick missed big here.

  • Hank Phillips||

    But what? Prefer surrender to Star Wars SDI defenses? The Second Amendment also bans letting foreign dictators tell Americans what weapons are OK and which must be banned because the Marquis de Kruschev's Rules say so. States have Constitutional power to use weapons if actually invaded or in such imminent danger as will not admit delay. There's the nub of the matter--unless incoming missiles are not a danger! And that's clearly spelled out in the same Constitution to which was attached the Second Amendment.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    WTF are you talking about?

  • Hank Phillips||

    See Physics Today, April 1986, p. 90 Debate on the constitutionality of the ABM and SALT treaties. http://www.braziliantranslated.com/legalep.htm

  • Wise Old Fool||

    You're still carrying a grudge over SALT ? Salty I see.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    He's still bitching about the 1932 GOP convention platform.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    " The Second Amendment also bans letting foreign dictators tell Americans ..."

    Actually, nothing in the 2nd Amendment, or the entire Constitution for that matter, applies to leaders in foreign countries. In fact, when those leaders are in the United States, the 1st Amendment actually protects their right to tell Americans what to do.

    Just because a foreign leader tells Americans what to do, doesn't me we listen. However, that idea has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    But I actually kind of like the fact that she's willing to say she supports the Second Amendment.

    I'm guessing the twittersphere, on the other hand...

  • An Innocent Man||

    I fully support the Second Amendment. But here's five reasons why you're a moron if you believe that.

  • Wise Old Fool||

    Because there is only ever 1 or 0.

  • I'm Not Sure||

    Ignoring, for a moment, her personal position on the 2nd... when did it become a requirement for people who are pretending to be other people to have the same real-life opinions as the imaginary people they are pretending to be?

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    I don't see it as a requirement. But when you're screaming for gun bans while starring in a movie where guns save the day, I think it's fair to call out the hypocrisy.

  • Eric||

    "guns save the day"

    Guns are a tool and cannot save the day any more than they can slaughter a classroom full of children. Try to be consistent.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    " But when you're screaming for gun bans while starring in a movie where guns save the day, I think it's fair to call out the hypocrisy."

    A couple things.
    1) Curtis isn't screaming for gun bans.
    2) If you want to explore hypocrisy, how about the hypocrisy of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" but it's "guns save the day" rather than "guns don't save the day, people saved the day."

  • Johnimo||

    Curtis is screaming for gun regulations to make it difficult to get a weapon.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    Actually the only time I've heard screaming at all is in the"Halloween" films, and "gun regulations" and "gun bans" are two completely different things.

  • MJBinAL||

    Well, no, they are not entirely different things. They are similar things different in degree.

    It is fairly easy to regulate things out of existence.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "They are similar things different in degree."

    Sorry, but that's now how words work.

    There's regulations on how often I can buy decongestants, but they are not banned.

    ban verb "to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of."

    "It is fairly easy to regulate things out of existence."

    Unless those things have been legally prohibited, they haven't been banned.

    Also, I hear that no gun laws will stop criminals from owning guns, so how exactly can gun regulations make guns extinct?

  • Wise Old Fool||

    Same. I guess people like their hyperbolic statement :)

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    1) Curtis isn't screaming for gun bans.

    From the article:

    "I am vocal about common-sense gun safety and gun laws," (Jamie Lee Curtis) says. "For instance, I fully support an assault weapon ban, I fully support a bump stock ban."
  • Wise Old Fool||

    That's not screaming. That's called having an opinion

  • ||

    ^ This.

    News Flash: Anthony Hopkins doesn't support killing and eating people. And I'm pretty sure Josh Brolin doesn't support killing half the people in the universe, but I would have to fact check that.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    I wonder if the late Alan Rickman, who played terrorist Hans Gruber, ever condemned terrorism off set. Would that have made him a terrorist?

    Or how about if Donald Pleasance, who as Blofeld in many a James Bond movie, executed underlings who had failed to kill Bond, had spoken out against workplace violence?

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Whoops. Made him a hypocrite.

  • Just Say'n||

    True. Conservatives made a stupid point, also water is wet. But, nobody else thinks it's weird for Gillespie to defend the pro-state position here? Or is it just expected because it's Gillespie

  • ||

    Conservatives made a stupid point, also water is wet.

    It should further surprise no one that what Dole actually said was that it "undermined our character as a nation" and '[sic] ridicules family values' rather than "caused violence in the real world" and that Hollywood (Oliver Stone) likened him to McCarthy for suggesting as much.

    Never change Gillespie, you shitbag.

  • ||

    nobody else thinks it's weird for Gillespie to defend the pro-state position here?

    What "pro-state" position is he defending? He's exercising his personal animus against Republicans, clearly, but I'm not seeing the statist angle here.

  • Just Say'n||

    Maybe I'm misreading it, but it seems like he's faulting conservatives for attacking Curtis on her perceived hypocrisy and then applauding Curtis for saying "I support the second amendment, but..." And he points out that conservatives use to be less extreme on their position on guns. But, it would seem to me that their newfound extremism on the topic is a positive development.

    I don't know maybe I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt

  • ||

    The relevant paragraph:

    I don't agree with Jamie Lee Curtis on the effectiveness or sagacity of bump-stock bans or an assault-weapon ban (in fact, a ban has been tried and had no effect on gun-violence). But I actually kind of like the fact that she's willing to say she supports the Second Amendment. You can argue with her, but she's not saying private gun ownership should be banned or anything like that. Is she bullshitting when she supports the Second Amendment fully? I don't know, but her gun-control suggestions are kind of in line with Ronald Reagan's (he supported waiting periods and a ban on assault weapons too).

    So that:

    he's faulting conservatives for attacking Curtis on her perceived hypocrisy

    is a "yes," but in

    applauding Curtis for saying "I support the second amendment, but..."

    he's only applauding everything before the "but" and then saying "and Republicans used to be all about that big but, too!"

    So, my diagnosis: typical Nick sowing his "I hate Republicans because I'm not a conservative" bona fides, and saying "hey, Republicans used to be shitty on gun control, too, so they've got no business criticizing Curtis."

    Part of his ongoing "Republicans are just as bad as Progressives on liberty" theme.

  • Just Say'n||

    Sure. But in this case conservatives are in the right and Curtis is just speaking in platitudes.

    I can't imagine Gillespie writing an article taking a similar position on a celebrity saying "I support criminal justice reform, but I don't think we should be so aggressive about it". The whole article seems weird.

    Whatever, though

  • ||

    I can't imagine Gillespie writing an article taking a similar position on a celebrity saying "I support criminal justice reform, but I don't think we should be so aggressive about it". The whole article seems weird.

    Imagine it being Steven Seagal.

    What makes the article seem weird is that it's a non-story that Nick is using just to signal that he hates Republicans and thinks they're hypocrites. I think a lot of people mistake Nick's moth-frothing, very-nearly-knee-jerk hatred of Republicans as support for progressives.

  • BigT||

    "What makes the article seem weird is that it's a non-story that Nick is using just to signal that he hates Republicans and thinks they're hypocrites. I think a lot of people mistake Nick's moth-frothing, very-nearly-knee-jerk hatred of Republicans as support for progressives."

    Yes, Nick is digging deep to virtue signal to any prog associates that Heffalumps are bad. His support for free minds and free markets is seen by those progs as alt-right, so he needs to virtue signal as often as he can.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Some of us are tired of big "But ..." people.

  • ||

    "Everyone I know has a big but."

    -- Pee Wee

  • CE||

    YEah, if you're going to call people out for hypocrisy, you probably shouldn't start with actors. It's their job to portray people who are different from themselves.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    Actually, it was only Curtis who was held to that standard.
    The actor playing Michael Myers isn't pro mass murder, yet no one got their panties in a twist because his character kills a bunch of people.

  • TxJack 112||

    When did Reason become Politico Lite? Whenever anyone says, " I support the 2nd amendment, but. . ." they do not support the 2nd amendment. Support an "assault weapons ban" is not supporting the 2nd amendment because what gun grabbers call an "assault weapon" is an ordinary semi auto rifle that "looks scary". Her support of the 2nd amendment is typical for a progressive trying to pretend to be "reasonable" on the issue. Ever wonder why Gun control zealots always claim they are only pushing for "reasonable gun control" but they will never clearly define exactly what it is? When they are among themselves discussing what they want to do, their proposals are anything but reasonable because they always begin with banning an huge list of guns and severe restricting the use of whatever is left.

  • ||

    That's just garden-variety ignorance, largely. I have a progressive friend who wants to ban guns so hard she doesn't even want the military to have them (yes, seriously). She doesn't say "I support the second amendment, but. . . " She says "the second amendment is an anachronistic atrocity that must be removed from the Constitution."

  • Just Say'n||

    I support disarming all state actors. Redistribute the arms to the people

  • Social Darwinist||

    I agree with your assessment and would add that phrases like "common sense regulations" and "assault weapons ban" are used because they are not defined and easily movable. One can argue that all guns are designed to be assault weapons. There are no lines of demarcation drawn with "common sense regulations" so once a type of gun, enhancement, or modification becomes regulated/restricted out of existence then "common sense" moves to the next target. An actual assault weapon is exactly what the 2nd should protect considering the purpose of the amendment.

    My personal support of the 2nd is no NBC weapons outside the military, all else is fair game for civilians without the need for waiting periods, background checks, licenses, and all the rest of the governmental obstructions meant to create tasks/jobs for the government and of course the accompanying fees. I'd like to see one of these progressives that "supports" the 2nd come out and define their position, regardless of how free or restrictive it is, that clearly. They won't because most would not stop until all guns were banned.

  • sparkstable||

    It's like the 1A... if it doesn't protect the unfavorable speech, then what is it good for? Same for the 2A... if it can't protect the scariest of guns, then what need is there of it?

  • Wise Old Fool||

    I don't really see a practical need for citizens running around with rocket launchers.

  • Social Darwinist||

    Does there have to be a practical need to own something? What harm does a rocket launcher do if it is not used in aggression? I'd rather deal with the criminal use of a rocket launcher than worry about every possible threat they could potentially create.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Chemical weapons were gasped at because they made young men appreciate the 13th Amendment. American conscripts were ordered to shoulder clumsy arms and march into louse-ridden foreign trenches to save the Federal Reserve banks from war loan defaults after Russian communists quit the opium war to make Bayer Great Again. Youths faced with being sprayed like cockroaches in those foreign trenches might prefer imprisonment in support of the 13th Amendment--the Amendment where the Supreme Court "could not see" conscription at gunpoint or branding as felons as coercive. Being blown to bits for the French opium regie in Vietnam or acetylizing plants in Marseilles or Scotland was different. That was okay--in distant trenches. Germs and nukes are bad because they might muss the hair of politicians and lobbyists who order attacks. That's mass destruction. That's baaad.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    I fully support the First Amendment.

    Except for people saying things I don't like.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    I have absolutely no problem with people talking if they have taken elocution courses, been licensed, a background check has been conducted, a pause button has been pushed to give time for that process to take place.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Assault Word-processor Control!

    It's only reasonable.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    No civilian needs to be able to talk as fast as an auctioneer.

  • Don't look at me!||

    Nobody needs all 26 letters on their keyboards.

  • Rich||

    Beautiful.

  • Just Say'n||

    Shikha?

  • Harvard||

    I'm telling you, Gillespie's fucking her. He has to be.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    I would.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    She'd probably start haranguing you the moment she finished.

  • Just Say'n||

    Gillespie's one true love will always be his leather. He didn't even take it off that type he jump that shark on water skis

  • CE||

    I fully support the Third Amendment, unless the troops need somewhere to stay.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    +1

  • ||

    And our lives would be more interesting if we weren't constantly on the hunt for hypocrisy, too.

    Breaking News: Reporter Bemoans Learning Wet Roads Cause Rain.

    Good Lord what a logical mess!

    I wasn't aware of Matt Damon's, Jim Carey's, or Jamie Curtis' stance on gun control. I surmised that because California/Hollywood I didn't need to do too much digging so I never actually did any. Sure, I've seen their movies but it seems that, somehow, some manner of vector or vectors for them to convey their personal beliefs brings the hypocrisy to me whether I hunt for it or not.

  • Jeep's Blues||

    For anti-gun activists the potential expansion of the definition of the term 'assault weapon' would, imo, be analogous to the expanding definition of rape as defined by a gender activist. In my state of California a standard 15-round 9mm semi-automatic handgun is considered an assault weapon as of 2018. A 5-round capacity reduction has been mandated by law. Same with threaded barrels, forward and/or pistol grips (on long guns) and other restrictions.
    Of course some mods and restrictions are arguably reasonable — no grenade launchers — but others likely only make sense to those who don't lawfully keep, own and operate firearms. What, generally, is the Libertarian position on firearm ownership?

  • Rat on a train||

    Of course some mods and restrictions are arguably reasonable
    Bayonet lugs! We don't want as many stabbings as the UK.

  • Longtobefree||

    You can have bayonet lugs.
    Buy an M1 Garand.
    Pure military, semi-automatic, million inch range, shoot through light armor (yes, there are armor piercing incendiary rounds for that one), has bayonet lugs, yet not an "assault rifle" because no detachable magazine and an eight round clip.

  • Michael Cox||

    "What, generally, is the Libertarian position on firearm ownership?" - Jeep's Blues
    That you should own them, if you want to, so long as you're intent is defensive, not aggressive. Some would say there should be limits, but really, no. 'Anything you can afford' would be a really libertarian position. The new California laws are, IMO, unconstitutional; and in the case of the magazines, it's a 'taking' for which they should have to compensate you. But who cares? 2A does not apply here. You're a serf like me. If we mattered, we could hire our armed guards like the rich and powerful Californians.

  • ||

    Some would say there should be limits, but really, no. 'Anything you can afford' would be a really libertarian position.

    I don't disagree with the 'defensive, not aggressive' definition, but I can easily think of situations where aggression may be involved without voiding libertarian sensibilities. I would, personally, add a line around area effect weapons and liability. Your right to fire your gun and blow shit up ends at your neighbor's nose (property line). If you want to possess explosives that could destroy yours and several neighbors' houses, your bank probably has a right to know, your neighbors probably have a right to know, local fire rescue... etc.

  • JSinAZ||

    How about this for one: sound suppressors are not weapons but safety devices, and regulating them like machine guns and handgrenades (an FBI check and an expensive tax stamp) is utterly ridiculous.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    While you were very specific about the types of firearms you are disappointed about no longer being able to own due to the "... expansion of the definition of the term 'assault weapon" in California, you raised an even more disturbing question.

    Tell me, what activities, exactly, are you disappoint about no longer being legally allowed to engage in due to "the expanding definition of rape."

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I support the Second Amendment. I believe the Constitution (though not necessarily the Second Amendment, because of the gymnastics required) entitles an American to possess a reasonable firearm for self-defense in the home.

    One need not be an absolutist gun nut -- the kind of person who believes John Wayne was a commie gun-grabber when he collected guns at the saloon for safekeeping until the visiting revelers slept it off or left town -- to support the Second Amendment.

    The snapback against gun absolutism as America's electorate evolves seems likely to be severe. I hope it doesn't overrun reasonable self-protection in the home, but if it does I will ascribe responsibility to the gun nuts.

  • wareagle||

    the absolutists on the left have no room for your 'self protection in the home' argument, but you know this.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I find the gun absolutists on the left to be as unpersuasive as are the gun absolutists on the right.

  • Just Say'n||

    Sure you can be a mushy moderate on guns, but then you can't pretend like you're an alternative to the two parties. You're just a moderate Republican

  • 68W58||

    Did you really just throw Rio Bravo out there as some sort of relevant example?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    The funniest part of Arthur L. Hicklib's reference is that real life was rarely like the movies. Towns that did have "no firearms" ordinances rarely saw them enforced, and the issuance of permits to carry in places where it did take place were generous.

    It shows that liberals, especially 85 IQ hicklibs like Arty-poo, haven't outgrown their childish perceptions that what they see on teevee is how things actually are.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland cut'n'paste
    I support the Second Amendment. I believe the Constitution (though not necessarily the Second Amendment, because of the gymnastics required) entitles an American to possess a reasonable firearm for self-defense in the home.

    You don't believe the Second Amendment entitles it. What emanation or penumbra do you believe does?

    SCOTUS D.C. v Heller, No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008
    Held:
    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

    D.C. still has done everything they could do to keep defacto bans with pretenses of "reasonable" regulation.
    After McDonald 2010, Chicago put up legal blocks to prevent shooting ranges in the city for the required training to get a permit.
    Licensing procedures in New York City are as restrictive and expensive as they can get away with: Buying a rifle is a $140 permit fee and $96 background check: but they've dropt the registration fee: its free registration. Mighty white of them to drop the $3 registration fee and replace it with $236 for the permit and BG check.
    Bloomberg wants to push New York City style gun control on the rest of the country.

    But really reasonable control to gun prohibitionists is defacto prohibition, restrictive fees, punitive taxes.

  • Naaman Brown||

    In interpreting state constitution Art I Sec 26 right of the citizens of Tennessee to keep and bear arms, the state established that all lawful and traditional ownership and use of firearms (self-defense, civilian marksmanship training (for militia or volunteer military prep), hunting, protecting livestock, recreational shooting, collection of curios and ornaments, heirlooms and keepsakes) were protected by Art.1 Sec.26. Having a gun at home or at one's business for self defense has been referred to as an absolute right. The legislature is reserved the power to regulate with a view to prevent crime the use of arms in public, but the regulations cannot unduly burden the citizen's RKBA.

    Retired justice Stevens who dissented from Heller has called for amending the federal Second Amendment to add "while serving in the militia" to enable disarming all but the National Guard. There's your extremist, absolutist, nuttery position: repeal or amend the federal 2A to enable gun bans to override state constitutional guarantees of RKBA to their citizens.

  • Mock-star||

    Are you TRYING to summon Hihn? Because thats how you summon Hihn.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You don't believe the Second Amendment entitles it. What emanation or penumbra do you believe does?

    I recommend the work of Prof. Amar in this context, although half-educated right-wing rubes might find the writing difficult to follow. Those who struggle could ask someone with an education to try to explain.

    Carry on, clingers. As best you can, anyway.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    I recommend the work of Prof. Amar in this context

    No one's interested in your self-justifying intellectual inbreeding, hicklib.

  • Naaman Brown||

    Akhil Reed Amar, a few hits in my copy of the text database of Levy's Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. Also, both majority and dissent in McDonald 2010 cite Amar's Bill of Rights book:

    "By the 1850's, the perceived threat that had prompted the inclusion of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights — the fear that the National Government would disarm the universal militia — had largely faded as a popular concern, but the right to keep and bear arms was highly valued for purposes of self-defense. See M. Doubler, Civilian in Peace, Soldier in War 87–90 (2003); Amar, Bill of Rights 258–259. Abolitionist authors wrote in support of the right."

    "The unavoidable conclusion is that the Civil Rights Act, like the Freedmen's Bureau Act, aimed to protect "the constitutional right to bear arms" and not simply to prohibit discrimination. See also Amar, Bill of Rights 264–265 (noting that one of the"core purposes of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and of the Fourteenth Amendment was to redress the grievances" of freedmen who had been stripped of their arms and to "affirm the full and equal right of every citizen to self-defense")."

    continued...

  • Naaman Brown||

    ...resumed

    Breyer dissenting quoted Amar: "And examination of the Framers' motivation tells us they did not think the private armed self-defense right was of paramount importance. See Amar, The Bill of Rights as a Constitution, 100 Yale L. J. 1131, 1164 (1991) ("[T]o see the [Second] Amendment as primarily concerned with an individual right to hunt, or protect one's home," would be "like viewing the heart of the speech and assembly clauses as the right of persons to meet to play bridge");..."

    So if other traditionally lawful purposes are not the paramount or primary or heart concern but only a secondary concern, in Breyer's reading of Amar, D.C. and Chicago could not only ban guns for self defense under 2A, they could ban private bridge game parties under 1A, and not only could but have to, since the dissent in Heller and McDonald as about defending bans. I think that reading is absurd. Breyer has impressed me as one of those people so heavily invested in the belief that guns are bad and gun control is good that he is willing to ignore the operative clause ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed") by focusing on the framer's primary concern that the federal government could suppress the militia by repressing the people's right to keep and bear arms to claim the primary is the only concern.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Youre a liar kirkland and we all know it.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    And fully support the Second Amendment. And have absolutely no problem with people owning firearms if they have been trained, licensed, a background check has been conducted, a pause button has been pushed to give time for that process to take place. And they have to renew their license just like we do with automobiles – which are weapons also."

    Hit your mark, say your lines, and get out of the scene. That's all you have to do, Jamie.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "Hit your mark, say your lines, and get out of the scene. That's all you have to do, Jamie."

    Actually there's a lot more she has to do. For example, she has to promote her films and answer questions while doing so. Had FoxNEWS hadn't made the inane comment in the first place, she would have never been asked to respond.

    Not that her actions should be limited to only what job requires.

    She is able to do much more than that, including offering her unsolicited opinions if she wanted to. Even if you and I don't agree with them.

  • ||

    Can anyone clarify the reason the first paragraph is there? Other than to say 'fuck Bob Dole' I'm not making the connection.

    I do remember how Bob Dole lost to Clinton and then became a popular spokesperson and appeared in a couple self-parodying TV roles. You know, rather than opposing violent video games, losing a presidential election, and then becoming an embittered shrew.

  • Tony||

    I don't support the Second Amendment, but who gives a shit since we're not getting rid of it without La Revolucion.

    I suggest that part of the reason so many people are fucking lunatics on this issue is because they think movies are real life.

    People don't get knocked unconscious for two hours and wake up perfectly fine, either.

  • Vulgar Madman||

    Actually, after the revolution I plan on adding a few nukes to my collection.

  • Don't look at me!||

    I suggest that part of the reason so many people are fucking lunatics on this issue is because they think movies actors are real life deep thinkers.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Actors aren't hired for their thoughts and opinions. They are hired for their ability to convey the emotions of a character.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    They are hired to sell over-priced tickets.

    No matter how poor their acting skills.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    Curtis is as pro-2A as Feinstein. The haze of feel-good buzzwords that result in ever tightening restrictions can give her a bit of cover as they strip everyone but a well connected few of their rights.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah, I was going to say the same thing. She doesnt support the 2nd Amendment.

  • wareagle||

    that's not what 'fully' means.

  • posmoo||

    Gillespie can't see the hypocrisy in making millions making movies that celebrate and glorify using automatic firearms to kill your enemies and also calling for the absolute prohibition of those weapons and semiautomatic ones as well. Shocking.

    Jamie Lee Curtis, progressive woman, right before she kills some terrorists with a mac10

    http://www.imfdb.org/images/2/26/TL_MAC.jpg

  • Uncle Jay||

    Jaime Lee Curtis has nice tits and a miniscule amount of brain cells.

  • Just Say'n||

    She's a man or so the urban legend goes

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Hermaphodite.

  • Uncle Jay||

    Jaime Lee Curtis has nice tits and a miniscule amount of brain cells.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Was that one for each breast, or one for each brain cell?

  • Vulgar Madman||

    He's obsessed!

  • AlmightyJB||

    Jamie Lee Curtis.

    https://youtu.be/GyMAlt-501U

  • Inigo Montoya||

    Hitchcock said that actors are basically just cattle.

  • BigT||

    And should be treated as such

  • dangfitz||

    "Shall not be infringed" means that they can't even nibble at the edges. Like many anti-gunners, Jamie Lee makes the mistake of saying that she's in favor of all kinds of restrictions, then says that these are not infringements. They are.

  • dangfitz||

    "Shall not be infringed" means that they can't even nibble at the edges. Like many anti-gunners, Jamie Lee makes the mistake of saying that she's in favor of all kinds of restrictions, then says that these are not infringements. They are.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Can't wait to see the reviews on this gun due out next year.

    https://youtu.be/Nn7Ofkm1bAE

  • ||

    That is bitchin'

    I tried the Chiappa Rhino a couple of times and liked the effect of low bore axis. Unfortunately, the trigger was shit (I understand it's been corrected) and the overall shape and heft of the gun was bad relative to the reduction in muzzle flip. This puts all that to shame.

  • sarcasmic||

    "I fully support the Bill of Rights. And fully support the Second Amendment."

    Infringed is like putting tassels and trim on the parchment and stuff, right? Of course nobody wants to do that!

  • JeremyR||

    I don't think they are attacking Hollywood, just pointing out the shear hypocrisy of an industry that makes money selling the idea that guns are cool, then demands no one should be able to own guns.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "... just pointing out the shear hypocrisy of an industry that makes money selling the idea that guns are cool, then demands no one should be able to own guns."

    I would like to point out the idiocy of the person who believes that any such industry exists.

  • Sevo||

    "And [I] fully support the Second Amendment."

    Nope.

  • CE||

    "I fully support the Bill of Rights. And fully support the Second Amendment. And have absolutely no problem with people owning firearms if they have been trained, licensed, a background check has been conducted, a pause button has been pushed to give time for that process to take place. And they have to renew their license just like we do with automobiles – which are weapons also."

    I'm pretty hazy on what "shall not be infringed" actually means though.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    And have absolutely no problem with people owning firearms if they have been trained, licensed, a background check has been conducted, a pause button has been pushed to give time for that process to take place. And they have to renew their license just like we do with automobiles – which are weapons also."

    I've said before, I'm fully on board with treating firearms EXACTLY like we do automobiles, despite Curtis' goony attempts to deflate the arguments against gun control on those grounds.

    I'm willing to get a license and insurance for my firearms, just like cars. In return, the license has to be reciprocal across all 50 states and is SHALL ISSUE, just like cars. I'll be allowed to buy any gun I want, across state lines, with no background check, just like cars. The license renewal consists solely of a simple vision test, just like cars.

    Yes, let's treat guns EXACTLY like we do cars. PLEASE. Doing so would instantly eliminate nearly every draconian gun control law in existence.

  • Don't look at me!||

    But your gun will have airbags and a catalytic converter.

  • Naaman Brown||

    How about a silencer that also filters out any greenhouse gases?

  • Don't look at me!||

    I could use on of those on my ass after chili night.

  • sarcasmic||

    Think of the myriad of excuses the state can use to revoke someone's license to drive, and how many are completely unrelated to driving.

    Then imagine how the power to revoke a firearms licence would be abused.

    You still want to treat guns like cars?

  • sarcasmic||

    Also, think of the hoops they make people jump through in order to get their drivers license back. Think of how that power is abused, of how the process itself is punishment, and think of those same people holding your firearms hostage.

    You still want to treat guns like cars?

  • JSinAZ||

    As far as I know at least in AZ you don't need to register any car if it's not going to be driven on the public roadways off of your own property. I would bet the same applies to drivers licenses.

    So if the slug out of the muzzle doesn't leave the property, what's to license in this scheme of licensing guns like cars?

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm pretty sure that all states are like that. The license is for public roads.

  • Naaman Brown||

    The progun "YES! regulate guns like cars!" meme is based on the fact most gun control advocates don't know what the existing gun laws are, especially compared to car laws.

    Hollywood as a source of wisdom on guns. Hollywood had H.G. Wells and Jack the Ripper in 1970s San Francisco via the Time Machine. The scriptwriter threw in a gratutitous line about how easy it was to buy a handgun in 1975 San Francisco compared to 1895 London. In 1895 London you could buy a revolver or shotgun at the hardware store as easily as buying a butcher knife or ax. The first restrictive British Firearms Act was 1920. In 1975 San Francisco there were only five people with pistol permits and one was Dianne Feinstein. Permits were printed in unobtainium ink on fergettaboutit paper.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Think of the myriad of excuses the state can use to revoke someone's license to drive, and how many are completely unrelated to driving.

    There will always be excuses by the state regardless. If it's a choice between what exists in various states now and what my proposal would bring, I'll take the latter any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

  • sarcasmic||

    Licensing would also bring registration. As far as I know, there isn't a single case of gun registration in history that hasn't led to confiscation. Once the government has a list of gun owners, they will swoop in and confiscate the ones that they know about. It's only a matter of time.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    All I can tell you is that every time a liberal brings up this false comparison, and I offer my OP up as the inevitable result of their proposal, it always results in the liberal sputtering "guns aren't cars, you can't treat them the same!" (well why not, dummy, you brought it up first), or a complete retreat.

    It merely serves to demonstrate that liberals are offering up yet another bad-faith argument, and that you can't trust them under any circumstances, ever.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "As far as I know, there isn't a single case of gun registration in history that hasn't led to confiscation."

    As the Bard wrote,

    "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
    Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
    "
    - Hamlet (1.5.167-8)

    While gun registration was required in Clark County, Nevada until 2015, neither my guns nor the guns of anyone I know were confiscated.

    So, now that you know there is at least a "a single case of gun registration...that hasn't led to confiscation," maybe you'll be motivated to use your internet access and find out if there are other cases your ignorant of.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    Don't forget how you would only be able to purchase new firearms from franchised dealers which, in most states, are only open 6 days a week.

    Other than I agree, "Doing so would instantly eliminate nearly every draconian gun control law in existence."

    It would also assure compensation for every person killed or injured with a firearm. The insurance premiums alone would reduce the number of people with high-powered, high capacity firearms. I can't imagine many people being able to afford the liability insurance to cover a weapon that has the potential of putting Allstate on the hook for the medical bills, and loss of life settlements of 15-100 people in the matter of minutes.

  • Agammamon||

    That doesn't make her anti-gun, she clarifies. "I fully support the Bill of Rights. And fully support the Second Amendment. And have absolutely no problem with people owning firearms if they have been trained, licensed, a background check has been conducted, a pause button has been pushed to give time for that process to take place. And they have to renew their license just like we do with automobiles – which are weapons also."

    Now, replace that with the press, the tools of publishing, and mandatory licensing for public speakers - and ask if that would not mean that she was anti-1st Amendment.

  • Agammamon||

    Oh, and she'd still be a hypocrite simply because none of the gun-toting characters she's ever played would have survived if they could only get a firearm under the regime she prefers.

  • SIV||

    Now do religion.

  • SIV||

    JLC's Mom was fuckin' hot.

    Nick's a fuckin' gun-grabber.

  • Agammamon||

    Conservatives used to be less extreme regarding the 2nd amendment because they used to be able to afford to be.

    We had already picked all the low-hanging fruit re: gun control (automatic weapons, large caliber weapons, etc) and even prohibited some of the less dangerous types 'just to be safe' (short barrelled rifles). Then there was kind of a detente for a while. Now the push is a complete ban. So they pushed back. And the banners pushed harder. At some point you gotta say 'this is my cake, I've already given you most of it, and I'm not giving you any more'.

    https://tinyurl.com/ybzsvsah

    Otherwise you end up with no cake.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Remember when small caliber, inexpensive pistols were the problem? Yeah, I'm that old.

  • Naaman Brown||

    I am so old that I remember before that, in the mid-1950s when the problem was comic books seducing the innocents into juvenile delinquency.

    I recognized in that the same rhetoric used to impose local option prohibition of alcohol 1953, which stayed in effect until 1968, and was total failure.

    Then I heard the same rhetorical flourishes used in the drive for gun control, 1959-1968.

    Voodoo criminology. Blame a scapegoat. Mount the moral high horse. Shame any defenders of the root of all evil. Ban the symbol. Ignore the black markets. Ignore the failure of the prohibition to accomplish the goal. Warn that repealing the ban will result in blood in the streets.

  • aajax||

    I second the sentiment on hypocrisy hunting. I'm tempted to point out that hyprocrisy hunting is usually done by hypocrites themselves.

  • No Yards Penalty||

    Looking forward to the Contards to start calling for a boycott of Jamie Lee Curtis's movies. But then again, she's hardly ever made a watchable movie in the first place so who would notice?

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    I guess you can't account for taste, because personally I find the original "Halloween,"
    "Escape from New York," "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension," "A Fish Called Wanda," "Queens Logic," "My Girl," "Forever Young ," "True Lies" and "The Tailor of Panama" all to be very watchable movies

  • Steve-O||

    Don't forget "Trading Places"!

  • Presskh||

    Agree. "Trading Places" and "True Lies" are still two of my favorite movies, although Curtis was not the leading character in either.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "You can argue with her, but she's not saying private gun ownership should be banned or anything like that."

    Rights are choices.

    Gun rights are the right to choose to own a gun.

    Licensing is the opposite of that. Licensing means the government gets to choose whether you can own a gun.

    She doesn't believe in gun rights.

    She doesn't believe in private ownership of guns either.

    Private ownership is about property rights, and property rights are (you guessed it) choices. Property rights mean the owner gets to choose if, when, how, and who can use something. Licensing takes those choices away from individuals and gives those choices to the government. Licensing is therefore incompatible with private ownership.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "Private ownership is about property rights, and property rights are (you guessed it) choices. Property rights mean the owner gets to choose if, when, how, and who can use something. Licensing takes those choices away from individuals and gives those choices to the government. Licensing is therefore incompatible with private ownership."

    I take it you are against requiring cars, aircraft, plutonium, businesses to be licensed as well.

  • Agammamon||

    Yeah, pretty much.

    1. Its pretty obvious that driver's licenses do not produce safe drivers and aren't necessary to produce them.

    2. Why should my car have a license plate?

    3. Why should the government be the only certifying agency (as with aircraft and plutonium).

    4. What is the purpose of a business license except to control the exercise of what should be free trade between people - a right as fundamental as self-defense?

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    1. Considering how I hadn't actually written anything about driver's licenses, what your comment lacks in any factual support, it more than makes up with it's overwhelming irrelevancy.

    2. Great question. It would have been even better had actually I written that your car should have one, it

    3) Again, a great question that would have been even better had actually I written the government should be the only certifying agency (as with aircraft and plutonium).

    4) I don't quite see the point of you both asking and answering a question, other than the pleasure you might recived from iterrogarory masterbation,

  • Agammamon||

    Yeah, pretty much.

    1. Its pretty obvious that driver's licenses do not produce safe drivers and aren't necessary to produce them.

    2. Why should my car have a license plate?

    3. Why should the government be the only certifying agency (as with aircraft and plutonium).

    4. What is the purpose of a business license except to control the exercise of what should be free trade between people - a right as fundamental as self-defense?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I take it you are against requiring cars, aircraft, plutonium, businesses to be licensed as well."

    Are driver's licenses required to own a car?

    Should it be necessary to posses a license in order to own and operate a car--on your own property?

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "Are driver's licenses required to own a car?"

    Since I never said anything about driver's licenses, I wonder if you're asking because you really don't know or if you're trying to create a strawman argument.

    If it's the former you should look into getting access to the internet so you can educate yourself about the matter.
    It it's the latter then your question's too disingenuous to warrant an answer,

    "Should it be necessary to posses a license in order to own and operate a car--on your own property?"

    No.

  • Rich||

    "they have to renew their license just like we do with automobiles – which are weapons also."

    Why does anyone *need* a car, much less a high-powered one?

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    Exactly.
    If they want a car. they should have to jump through some hoops to get one, and if they want a particularly dangerous car they should have to obtain insurance to compensate anyone they injure through misuse of that vehicle.

  • Ken Shultz||

    if they want a particularly dangerous car they should have to obtain insurance to compensate anyone they injure through misuse of that vehicle.

    Using the government to infringe on other people's freedom that way is absurd. If you take your expensive car out on the highway--a deliberate and risky act--then you need to go out and buy insurance to protect your own property. The rational solution is not to use the coercive power of government to force anyone and everyone else to insure themselves against your loss.

    What kind of just society forces poor people to insure themselves against hitting your $100,000 car, which you've chosen to put in jeopardy by driving it on a public street, a deliberate and inherently risky act? If you think forcing people who have never done anything to harm you or your property and never will is an excellent example of responsibility and justice, I disagree. It's an excellent example of injustice.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "If you think forcing people [to insure your property for you, people] who have never done anything to harm you or your property and never will, is an excellent example of responsibility and justice, I disagree. It's an excellent example of injustice".

    Fixed!

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    If you think my comment suggested that nonsense in any way, you need to attend an adult literacy class at your local library,

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    "What kind of just society forces poor people to insure themselves against hitting your $100,000 car..."

    What kind of person intentionally misrepresents what I wrote? They kind of person who can't address my point. perhaps? Or, perhaps the kind of person who is intentional dishonest.

    "if they want a particularly dangerous car they should have to obtain insurance to compensate anyone they injure through misuse of that vehicle."

  • Echospinner||

    Or fishing, that or marriage.

    Surgery perhaps since we don't want just anyone cutting people with scalpels something Jamie lee should know.

  • Robert Crim||

    Dear Mrs. Curtis:

    Read Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist # 28, then get back to me on how you support the Second Amendment.

    Guns are not in the Constitution so that we can slaughter the hedgehogs and certainly are not in the Constitution so that we can slaughter the school children. They are in the Constitution to serve as the ultimate check on tyrannical power, and that of course requires that citizens like you and me be armed with more than pea shooters.

    What, then, consistent with the Second Amendment do you actually propose?

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    Now, if you want to get technical, the word "guns" isn't in the Constitution.

  • Agammamon||

    But 'arms' is. And an 'arm' is a weapon. That it doesn't specify a particular type of weapon is not the same as saying that it doesn't include that weapon.

  • Agammamon||

    Also, is there some reason you re-activated this account linking to a blog that hasn't been updated in two years and has three posts over the last 5?

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    That's an odd question coming from someone whose account links to a blog that hasn't been updated in 2 years, 4 months, and 27 days, and it is extremely interesting that you did so in a thread discussing a story on hypocrisy.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    Arms could also mean the portion of your body between your shoulder and your wrists.

  • clarkcountycriminalcops||

    That's an odd question coming from someone whose account links to a blog that hasn't been updated in 2 years, 4 months, and 27 days, and it is extremely interesting that you did so in a thread discussing a story on hypocrisy.

  • Hank Phillips||

    "We" never signed any gun-control agreement with Communist dictatorships. Arms control is seriously intended to stop the US Government from defending the rights had by citizens under the Constitution. In Russia, soldiers used their guns to kill the officers of Christian prohibitionist Czarists who conscripted them into trenches. That's even recorded in "We the Living." Republicans and Democrats have reason to fear Constitutional rights. Libertarians don't.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Izzis the same Hamilton who in Federalist 78 assured us the Judiciary would protect us from such usurpations as the communist income tax and the prohibition amendment making light beer a felony?

  • Echospinner||

    It didn't work the last ten times.

    Get real. You cannnot kill the boogeyman. You can shoot him, stab him, burn him, hack him to pieces with an axe. He will come back.

    Like licenses or bump stocks matter.

  • gphx||

    Curtis has no problem with people owning guns as long as the government the Founding Fathers intended guns to be protection from gives them permission to own one.

  • coma44||

    ". "For instance, I fully support an assault weapon ban, I fully support a bump stock ban" So she does support anything but gun control. It is an all or nothing thing.

  • Rebel Scum||

    if they have been trained, licensed, a background check has been conducted, a pause button has been pushed to give time for that process to take place.

    All of these things make it a privilege, not a right.

  • Presskh||

    Very good (and accurate) point, Rebel.

  • Weigel's Cock Ring||

    Still would, even at her present age. Hot dang.

  • Boomer||

    >her gun-control suggestions are kind of in line with Ronald Reagan's (he supported waiting periods and a ban on assault weapons too).

    Reagan's support of the Assault Weapons Ban, as well as his signing of the Mulford Act, had more to do with scary black men armed with rifles than it did with a principled belief in gun control.

  • Longtobefree||

    "Is she bullshitting when she supports the Second Amendment fully? I don't know . . . . "

    Well, you should know. She is bullshitting, without question.

  • Presskh||

    I wonder if she favors banning assault weapons for her security guards?

  • loki||

    If I assult someone with a rock does it qualify as an assult weapon?

  • snowhawk||

    EXACTLY!

  • Hank Phillips||

    Pansy socialists want the Second Amendment repealed because it protected SDI and could possibly help citizens resist the communist income tax. Televangelical Republicans want the 9th and 14th Amendments repealed because those nasty Libertarians used them to interfere with God's Will and let women choose. Their God wants to bring back coathanger abortions to make those godless fornicating selfish Jezebels bleed to death for Jesus. We Americans are soooo lucky to be caught between mindless Communists and carpet-biting National Socialists in their Groundhog Day endless loop aimed at gutting individual rights protected by the Constitution.

  • Plow Horse||

    Well, she can kiss her career goodbye.

  • Echospinner||

    That is the most hilarious comment here.

    An onscreen kiss from her is worth close to a million dollars.

  • mtrueman||

    Batman didn't need a gun to bring down Jim Carrey's Riddler. Neither did Jamie Lee Curtis use a gun to defeat Jason in Halloween. These celebrities are not hypocrites.

  • snowhawk||

    An assault weapon is a fully automatic firearm. They've been illegal to possess without a hard to qualify for license since 1939. What the anti-gun lobby want's people to believe is that the common semi-automatic hunting rifle dressed up in modern light weight plastics is an assault weapon. That's simple not true. What is true is that anti-gun Communists know they can't control an armed people!!!

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "That doesn't make her anti-gun, she clarifies. "I fully support the Bill of Rights. And fully support the Second Amendment."

    All gun controllers "support the Second amendment"; After they've reinterpreted it to be worthless.

  • Naaman Brown||

    I believe a lot of the people who say "I fully support the Second Amendment" do not mean they support the Second Amendment as held by SCOTUS in the D.C. v Heller decision of 2008:

    "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

    I believe they mean they support the Second Amendment as "clarified" by retired Justice Steven's proposed amendment to the Second Amendment:

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed."

    That would allow bans on individual possession of firearms and prohibition of any use for any purpose not directly connected to military service. That is what they mean when they say "I fully support the Second Amendment, but ..."

  • vek||

    Wow. This is pretty funny even for Nick. He basically just took someone who said they support the 2A at their word, when she lists off basically every dumb, bad, ineffectual thing every idiot leftist wants... This article should have said she's full of shit when she says she supports the 2A, but at least she doesn't think ALL guns should be banned in all circumstances. That's about the best reading a rational person can get out of her statement.

  • cravinbob||

    So there is no chance that we can drop the "assault weapons" term from being used? Then someone needs to describe exactly and precisely what an "assault weapon" is without any vagaries. This "Libertarian" thing is beginning to look and sound like a lot of nothing.

    And to every blowhard who "supports" The Constitution as long as it is cluttered with asterisks are only displaying their total ignorance of the Founders and the creation of The United States of America.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online