Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 100

Thread: 8 Surprising Anti-Gun Celebrities

  1. #26
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    678
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    Well, yes and no....

    When Marky-Mark was 17, he was convicted of attempted murder, and was sentenced to 24 months, but only served 45 days because he was a minor. Under a quirk of MA law, this DOES NOT make him a "convicted felon" and not a "prohibited person".

    However, under Federal law, he DOES qualify as a prohibited person.

    So he can't purchase a firearm from an FFL, or in any transaction that requires a BATFE Form 4473. But if he purchased a firearm through a private transaction in a jurisdiction where no FFL involvement or NICS check is required, he COULD purchase and possess...
    I'm confused. 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(20) provides, in part, "[w]hat constitutes a conviction of such a crime shall be determined in accordance with the law of the jurisdiction in which the proceedings were held." If the disposition of a case did not result in a "conviction," e.g., an adjudication of delinquency as a juvenile, there is no "conviction" to trigger a federal firearms disability.
    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  2. #27
    Regular Member XDFDE45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    823
    Quote Originally Posted by newbie View Post
    surprised mark wahlberg is on there.
    I will NEVER go see a Marky Mark film, or one Clooney's for that matter. Some years ago I was flipping thru the channels and came across the MTV Movie Awards. I stayed only because they were doing a award with the remake of Planet of the Apes". Well Mark and Clueless were presenting and somehow the subject of guns got in there and how EVIL the NRA is and that was when Marky says " Charlton Heston is the REAL criminal." After that I swore off seeing any Wahlberg films as well as Clueless .
    Wisconsin Carry Member
    My Castle Doctrine Law

    Don't wish ill upon your enemy......plan it.

  3. #28
    Regular Member hjmoosejaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    N.W. Pa.
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by Animus View Post
    I have only two things to say about this.

    It's rather silly to let one (or even a dozen) opinion(s) fundamentally change how you view or treat a person. Imagine how boring and mentally stagnate life would be without any variety in philosophy or interactions between people who think differently.

    Now for the crazier bit, I'm half-inclined to let the antis get their way. Think about it--current regulations don't stop criminals from acquiring weapons and ammo. Future regulations wouldn't stop freedom fights either from doing the same to overthrow the tyrants. Jus sayin. If that's too crazy for these boards, I'll keep such ideas in my head next time

    I understand that they may have their own opinion, but what they have that we don't, is a huge platform. They can influence a lot of people with their words. Yes, people need to think for themselves, but not all of them do. A lot of people influenced to hate guns, VOTE.................. Also, I don't understand how letting the antis have their way would benefit us at all.
    watch your top knot !

  4. #29
    Regular Member Animus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Cookeville, TN
    Posts
    127
    It wouldn't benefit us, no, but it wouldn't actually prevent us from owning or carrying guns. The laws have never stopped the criminals from doing it. Banning guns outright would just remove the...conventional methods of obtaining firearms.

  5. #30
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,418
    Quote Originally Posted by hjmoosejaw View Post
    I understand that they may have their own opinion, but what they have that we don't, is a huge platform. They can influence a lot of people with their words. Yes, people need to think for themselves, but not all of them do. A lot of people influenced to hate guns, VOTE.................. Also, I don't understand how letting the antis have their way would benefit us at all.
    The "huge platform" the celebs enjoy for publicly expressing their beliefs, is one shared by politicians. It is commonly known as the "Bully Pulpit", and for good reason. The term is defined by Webster's as:
    a prominent public position (as a political office) that provides an opportunity for expounding one's views; also : such an opportunity (Example: She uses her position as a famous actress as a bully pulpit.)
    Unfortunately, there are people (primarily the weak-minded and insecure) who are 'into' celebrity worship, and actually believe their favorite celebs are endowed with omniscient powers. These Internet forums and blogs are our version of that same Bully Pulpit. The primary difference is that we have a high degree of anonymity, and damned few worshipers!.

    Animus' explanation of his "half- inclination"
    to let the anti's have their way
    seemed sufficient, but also quite fragile. It has the characteristics of the infamous "double-edged sword". Pax...
    Last edited by Gil223; 05-18-2012 at 01:39 PM.
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  6. #31
    Regular Member Medic1210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Rockingham, NC
    Posts
    298
    Quote Originally Posted by Animus View Post
    Care to elaborate?
    Oh, I don't know... Maybe the fact that in 1775, the newly formed military were nothing more than routine civilians who were given a musket and a uniform, and we're fighting to form a country free of England's rule. Today, the military is full of highly trained soldiers with high tech equipment and practically unlimited supply of resources. A back woods militia would stand no chance against the US armed forces.

    In 1775, the number of young men willing to die to fight against the tyrants was huge in relation to the population of the colonies as a whole. Today, any militia that goes toeto toe against the US military would be considered domestic terrorists. How many men do you honestly think would be willing to take on the US military in today's society? No, what you have today are a bunch of slacker pansies who think camping out on Wall Street is the way to get things accomplished.

    I could go on, but really don't have the desire to explain the obvious ways things are different now than in the colonial days.

  7. #32
    Regular Member Animus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Cookeville, TN
    Posts
    127
    That is, of course, assuming that the military would agree to fight against the people rather than with. No vets I've talked to yet think that's how it would go down.
    Last edited by Animus; 05-19-2012 at 05:12 PM.

  8. #33
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,418
    Quote Originally Posted by Animus View Post
    That is, of course, assuming that the military would agree to fight against the people rather than with. No vets I've talked to yet think that's how it would go down.
    Put me down as +1. (As I recall, the last Russian "revolution" [1991], had few injuries, and the assembled Russian military either didn't - or wouldn't - fire upon the thousands of Russian civilians in Red Square.) Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  9. #34
    Regular Member Animus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Cookeville, TN
    Posts
    127
    In a martial law scenario, the militarized police forces, TSA, FBI, Homeland Security, etc would be the people we'd have to worry about. Just look at what they're willing to do to the Occupiers. Whether or not you agree with their political ideas is irrelevant, what matters is that the countless videos documenting the encounters clearly show peaceful protests crushed by highly-aggressive riot police. Those will be the enforcers of the gun ban and martial law, not the military.

  10. #35
    Regular Member Medic1210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Rockingham, NC
    Posts
    298
    Quote Originally Posted by Animus View Post
    In a martial law scenario, the militarized police forces, TSA, FBI, Homeland Security, etc would be the people we'd have to worry about. Just look at what they're willing to do to the Occupiers. Whether or not you agree with their political ideas is irrelevant, what matters is that the countless videos documenting the encounters clearly show peaceful protests crushed by highly-aggressive riot police. Those will be the enforcers of the gun ban and martial law, not the military.
    You and your militia start shooting FBI, HS, Police, etc, you can bet the military will be activated to deal with the domestic terrorists... And I can promise once you're labeled as terrorists, the military won't be on your side.

  11. #36
    Regular Member Animus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Cookeville, TN
    Posts
    127
    You and your militia start shooting FBI, HS, Police, etc[...]
    Who suggested that?

    For the record, I'm not trying to start trouble or advising anyone to do anything illegal, just throwing out possible responses to a hypothetical event.
    Last edited by Animus; 05-18-2012 at 09:32 PM.

  12. #37
    Regular Member hjmoosejaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    N.W. Pa.
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by Animus View Post
    It wouldn't benefit us, no, but it wouldn't actually prevent us from owning or carrying guns. The laws have never stopped the criminals from doing it. Banning guns outright would just remove the...conventional methods of obtaining firearms.

    I for one, would still have a gun. But if I was stopped in say, a traffic stop. I would much rather have my gun with me legally and be on my way vs. going to prison for 30 years or whatever for having a gun I illegally obtained from a guy on a street corner.
    watch your top knot !

  13. #38
    Regular Member Animus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Cookeville, TN
    Posts
    127
    If the government dropped the banhammer on firearms, how could you own much less carry one legally after that point? To be clear, I'm not talking about picking a $50 piece out of a guy's trunk in a parking lot at 2 am when we still have the 2A and legal means of obtaining weapons. I'm just reminding everyone of a possible solution should the amendment be repealed, and not so we can band together and go storm the White House (though I did mention a coup d'etat). We'd still need a way to protect ourselves, feed our families, etc.

  14. #39
    Activist Member golddigger14s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Lacey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,569
    You might as well add Ted Nugent. At some rally he called people who OC a bunch of idiots. My rant on his facebook page:

    "I used to respect TN, but when he said people who open carry are stupid, that went out the window. I thought he supported the 2nd A, not how or what you carry. So: F*** him! (and anybody who is pissed at me for saying this) I don't bash people who CC, I just say carry the way you want as long as it's legal. Rant complete."
    "The beauty of the Second Amenment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson
    "Evil often triumphs, but never conquers." Joseph Roux
    http://nwfood.shelfreliance.com

  15. #40
    Regular Member hjmoosejaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    N.W. Pa.
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by Animus View Post
    If the government dropped the banhammer on firearms, how could you own much less carry one legally after that point? To be clear, I'm not talking about picking a $50 piece out of a guy's trunk in a parking lot at 2 am when we still have the 2A and legal means of obtaining weapons. I'm just reminding everyone of a possible solution should the amendment be repealed, and not so we can band together and go storm the White House (though I did mention a coup d'etat). We'd still need a way to protect ourselves, feed our families, etc.
    Yes, we do still have the 2nd amendment. But I don't understand. If you're saying to ban guns. Then we wouldn't be able to have them without doing time upon being caught with one.
    watch your top knot !

  16. #41
    Regular Member Animus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Cookeville, TN
    Posts
    127
    If caught.

  17. #42
    Regular Member hjmoosejaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    N.W. Pa.
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by Animus View Post
    If caught.
    No thanks. I'll keep my 2nd amendment right. What would be the purpose of giving the antis their way anyhow? We give the liberal crybabies too much as it is. Ban guns? No way in Hell!
    watch your top knot !

  18. #43
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,418
    Quote Originally Posted by hjmoosejaw View Post
    No thanks. I'll keep my 2nd amendment right. What would be the purpose of giving the antis their way anyhow? We give the liberal crybabies too much as it is. Ban guns? No way in Hell!
    What he said. +1! Pax...
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  19. #44
    Regular Member Animus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Cookeville, TN
    Posts
    127
    The main advantage would be to show them once and for all that the laws are for punishment of crime and not deterrence. When armed robberies and school shootings don't magically disappear, they'll realize the good guys need to be armed too.

    We don't even have to let them win. They could easily out lobby us. What is our backup plan if we lose?
    Last edited by Animus; 05-19-2012 at 05:11 PM.

  20. #45
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    fl
    Posts
    1,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Animus View Post
    The main advantage would be to show them once and for all that the laws are for punishment of crime and not deterrence. When armed robberies and school shootings don't magically disappear, they'll realize the good guys need to be armed too.

    We don't even have to let them win. They could easily out lobby us. What is our backup plan if we lose?
    You are missing the point, entirely. Those mass-shootings, and armed robberies are precisely what the anti's count on happening, as often as possible, in order to "validate" their backwards logic of banning guns in the 1st place.
    If all such crimes did cease to exist, by some miracle, a lot of those folks would no longer have an "issue" to be an activist about, and would stand to lose a lot of $$ and support.
    Need any further evidence of this? Look at the last 40+ yr.s of NY's crime situations. Where Joe Citizen is forbidden-under law- to own and carry sidearms (unless they are super-rich, or a celeb, or a cop), and when caught doing so, are often given the maximum sentences under NY laws just for possesing, much less carrying one-if even they commited no violent crime in doing so.
    Meanwhile ,Tyrone Shoelaces goes out and actually commits violent crimes with his guns, and almost never seems to be charged on the gun charges themselves...hmmmmm..

  21. #46
    Regular Member Animus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Cookeville, TN
    Posts
    127
    Nice conspiracy theory. If that is really how the antis think, they must be doing it subconsciously because I've never heard such things from any of the ones I know. That goes for 90% of the supposed "Liberal Agenda" as well. As a left-leaning person myself, I sure as hell haven't been made aware of anything of the sort.
    Last edited by Animus; 05-19-2012 at 05:08 PM.

  22. #47
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Bastrop, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,584
    Britain, Australia, California, New York, Chicago, DC, Norway. I could go on, but it's obvious you're just a troll. o7

  23. #48
    Regular Member Animus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Cookeville, TN
    Posts
    127
    How am I trolling? Please, enlighten me.

  24. #49
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,847
    *hands you a lightbulb*

    May require some assembly.

  25. #50
    Regular Member OneForAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Davison
    Posts
    260
    I for one am in awe, really? Most of these actors had gun roles in movies. IE: Rambo, Terminator, The Other Guys, Dogma,.... The list goes on.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •