Jason Alexander Sparks A Twitter War About Gun Laws

By: Amanda Crum - July 24, 2012

Jason Alexander, best known for his role as the goofy and curmudgeonly sidekick George on the 90’s sitcom Seinfeld, has stirred up controversy once again after tweeting his opinions on gun control in light of the Colorado shootings. He was recently in the news for some questionable remarks made on a talk show regarding the game of Cricket, and he later took to Twitter to clear things up.

Update: Since this story was originally written, it appears that Alexander has utilized the situation to get a little marketing power of Twitter.

Now, the comment that started a heated debate was made on Twitter, and Alexander has written a lengthy post about it.

That comment sparked a rather large debate on whether or not the right for Americans to arm themselves was meant for private citizens, and after Alexander received a staggering amount of responses on Twitter, he composed a longer tweet to address his concerns in depth.

Among other things, Alexander argues that the type of guns we have access to are the problem; this only sparked more ire from Twitterers.

…I get messages from seemingly decent and intelligent people who offer things like: @BrooklynAvi: Guns should only be banned if violent crimes committed with tomatoes means we should ban tomatoes. OR @nysportsguys1: Drunk drivers kill, should we ban fast cars?

I’m hoping that right after they hit send, they take a deep breath and realize that those arguments are completely specious. I believe tomatoes and cars have purposes other than killing. What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let’s see – does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality. Hardly the primary purpose of tomatoes and sports cars.

While shooting deaths have clearly been a problem in the U.S. for a long time, it’s been a recurring issue in recent years, starting most notably with Columbine and ending with the tragic ambush on the Aurora movie theater where 12 people lost their lives. And, judging by this Twitter debate, a change in gun laws isn’t something we will all agree on for quite some time.

Amanda Crum

About the Author

Amanda CrumAmanda Crum is a writer and artist from Kentucky. She's a fan of Edward Gorey, Hunter S. Thompson, and horror movies. You can follow her on Google:+Amanda Crum

View all posts by Amanda Crum
  • JD

    How many kids have been killed in the southside of Chicago so far this year?? Alot mote than twelve. There is a bunch of Jokers in that area every day. AR 15’S or any other gun is capable of killing.

  • Joseph Wesley Moats

    This is so stupid. A gun, regardless of type, is a tool just like any other tool. The problem is the jack wagons that use them in the wrong way. If you try and use a 25lb sledge to drive a 4d finish nail then clearly you don’t need access to hammers of any sort. It’s the same way with guns. A lot of people like the AR-15s because they look cool. I’m kinda parshall to a pump 12 gauge myself or a bow. Either way it isn’t the tool that is to blame it’s the operator. If Jason Alexander lived in the back country he may have more of an appreciation for a fine rifle. It’s a way of life.

    • mitch

      WELL SAID

    • Deborah

      I agree totally with you. Banning guns, rifles or any other firearm is not the answer. People kill people. Plain and simple.

    • todd

      what a brilliant argument. The way the AR-15 makes you look (like a toothless hick i’d bet) is reason enough not to ban it ! Heck, it only killed 12 innocent people, but how you look is what matters most !

    • Oaty

      parshall huh?
      Nice back country spelling there.

  • t stidham

    its the same old argument guns dont kill people people kill people banning guns isnt the answer if not an assault rifle then a 15 shot glock maybe not as many people killed or wounded but a massacre just the same god bless all the families of the victims my familys thought and prayers are with yall i say stone the the bastard back a truck up full of rocks and let the families stone him to death no matter how long it takes lethal injection is to humane let him feel the horror they must have felt

    • mitch

      WHEN JASON HAS NOTHING TO SAY….HE ALWAYS
      SAYS IT

      • Duck Butter

        uhhh, mr or mrs or miss t stidham,
        where in the world is your punctuation?
        Good Lord…

    • todd

      if guns don’t kill people, and people kill people. Then why does the gov’t ban grenades and rocket launchers sale ? Heck, they don’t kill people, people kill people !

  • Brent Rankin

    Who really cares what this guy thinks?

    • toast

      You apparently do or else you wouldn’t have read the article

  • JFO

    When will Hollywood learn that unless someone has written it down and it’s in something called a script, they shouldn’t open their mouths.

  • MEM

    People don’t mention that the AR-15 was for sale to the public years before it was adopted by the military in the 1960s. The round that an AR15 fires is far less powerful than most hunting rounds and tens of thousands of ARs are used in hunting and competition shooting across the US every year.

    Domestic Policy advice from George Costanza? No thanks you DMF.

    • todd

      wow Mem, since the gun that is used for massacre of human lives is used by a bunch of toothless hillbillies that think killing an innocent bear is a sport, then we should just give them out with every single purchase of a carton of milk. Idiot

      • muffbumper

        I get a free AR15 with my milk too! Wow, Milk is way more awesome than anyone ever knew.

  • Pat

    Moviemakers have some responsibility here. Batman and Robin were not violent on TV or in comic books years ago, they were righteous and a little silly. What makes moviemakers (writers, producers, directors, actors . . .they are all culpable) come to the conclusion that they must play out the most contorted sick elements of being human and glorify the twisted evil? We already know that people will imitate “art”. Movie studios are reckless in their lust for money and take no responsibility for their actions, like pedophile priests.

    • Drey

      Really? You really think the movie makers have responsibility here? Real life trumps entertainment every day of the week! Crazy people will find ways to destroy. You know, they tried to blame video games first, but discovered that the only one he really played was “Guitar Hero”…..put the blame where it fully belongs…on the person who killed.

  • Joe

    Does anyone really care about Mr. Alexander’s opinion on gun control? He makes a living acting like someone else and that’s supposed to make him an authority on social and/ or Constitutional issues? I think not

  • jimrufino

    Where the hell were you during the Vietnam War…….and the rest of you Hollywood pieces of shit? I do not approve of what happened, but stand up and maybe you may have a say in the matter…………..Jim

  • rle

    People keep missing the point. There is no need to ban all types of guns. Just assault guns. Just by the name itself, it is meant to kill people (in the fastest and efficient way possible). I believe in everybody’s right to defend themselves. But assault guns that can spew 60 rounds/min is ridiculous.

  • rob

    george is gettin UPSET

  • tom tom

    remember Virginia Tech? 32 deaths? nothing changed, Pro gun Americans are so used to violence, nothing is shocking enough to change their beliefs.
    In England things didnt change untill a man walked in a school & did a mass shooting of 5 yr olds, but that hardly made news here because most Americans dont really care untill something happens to them or someone they know.
    Its a sad road to destruction, looks like these cases will pile up untill change is made & for change to be mad the most shocking story ever will have to happen
    I believe assault weapons & semi automatic weapons should be banned.

    • todd

      finally a voice of reason…these gun toting hicks are so painfully stupid, it’s tough to change their minds. Why can’t someone just get grenades, and rockets in the name of right to bear arms ? It’s right to bear arms only when it’s convienient to keep your AR-15, but not in other cases ? Ban all weapons except hunting rifles.

  • http://yahoo Pamela Koch

    I agree with Jason, something should be done about the easy availability of semi, and automatic weapons for sale to anyone. Don’t worry though, politicians will not touch this debate with a ten foot pole as it would be political suicide. And I don’t agree that only criminals will have guns.Most people that have guns, have them stored at home in a gun cabinet or dresser, they don’t take them out of the house because they have no intentions of hurting anyone, unlike the nuts who use the automatic firearms to hurt others. If one person can get saved by limiting the sale of automatic weapons then a ban is well worth it, in my opinion.

  • GLK

    Jason please! Just thank your lucky stars that fate landed you on a wildly lucrative TV show. Just because your lot in life was to parody Larry David in front of a camera doesn’t make your real life opinions special. in fact the only thing that mattered was that you’d make me laugh and you’re not doing that anymore.

  • Dave

    Spin it any way you want. Jason is right. Of course assault rifles should be not be readily available.

    Only gun freaks, uber-libertarians, hard-core rednecks, and gov’t conspiracy theorists disagree. Oh wait, that’s 60% of the population in Alabama.

    • Corey

      I agree, 100% and Louisiana also.

  • http://Yahoo Linda

    This debate will never end. I get so sick of hearing it.

  • bob jackson

    What if this guy waited until the movie was over and plowed into the lobby with a truck and did the same thing…..would we ban trucks? When someone wants to commit mayhem they will find a way.

  • mitch

    JASON IS AN UNEMPLOYED ACTOR STILL HANGING ON JERRYS COAT TAILS…TRYING TO GET HIS NAME BACK INTO PUBLIC NOTICE

  • http://yahoo.com mark

    But, cricket IS gay

    • Snow

      hillarious Mark

  • cm

    It’s obvious that this star who’s made millions making people laugh has just done it again…..NEWS FLASH moron….. don’t blame the weapon for the idiot behind it…TAKING GUNS FROM THE PEOPLE WHO LEGALLY CAN HAVE THEM WILL ONLY MAKE ILLEGAL GUN RUNNING GO ON AN ALL TIME HIGH….stop blaming guns and start fing blaming the people behind them…you wanna find a cure for something cure cancer cause your never gonna cure an insane act of violence from any of these psychopaths out there….never happen so put your money and your brains somewhere else…..sincerely an AR-15 owner……

    • mitch

      YOU FLATTER HIM BY CALLING HIM A ‘STAR’ HE IS A JERRY WANT2BE

  • http://webpronews james

    A Ar15 does not have a more lethal payload than my 30/06 or my .308 and they are hunting rifles that are semi-auto also.

  • Jake

    Too bad Mr. Alexander has no idea what he is twitting about.

    The rifle that the suspect used in Colorado is not
    fully automatic, it is semi automatic.

    If he lived near me I’d invite him to my range to get
    him an education.

  • Jake

    Folks, more citizens are killed every day
    from intoxicated drivers and other incidents,
    no firearms required.

    Firearms are tools, like cars, computers, CNC machines,
    hammers and microwave ovens.

    It is what the individual used the tool for that makes the
    difference.

  • Mike

    It’s always amazing to see people (Liberal Celebrities) that haven’t the slightest clue on a subject believe that they have a right to give their opinion. He needs to stick to what he knows, which definitely is not gun control nor acting.

    • Corey

      So you do not believe in the constitution, that he should have a right to freedom of speech??? I agree, I am a Captain in the military, no citizen should have automatic weapons, you should have weapons for safety and food.

      • Roland Heights

        @Corey – If indeed you are really a military captain you are very much in the minority among military people that I know. The second amendment was written to enable people to fight against a tyrannical government. To do this people clearly need appropriate weapons and if that means full-auto, then so be it. Besides, any criminal in the world can illegally obtain a full auto or anything else.

        And regardless of whether the Supreme Court might decide that civilians should have flame throwers, missiles or tanks, there can be no question that in Heller v. DC and McDonal v. Chicago, that the 2nd amendment refers to rifles, shotguns, pistols and revolvers of all kinds.

  • muffbumper

    The only thing that determines the proper use of an object is the intent of the user. Just because a gun makes killing easy does not make it’s main purpose to kill indiscriminately.

  • Kevin

    Jason who?

    • mitch

      I FORGET HIS LAST NAME…HE IS AN OUT OF WORK ACTOR

  • mike s

    Maybe we should ban all cars and motorcycles that go above the speed limit…they make it easier to go fast…

  • John

    Not sure who that guy is but he looks a lot like George Castanza

  • jaxonbox

    I believe most anything, including my cooking, could someone if done correctly. We keep trying to regulate stupidity and it’ll NEVER happen. Even if the gun he wanted was a dart gun, machine gun, marshmallow blow gun, deer rifle or pistol, if we make them ALL illegal it will NEVER stop an irrational person from getting their hands on one. Making guns illegal doesn’t keep them from the wrong hands. Period !!!!!

    • jaxonbox

      Ooops, my comment should have said ” ….. could KILL someone if done correctly.”

  • http://yahoo aaron

    Gun laws shoul come in to force so this dont happen. Tell me again how crimials “OBEY LAWS.”

  • Roland Heights

    Hey “George Costanza,” why make public display of your abject stupidity and terminal ignorance? A military style weapon was NOT used. But more important, if you were better educated than you are, you’d know that guns are used for self-defense far more frequently than for any criminal purpose.

    Finally, the BEST GUN to use for self-defense is a semi-automatic or a “double action” revolver. Both give the shooter one shot per trigger pull. This enables the shooter to fire more than once without having to consume time manually reloading gun in a desperate life-or-death self-defense situation.

  • Elle

    Gun slingers always use drunk driving as a rebuttal, look. Assault riffles should be illegal in private hands period. Why the hell do you need to fire that many rounds to “protect your home”? Stop it!

    • Roland Heights

      @Elle – please educate yourself. Article II (the 2nd amendment) was written to enable the people to defend themselves against the government. Period. This being the case, it is reasonable to include fully-automatic weapons.

      As for “need” it’s irrelevant. We don’t “need” people like you expressing a misguided viewpoint, but that doesn’t nullify the first amendment,… does it???

      As for “gun slingers” always using drunk driving as a rebuttal: I’m a gun owner and I’ve never used it.

      • jwaters327

        The defense against the government argument is also specious as that ship sailed a long time ago. Unless we are going to let private citizens own rocket launchers, tanks, and ultimately nuclear weapons there is no hope for a civilian group to stand against the US military. If a coup were ever necessary in this country, the only option is to convince the military itself to turn in defense of the people. At the time the second amendment was written, it would have been impossible to imagine the kind of firepower that would be available for such reasonable prices. While in theory I agree with its principal that people have the right to defend themselves, it is beyond time that we find some reasonable limits on it based on the newly available information. At the very least we should be able to come to an agreement on limiting clip size. An extended magazine serves only to allow one to kill more people in a shorter amount of time. That wouldn’t even serve well in a theoretical revolution, because spraying bullets against a trained marine regiment only makes you an easier target. American politics slips way too easily into idealism and its time for us to get a healthy dose of reality.

        • mitch

          WELL SPOKEN

          • jwaters327

            thanks, we move the debate by having well reasoned coversations, not by trading barbs, or at least I’d like to think so.

        • ben

          Funny it worked for our forefathers.

      • Snow

        words to avoid in life:
        ALWAYS
        NEVER
        EVERYONE
        SHOULD (I’m guilty on this one)

        • Troy

          See, I agree with that. Why not get our hands on every kind of military weapon available, like rocket launchers, nuclear weapons, flame throwers, etc. Why stop at assault rifles? When that guy breaks in and you have that golden opportunity, you gotta do it big.

  • John

    Is this country mad? Jason Alexander is 100% right, there is no need for the calibre of weaponry that is available to the public. And im not saying this in light of the Colorodo tragedy, im saying this because its common sense. Yes, guns are a tool, just like everything else. We use them to hunt, or to defend ourselves from criminals. We do not need guns that can fire 60 rounds per minute among public citizens, what are you looking to accomplish with a weapon like that? If that is legal, then why not bombs, nukes, etc. Where does it end? Im not going against the 2nd amendment or anything, but its just out of control. Meanwhile, marijuana is still illegal. Look, you can believe in whatever you want to believe in, but if you have an ounce of common sense in your body then you gotta believe thats fucked up.

  • Snow

    It seems as though people who use guns like an AR-15 to murder or commit crimes are not the same type of people who own guns and use them appropriately. I have taken the NRA safety courses. Every January I purchase an annual hunting/fishing license. I have 15 or so guns in my gun SAFE. I also believe that we have the right to bear arms, but I am beginning to wonder if we make it TOO easy to obtain guns. I don’t agree with Constanza, but I am beginning to wonder if something needs to change. Maybe rather than gun control we need more media control? Stop glorifying the criminals and we wouldn’t get so many people beating down doors to be the next one? Maybe if we glorified jumping off buildings all the broken, attention hungry people out there would just do that??? Still needing to think on this some more:
    Signed – SNOW – aka kinda confused right now

    • Jeff Lukens

      vambri I think the caliber of the person holding the weapon is more deadly than the weapon itself. The reason I know this is because I served our countries shot weapons you have only seen on tv I can shoot over 800 yards and hit my targets. I don’t because I know better. your judging the actions of one loser wanting to get famous, people like myself know how and when to use our weapons not to commit violence but to defend those that can’t defend themselves. Did you ever serve in the military? If not your ignorance shows, if you have I feel sorry for you. People like you are the reason people like me raise our voices to keep our guns. If there were no guns in this country we wouldn’t be a country would we. so go back and rethink your position, then you can go to another country were there are no guns and see how happy you are. Think about this switzerland gives guns and trains it people to shoot they have the lowest gun related deaths in the world but what do I know I’m just a dumb Marins.

      • Mac

        I know this has been going on for a few days but I just had to respond. Your comment reeks of sincerity and I believe every word you have written and thank you for your comment. I want you encourage you to consider looking into the history of firearms ownership in this country and the attempts at passing laws to control that ownership. Look at who those laws ultimately affect, not the stated intentions. Then draw your own conclusions. Decade after decade there is always some new threat from some new wiz bang weapon or ammo or….. It is in interesting education and I have no doubt what you will discover.
        Semper Fi

  • vcambri

    He is right of course. If you insist on owning assault weaponry you are plain selfish. You don’t care that your fun will be paid for with blood of innocent people. Here’s why: There is no doubt that the presence of more efficient guns results in more death and injury in general. Assault weapons have no legitimate self defense or hunting utility. They are usually used for a vain show of brawn. Assault weapons are toys for the idiot and tools for the insane. They should be banned.

    • Charles Pingley

      how would you like it if they took your fun or your toys or your hobby away from you. (cry like a baby)

  • Roland Heights

    Hey Jason – I’ve taken a deep breath and now I’m going to hit send.

    Your ideas are so ignorant it’s extraordinary. First, you ask

    The purpose it serves is to allow the hunter to shoot a “followup” shot or shots if he needs to to quickly and humanely kill the animal he’s hunting. And yes, AR15-style rifles are widely used in hunting.

    You ask

    NO. NO. NO!! A regular AR-15 does NOT shoot further and more accurately than most other rifles. It does NOT carry a more leathal payload. The AR-15 shoots a freaking .22 caliber bullet! Please get a clue.

    Finally, why not go back to high school and try to graduate this time. The purpose of Article of the Bill of Rights (2nd amendment) was to enable the people to defend themselves against the government! Regardless of what you think about the feasibility of this it is the intention of the law and so AR-15’s should continue to be available to law-abiding citizens.

    • steve

      Your ideas are so ignorant and extraordinary to me. I guess this is why we live in America.. We can all have our own opinion, so I’m not going to sit and here and bash for having an opinion. Maybe you should do the same.

    • Jim

      I think you should educate yourself on not being a A-hole. Who cares about the specific”s when peoples lives are what we are talking about. People do not need semi automatic weapons at all. This crap about the 2nd amendment is ridiculous. That’s more people twisting the laws to prove a point.While Jason Alexander may not have said the 100% right thing in your eyes because he’s not perfect, he held a good point still. When all is said and one semi-automatic weapons kill and whether your a law abiding citizen or not, there is chance you could snap one day and then there’s that gun you bought just sitting there waiting.

    • mitch

      SWEET….THANKYOU

      • Mac

        Wow. Are you a citizen of this country? Do you have any idea what the 2nd is about? Have you ever read the congressional record to hear Adams opinion on the words he wrote? Do you think it is ok to just tweak the parts you disagree with? Just what the hell do you think has allowed the people of this nation to thrive and prosper for the last 230 years? From about 1750 on we have been fighting and dying to win then preserve what we call America. If there is one thing sorely lacking right now it is a cure for the apathetic and misinformed. This is exactly the kind of thinking that will lead us to a collapse.

    • http://WebProNews/life SilverWolf

      Roland Heights an AR-15 will not protect you from the gov’t if they decide to come for you. They have much BETTER and MORE LETHAL weapons, plus chemical weapons, and air attack. Only bad and lazy hunters need assualt weapons like AR-15 for hunting. As a hunter, i only need a simple rifle and i have much success. If you can hunt with a simple rifle, you should either not go hunting or it was just not you day. Since white people tend to be arrogant, insecure, lazy, impatient, and egotistical, it is no wonder why a gun like an AR-15 is appealing.

      • mgh

        hhmmm, good old fashioned American racism to make your argument sound more uneducated than we all know you are. Good job!

    • mgh

      Amen Brother

  • Charles Pingley

    i said it yesterday, there were no guns used on 9-11 and timothy McVay did not use guns. If some one goes nuts and wants to kill they will find away. Its not the guns it the NUT pulling the trigger that kills.

    • Randy

      Sense we can not remove all you nuts let`s limit the carnage they create by limiting the type of weapons they easily get a hold of that can cause these mass carnage .

      • jaxonbox

        Randy – I’m not being a smart a** but I’m curious how “limiting the type of weapons” would have stopped Jeffrey Dahmer. We have nut jobs all over our great country but criminals are criminals are criminals.

  • Randy

    IF YOU PEOPLE WANT AR-15s and AK-47s. And want to shoot them why don`t you join the military and fight all over the world. Or where ever big business directs you to go. It would certainly relieve the current soldiers from having to due multiple tours of duty !!!!!!!!

    • Charles Pingley

      then you would cry about that like you cryed about us going after Bin Laden. Face it this world is not a pretty place

    • mgh

      if you want to live in a communist or perhaps controlled socialist environment why don’t you move then you will be happy.

  • Charles Pingley

    As long as the PUBLIC HAS GUNS we will be free. This is why no other country has invaded this country with troops on the ground. They have to use other means like terrorism. If this country was run like the Hollywood nuts want it to be they would not get to voice there stupidity, it would be like the old Soviet Union. That worked did it not (NO)

    • Mac

      You jest. Ban scary looking guns like the AK and AR. Hundreds of shooting ranges across the nation being closed by the EPA including the range where I have been shooting for over 40 years. Get rid of mags that hold more than 10 rounds. My Browning HP holds 13 so it is evil because of those three rounds. As we speak the UN is slicing up small arms trade into an international control event that our president supports and Hillary has said she will sigh even though she has not read it yet. For decades, one little step at a time the laws have been passed so we can all be safer. One leads to another. A few years ago the scare was small easy to hide handguns and if there was not something done we would all be shot by a $20.00 pistol. There is no end to the foolishness and the real problems continue. Why do you refuse to learn the lessons of history? How can any American think that our constitution is something that can be dissected and reassembled to suit you delicate sensibilities? There are over 150million gun owners in this country that did not murder anyone and when one mad man goes on a rampage you want to punish the other 149,999,999 of us at the expense of trampling all over our rights. You may not want to own a gun but generations of Americans have fought and died so that you can. Show some respect.

  • Mac

    Yes the AR style rifle is a very good defense weapon, just ask a Marine. If AR rifles and hi cap mags are the problem what will become the next target to ban after the Alexander’s of the world have their way. Let me give you an example. I shoot a rifle originally sold in the mid-1870s; it holds 10 rounds and is a lever action. In timed competition I can empty that rifle hitting multiple man sized targets in about six seconds, reload using a speed loader and have the gun back up and running in about 2.5 seconds, and I am an old slow guy. Please understand, the gun grabbers do not want the ARs and AKs. They want them all and it has nothing to do with your safety. It is not in the least bit altruistic. It is all about power and control. If you are snickering at that concept, ask yourself why there have been those in power for almost as long as we have been a nation trying to disarm us. This is not a new idea. It has been around long before the AR and AK. When JFK was killed the evil guns came from mail order catalogs. Laws were passed and yet people still kill each other and presidents (Regan) get shot. Do not fall for it. It is a fall you will never recover from.

    • Charles Pingley

      thats right. These people do not understand it is the other Nations that want our guns that way they can control us with out fear

    • robert

      Mac; My god man who is trying to disarm you?

  • Jeff Lukens

    Listen to all those people who think we need gun control you are all a bunch of idiots. Guns don’t kill people, people use them as a tool to do so. If this dude would have used swords to do it there would be people comin out and saying we need sword control. The person behind the gun is the one that needs to be dealt with not the guns. My daughter is 2 years old and she is there when I shoot my guns. I will teach her to shoot when she is 5. I shot my first gun when I was 6. I served my country for over 7 years in the Marine Corps. I should be able to buy any gun that I choose, because it is my right. You people who want to control that should step into the front lines of combat and see if you feel the same way.

    • jwaters327

      This is true that almost any object can be used as a weopon, but the fact remains that countries that have gun control have barely a fraction of the homicide rate that countries that don’t do. The same goes for suicides. When you have death at your fingertips, you’re much more likely to wield it than if you have to improvise something. Im not in favor of outlawing guns altogether but why can’t we at least find ways of limiting violence while at the same time preserving the right to self defense or the sport of hunting? I say its mainly because the Gun industry’s main lobby (and that is what the NRA is, never forget that. they don’t care about your right to own guns, only their right to sell them) has convinced people that this is what it means to be an American, to be blindly idealistic in the face of overwhelming statistical evidence. Every other right in the bill of rights has had some sort of limit placed on it either by congress or the supreme court through jurors prudence. I have freedom of speech, but if I say something damaging about you that is provably a lie, I am guilty of libel, etc.

      • Serko

        This what they said when the NRA was founded, you know, to protect the right of newly freed slaves to bear arms so that they could defend themselves and their families.

    • http://WebProNews/life SilverWolf

      It is absolutely clear that 7 years in the marine corp and growing up with guns have made your humanity, reasoning, and logic skills deminish. Your argument just lkiek the rest of your kind is a red herring and based on a fallicy. It ONLY sound logical to you because you have something to benefit from it…
      Your kind will ignore all the research and empirical data because it doesnt fit into your narrow minded, hypocritical view of the world around you. You have a problem when someone else tells or attempts to make laws that will change how you live, but you have no problem telling or attempting pass laws that will affect others lives. Typical narrow minded, prejudice, self absorbed, egotistical, and hypocritical right-wing conservative.

    • mitch

      THANKYOU

    • Dirk P

      Hey Jeff. How about hand grenades? Why not just allow corner stores to sell them. It’s people that are the problem, not the grenades. Seriously a ban on large magazines and assault rifles shouldn’t crimp anyone’s style and might limit the damage of these massacres.

  • rsvp

    *sigh* I thought this thread had run its course yesterday. Now more than ever, what makes Jason Alexander’s opinion newsworthy?

    • Charles Pingley

      BINGO

    • mitch

      JUST ANOTHER A OUT OF WORK ACTOR…WHOS AGENT NEEDS MONEY AND ISSUED A PRESS RELEASE

    • http://WebProNews/life SilverWolf

      I’ll tell you what makes his opinion newsworthy. HE’S JASON ALEXANDER – tv/movie star, populaity, money, celebrity status, and someone more liked, more well-known, and more important than YOU…. So get over yourself!!! He has as much as anyone to voice his views – its called THE FIRST ADMENDMENT!!! Making it more important that the second admendment. If you ever become famous, ultra-rich, or a celebrity, your poorly thoughout ideas, comments, and opinions will also be newsworthy…. :-)

      • mitch

        WOW…FINALLY A REPLY FROM JASONS AGENT…NICE PRESS RELEASE

      • roadrunner

        Funny thing is, I had to wiki ‘JASON ALEXANDER’ to even find out who everyone was talking about.

      • mgh

        Why don’t you give him a hummer already….

    • mitch

      HIS AGENT NEEDS MONEY

  • http://yahoo Ross Thompson

    Geez, how predictable was this? Another psycho goes on a rampage with a gun and now ALL gun owners pay the price? Many of us use these weapons every day responsibly and LAWFULLY! If you talk to any reasonable gunowner, they would all tell you that they would gladly give up all their guns if they thought it would stop psychos like the one in Aurora. But all REASONABLE people know this will not stop the wacko’s. I have all these types of weapons and more. One day you will be crying for people like me to come and save you from your own government that wants to take more of your freedoms every day!

    • jwaters327

      Thats the thing though, these incidents keep happening and nothing is ever done about it. The last piece of major gun control legislation enacted federally was the assault weopons ban in the mid ’90s and that expired a few years ago with barely a wimper. What price have you paid other than having a light shown upon what is a bleeding wound in this country? These imagined slights are a big part of the problem with the debate in this country. I can’t tell you how many times Ive had gun rights voters try to convince me that President Obama is coming for their guns, when in reality gun rights have only been expanded under his presidency. You guys are winning, yet you refuse to even acknowledge it!

      • peter

        And how exactly are you going to save us,Ross? Do you really think you can win with the government these days pulling your AR-15? You are living in the past my friend.But I tell you what happened to one of our customers(law abiding citizen) years ago when I worked in the gun shop.Couple guys armed with pepper spray broke into his house thru patio door,beat the crop out of him and emptied his gun safe.They shot a clerk at the liquor store and robbed couple of gas stations before getting caught.Just my 2 cents…

    • http://WebProNews/life SilverWolf

      Ross Thompson just another typical red herring and illogical response. An average gun owner DOES NOT need a military grade assualt weapon. Simple example, 50 yrs ago when they were not allowed there was no incendent of some wacko shooting at people with an assault weapons. The wackos of that time use simple guns and rifles. Before you bring up organized crime and criminals, remember we are just refering to the crazies that one day decide to go on a shooting spree for no other reason than to kill and injure inoccent people. So if you respond, stay on topic!!!
      No it is not all gun owners that need to be regulated just those with semi-automatic, fully automatic, and military grade weapons. So stop exaggerating and whinning…
      The state governments already is taking freedoms away. (same sex marriage, voting rights/regulations, overturn abortion, health care laws, marijuana laws, etc.) I’m pure sure you have no problem with your gov’t restricting others rights just as long as they dont restrict yours, right?!?!?! Typical hypocrite…

  • Troy

    I know many gun owners and vendors, and it’s not that they NEED guns, they WANT guns. Just like the pro athlete doesn’t NEED another $10 million, he WANTS it. Understanding gun owners as a whole is an important perspective in all of this. I know half a dozen people who own assault rifles. Why? Cuz they freaking love guns and want to own one or more (usually more). Do all people who own assault rifles want to commit mass killings? No, and it’s almost impossible to determine who does and who doesn’t.

    Shouting “The 2nd Amendment” is frivolous; yes it’s a right but it was conceived when the world was a different place, and despite that, it will not change. There’s nothing anyone can do about it, one way or another.

    I believe in all this mess, vendors have to be responsible about selling guns since gun buyers have no difficulty buying guns legally and have no responsibility in this at all until they kill someone. Gun owners that don’t plan on murder shouldn’t even be in the conversation; they own guns legally and aren’t hurting anyone.

    Self-defense is a frivolous argument when used with thieves as an example. Thieves break in when no one’s home unless they’re stupid, and you can’t shoot someone when you’re not home. Thieves do not normally break into a house when someone’s home, knowing they might get killed. So you come home to find all your stuff gone, even your guns. Guns don’t kill by themselves, and guns don’t protect you by themselves. Now that’s an argument worth making.

    P.S., if you live in a neighborhood where gang-bangers live, it might be smarter moving somewhere else than waiting for that glorious moment when they break in and you can blow their head off (if you see them before they see you). When the hell you gonna sleep?

    • mitch

      THANK YOU TROY…ANSWERING TO AN OLDER BURNED OUT ACTOR THAT WANTS HIS FORGOTTON NAME OUT THERE. I STAND BY WHAT U SAID. LONG LIVE THE 2ND

    • matt

      Jesus is against violence, and died on the Cross as our Savior to forgive all for their sins and those who use weapons in any attempt to kill another human. If I take a bullet I will forgive as Jesus forgives us. I also cannot judge as that is up to the hands of God, so unfortunately the case of owning firearms is at the mercy of mans laws.

      I am against the ability of non military use of weapons, Gods commandments must be lived by and Jesus died for the forgiveness of sin.

      • mgh

        our god is a vengeful god

    • Dirk P

      From a common sense perspective if you completely flood a society with guns, you will get significantly more gun crime.

      Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. But so do monkeys if you give them guns.

  • mitch

    JASON….GET A JOB

    • http://WebProNews/life SilverWolf

      He actually has a career…. Where he makes more in one day than you make in a year or more… Stop being jealous that there a whole population of people that care more about what he says than they do you… Maybe if you get a career with near the status of his, the news media might care to print what you say…

      • mitch

        IF YOU TOOK THE TIME TO CHECK IT OUT…I HAVE BEEN IN THE NEWS SEVERAL TIMES. ABOUT THE MONEY..YOU ARE SO WRONG…

  • Lee

    Wow. It’s obvious that not ONE of you read what Mr. Alexander had to say. What a shame. You are all complete idiots.

    • mitch

      YOU ACTUALLY READ A JASON ALEXANDER TWEET…MAYBE SOMEONE READ IT TO YOU

      • Lee

        You’re simply proving my point, Mitch. Now get your car off the cinder blocks in your FRONT yard and see if you can actually make something of yourself.

        • mitch

          HA..HA.. LOVE IT…U MUST BE FROM ALABABA LOL

  • PDBHDK

    I agree with Jason Alexander. These types of guns do not need to be out on the street or so easy to get. The arguement about committing crimes with tomatoes and banning tomatoes is stupid and ridiculous. The comment about banning fast cars is also stupid. Maybe banning these types of weapons isn’t the only solution when it comes to crimes like what happened in Colorado, but I think it is part of the solution.

  • mitch

    WOW…87 REPLIES…I AM AMAZED ANYONE READS HIS TWEETS

  • Scott

    Everybody forgets history. The 2nd amendment is in place because the law abiding gun owners are the militia. We with our AR-15’s and AK 47s would be on the front lines if this country was to ever be invaded. Just like our ancestors the minute men. If not for them, there would be no USA. Its the only amendment to the constitution that shall not be infringed…..Just like you dont take a knife to a gun fight, you dont take a hunting rifle to war…

    • gman

      Invaded? What year do you think this is? Also, the line is WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. Meaning that there should be regulation and training, not simply buy as many powerful guns as you like. There should be classes taken and certification for owning and operating certain types of guns.

      Again, Invaded?

      • http://Yahoo Conbeist

        Yeah Invaded – kind of like the Mexican Cartels are doing and killing a border guard 18 mikes inside of AZ

      • mgh

        the reason for a well regulated militia and the 2nd amendment is to protect the people from their government. idiot

    • http://WebProNews/life SilverWolf

      Scott, you dont seem to acquately remember history. The minutemen were not the only reason for the usa. If it would have just up to them, there never woulf have been a usa… The minute DID take simple rifles and muskets to the revolution… The chances of the usa getting invaded is less than 1/100 trillion. So again, the average citizen DOES NOT need AR-15s and AK-47s. Simple logic that seems to be over your head…

      • mgh

        but if the people were not armed the government could do whatever they want.. kind of like now.

  • Scott

    If someone in the theater would have been armed it would have been a different ball game.

    • gman

      Yep, a lot more people would have been killed. WIth all that smoke and mayhem, more people would have been injured. HOWEVER, if there had been even a semblance of a system to notify authorities that this kid had been buying a TON of guns and ammo or had there been a waiting list to check on the status of other purchases going on concurrently, THAT would have been a different ball game.

      • eric shin

        are maybe less. did you see the video of the old man that stopped two armed robbers with his peace maker?

  • utfaninsc

    Since when do criminals follow the law?

    • lionheartwolf

      by that argument you are saying that there should be no laws because ‘bad’ people dont follow them anyway. unfortunately you are right bad people do not follow the law, but the laws allow us to punish those who do and help restrict those who might have given the chance to break them a second guess.

      • matt

        God sent Moses up Mount Sinai to receive the Ten Commandments.

        Thou shall not kill, that is one of them.

        By allowing the dispersion of weapons u r allowing this commandment to be broken.

        If I do take a bullet I will forgive as Jesus forgave but will never own a gun.

        • TraciR

          “By allowing the dispersion of weapons u r allowing this commandment to be broken.”

          Question: Who is “u”? Do you mean some particular individual?

          And guess what, its up to each person if they are going to “kill” or not. Maybe we should do away with steak knives too. Because you can kill with those too.

          • matt

            I do not eat dinner with an AK47…stake knives are for dinner use. Again if people raised their children with good values as taught in the Bible(Matthew 12 7, the golden rule also Corinthians 11 7 the roles of the parents under the direction of God, then they would not have the intention of murder.

        • Lee Dutra

          The true translation is, “Thou shalt not murder.” There is a huge difference between kill and murder.

          • matt

            thank u I make mistakes, I better keep studying the Bible.

            If families followed Corinthians 11 7 they would not raise a child that would go out and by an AK47 for the intention of mass murder.

    • http://WebProNews/life SilverWolf

      James Holmes was only a criminal after the fact, not before. It is also true of just every other wacko that went on the shooting spree. So the law wasn’t broken in the purchased of said weapons. The same way the Colombine and North Carolina shooting spree guns werer purchased LEGALLY!!!
      Real criminal require guns to commit other crimes like bank robbery, home invasions, jewelry heists, etc., but to simply kill people at random is EXTREMELY rare. Even in drive bys, gang members use regular or semi-automatic hand guns NOT ak-47s or ar-15s.

  • Carvel

    The Jason Alexander comment responses are quite interesting to read and wonder if anyone has put any thought to this. In our country you can make your personal opinion know in many ways but completely in the open to the community, government, etc. without worrying about being locked up for making it. This freedom came to us all because we were able to defend ourselves, our country and our rights as free Americans. Some choose to pickup a weapon and use it for harm, but they are the minority of people, the majority want to do the right thing and obey our laws. Guns are tools made by man and I doubt a gun has ever killed on it’s own, a human is always behind the trigger in one way or another. We need to do a better job of teaching people to act first with their mind and mouth, how to cool down, signs to look for in people that may need help and how to intervene to get them help if they do not recognize they need it on their own. We will always see these few react and take lives of the innocent but it does not mean we need to knee jerk react and add laws and regulations each time. If you think guns are the only way to kill one another you better take a look at history…………..there are many trained people that could have inflicted the same results with two machetes and some coke on board.

    Carvels

  • Joe

    First off, this NOT the same version the military uses, it may look like it, but it does NOT fire like one, and does not feel like one.

    He uses his 1st amendment right to say what he will, and that’s fine, just remember, I have my 2nd amendment and will use it to defend your ability to keep and use your 1st amendment right to the death. Having served 9 years in the military, I EARNED that right. I was willing to put my life on the line so that others can have those same rights. ONE PERSON should not change the rule for everyone.

    He needs to understand that we drive trucks and ‘hummers’ in the military, we can use them as weapons that kill just as effectively as a weapon, and yet, I do not hear the call for these vehicles to be banned, in fact, there are more deaths by car/truck than by a weapon. When do the people come out for the cars and trucks to be banned? Television, fast food, all lead to problems because we don’t exercise right and we don’t eat properly, and yet, they do not outlaw these things.. unless you’re in New York and they’ll try that one day (Think soft drinks here).

    Seriously, why are you wanting to take away my right to own and operate a handgun, because some guy took a dive off the deep end and decided today would be a good day to see if I could kill a ton of people? Let’s outlaw airplanes because terrorist use them as weapons. Let’s outlaw Politicians because they are to stupid and they breed. Do that, before you take away my right to carry or even own a handgun, rifle or shotgun. Personal protection or for sport, it’s my right to own one and operate one, and I have protected that right, I think I deserve to die with that right as well.

    • Lee Dutra

      With you 100% Brother. Seven years safeguarding liberty here.

  • http://yahoo sports man

    This isn’t about guns, its about guns with 100 round magazines and the ability to buy 6000 rounds on the internet without anyone saying – Really? WTF?
    You show me one sporstman that needs more than 6 rounds in a magazine to hunt and I’ll show you one sportsman that NO ONE wants to hunt with cause they are freaking dangerous, incredibly bad shots, and have several loose screws.
    When the second amendment was written they didn’t have 100 round magazines, semi or full automatics, or a-holes that snap under pressure and want 15 minutes of fame at the cost of human lives.
    Stop the madness – 6 round magazines max with jail time for anything bigger and any orders of more than 100 rounds of ammo goes to the fbi. Simple rules I can live with and still continue to hunt and enjoy the sport and gun ownership.

    • Mike

      I like your kind of thinking…

      • Jay

        Take off the narrow vision glasses for a minute Mike. I talked to a hunter before and yes that’s correct they don’t bring more than a box of 20 rounds on a hunt, but have you been to an outdoor range where target and recreational shooters go through 100 rounds in a few hours easy? They also buy in bulk for the discounts available so its not uncommon to get 1k of .223 rounds for a 30% discount due to buying on bulk. These shooters at the range are a direct threat to paper and metal targets so of course they should be watched closely by the FBI on their bulk ammo purchases right?

    • Zach

      are u a TRUE SPORTSMAN??????? you sound like a lib in disquise. you are so full of shit it is ridiculous. go back to the huffington post and jack off in a corner.

    • thomas

      why have a car that goes over 80? Hell thats fast enought right? Its not about guns cars or whatever. People are crazy its that simple. More people kill each other drinking and driving why not just sell two beers in a night if you get caught with 3 you go to jail talk to the ATF. We are in a country that gives you freedom and with freedom you have responsibility period. If I want a gun with a 100000000000 rounds so what . If you have a car that goes 140 so what. If you get drunk so what. Just be responsible with it plan and simple. You can’t bann stupidity and clearly this is it boils down too. Everyone trying to make a case about this AR15 with 100 rounds you are all missing it (way off). Anything and everything could be banned its just what you feel stronger about that you speak your 1 sided opinion

  • Joy

    Jason, Jason………..so talented & yet not very intelligent. We just loved you & now we would like to pretend you don’t exist. People like you are creating the the fall of the United States. Before long you will realize your mistakes. All too late.

  • Zach

    Hey Jason,
    I have an AR-15 rifle. The reason I have it is to protect myself and my family. I do not have a desire to hurt innocent person or animal for that matter. I actually donate to the humane society. I will never hunt animals, because I would never hurt one. I do not judge, nor look down upon anyone who is a hunter. I do not judge others when it comes to that. However, if someone breaks into my home and trys to hurt me or my family, I will protect myself, my family, and MY PROPERTY NO MATTER WHAT. GUNS NEVER KILL PEOPLE. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE WITH GUNS. IT IS THAT SIMPLE. THE VICTIMS ARE THE FAMILIES IN THIS HORRIFIC INCIDENT. LEAVE IT AT THAT.

    • Mike

      I agree with you Zach. But tell me why You need a AR-15 to do what you say… Just for sake of Argument… Wouldnt a smaller weapon be ok also????

    • Mike

      Are you protecting your family in the jungles of Central America?

  • Mike

    Great, I read all these arguments and cant understand them.. Get rid of guns????? It will not solve the issue. People who are insane and crazy will find some other way to kill people and create panic. If it were up to all you people who want to get rid of guns then what you are saying is get rid of things that people use to kill people. Dam, We should all at birth just have our arms and legs and hands and heads cut off and have just a torso. Guns arent the only things that kill people.

  • AH

    This is some funny sh^t.

  • AH

    Funny sh*t

  • marcia

    I agree with Jason Alexander, military style weapons have no place outside the military. They are designed for a specific purpose, to kill.

    • CommonSense

      If I would have been in that theater carrying my Sig Sauer 40 Cal semi automatic pistol that clown wouldn’t have gotten more than a couple of shots off. My laser sight would have been aimed right between his eyes and casulties would have been minimal. He could have done even more damage with gasoline and a match. What are you going to do do just arm the Idiots!!!!?????JASON WAKE UP AND QUIT FOLLOWING THE HOLLYWOOD KNOW IT ALL’S

      • Richard Nelson

        And if 25 others in the audience had had their Sig Sauers, you may have gotten the Joker, but chances you and several others would be dead pretty much instantly as you all tried to figure out what was what.

        Bravo Jason!!

      • joe

        marcia wake up, weed and pest killer are designed to kill , should we outlaw their use as well.

      • Mac

        CommonSense seems to be something you lack. All firearms were built to kill. It is skill with arms that has defined our nations for centuries. The Olympics were first held to test the skill of arms. Your argument is childish when placed in the context of history. The ten’s of millions of dead in Europe, Cambodia and Russia over the past 100 years also thought it could never happen to them, but it did. Jefferson said”fear the government” I say make the Government fear the people.

    • Bob

      Are there guns that are designed NOT to kill?

    • john cook

      marica you and jason are indeed intiedlled to your oppinions, but as a former police officer i was responding to fight in progress, upon ariving i was confronted by a man with an axe with a handle 36 in. long. at first i did not see him and before i could react i was hit in the chest by the blade knocking me backwards. thank God for my vest and my weapon i was able to save my self from the man swinging the axe ( NOT A GUN ) towards my head. people have been killing other people sence the begining of time way before the gun was invented. there is other uses for firearms then killing people.

    • alex

      don’t all guns kill???

  • http://yahoo John

    Well I guess we should just get rid of cell phones too for all the idiots who text and drive and kill people to. Wake up, it’s the user not the tool Jason.

  • gregg209

    I own an AR15 and use it responsibly like 99.999999% of gun owners.

    If you took into account the sheer number of firearms like mine that have been sold in the United States of the past 2-3 years (Millions of off-list lowers) and one whack job gets his hands on ONE and there is simply no other solution than to take them away from everyone.

    Living in CA I know more than my share of anti-gunners. I have found that most are simply scared of firearms, the ones that I can coax into going to the range with me and I let use my AR at some point say “I want one”.

    What happened in Colorado was devastating and my heart goes out to the victims and families involved but this was the act of one man whom clearly has issues, had he not been able to get the gun he would have done it some other way….we can all agree he has knowledge of explosives right?

    • Brad Ruhle

      Like you, I’ve shot an AR-15 as well. This was before the 1989 Stockton massacre, and a time when you could rent a semi-automatic so-called “assault rifle”. It was a 9mm version. I found it way more accurate than the other weapon I fired: an Uzi Carbine. You can’t hit anything with an Uzi; you just send bullets flying everywhere. (That makes it even more dangerous in a tragedy like the Colorado massacre.)

      My definition of an assault weapon is one that has a pistol grip, a large magazine of 30 round capacity or more, and is semi-automatic. The AR-15, Uzi, AK-47 and the Tech DC-9 used at Columbine all qualify for that. It doesn’t matter if the weapon has the capability for full automatic, which isn’t even used most of the time by soldiers or SWAT teams.

      My feeling is that instead of banning assault weapons, just ban the high capacity magazines. An AR-15 with a 10 round magazine is no longer an assault weapon. It’s a semi-automatic rifle. Not only that, it does not have the range and capacity a regular 5.56mm hunting rifle has, Why do you need a 30 round magazine, let alone a 100 round one like the one used in Colorado? (Besides, that magazine jammed from what I heard.)

      As for your statistics on the number of incidents VS the number of rifles sold to civilians I only have to say one thing:

      Try telling that to the family of that 6-year old child who was gunned down in Colorado.

      • http://webpronews.com John

        Brad,

        that’s great that you have your own definition of what an “assault weapon” is, but that doesnt mean it is correct. The main idea you’re missing is that an “assault weapon” is fully automatic. if a rifle is semi-automatic then by definition, it is not an “assault weapon”, no matter if it has the other attributes you stated. if you take a semi-auto rifle, change the magazine capacity to 10, it is still a semi-auto…no difference. you could add a 100 round drum to it and it is still a semi-auto rifle. it’s very possible that if the colorado shooter had 5-6 10 rd magazines, he would have more kills simply because they would not have jammed. no one is doubting this is a tragedy but going after a tool, which the rifle is, rather than the person behind it makes absolutely no sense…at all…
        i think the demonrats are smart enough not to make this issue about gun control, especially since they still remember the last time they did. the American people realize that gun control isnt a good idea, even though there are many other that think like you, this issue wont get very far in todays political climate.

        • http://yahoo toomuchgovernment

          they make 5.56 ar 15 and bigger moron california has a 10 round max. but criminals can get or make 30 round magazines. they will still get them. I would hate to have to fight someone with several 30 round mags and I have 10 round mags and a bullet button

  • Lee Dutra

    O.K., number one, an AR 15 is not an assault weapon. By definition an assault weapon not only has high capacity magazines, but will fire full automatic if set to. Number two, there are many weapons that are far more powerful than said AR 15. Number three, it does no good to even try to educate people who will not consider a different viewpoint, so I say, let them line-up and drink the Kool-Aid since they are determined to anyway. In my opinion Jason Alexander has problems that go way beyond his view on guns.

    • Donny

      I couldn’t agree with you more Lee!!! Anyone who believes that some kind of ban on ANY type of guns, will keep firearms away from criminals or terrorists, is truly diluted!!!

      So which criminals abide by the gun laws that are in effect now??

  • who cares

    I’m not gonna argue for or against the topic of gun control.

    I just wanted to point out the fact that a standard “Deer Rifle” shoots with better accuracy at long-ranges, is more accurate, and hits harder than an AR-15.

    So, from point one, this Kastanza has no clue what he is muttering. (just like on Steinfeld)

  • Scott

    Timothy McVeigh accomplished his destruction without a gun. If someone really wants to kill, he or she will find the way, gun or not.

    • think b4utype

      stupid argument. I think the conversation is much deeper than your comment. Should we just give up and live in anarchy?

      • bill

        Don’t we already live in anarchy?

      • Donny

        The conversation is just that!!! It’s about a single person killing a 2 digit number of unarmed civilians and children!!! Had this orange haired idiot NOT used the guns that he had. He may have planted his exorbitant amount of home made explosives in that same theater. Killed 10 times as many victims, and hidden from the police/feds for some time!!!

        THEN how paranoid would you people be??

    • Mike

      There is absolutely no reason for assault weapons to be available to private citizens. Timothy McVeigh had a large stockpile of automatic weapons, he just chose to go the cowardly way and use explosives to kill the children. If an automatic weapons ban would prevent even one loonie from killing innocent people, it would have served it’s purpose.

      • http://yahoo toomuchgovernment

        they would still have the weapons only honest citizens would give them up idiot

  • human

    I love how we can buy all the guns you want but get caught with marajuana, and you go to prison.
    Guns, Sure, Gay Marridge “oh god please protect the children”

    • Jenkins

      You don’t include just one red herring argument but TWO for good measure, eh?

      You’re a doofus!

    • http://yahoo toomuchgovernment

      you dont have to buy them if you dont want them most people dont go to prison for weed unless they are selling it. you should go to jail for being a major moron

  • Dave Prescott

    “Let’s see – does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes.”

    Ding! One right.

    “Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes.”

    BZZZZZ. WRONG on BOTH counts.
    Two wrong. One right.

    “Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes.”

    BZZZZZ. WRONG AGAIN.
    You got one for four. Your opinion means nothing.

  • John

    The whole point he was trying to make is regarding gun control in general. However that will never happen because of the NRA and their henchmen (lobbyists). That is unfortunate. I just wonder how they would feel if someone they loved died from this tragedy. If you think about it and do what’s right, there would be “logical” gun control.

    • http://yahoo toomuchgovernment

      many NRA members have lost family to criminals with guns. I am one of them. That does not change my mind about the right to bear arms. These criminals would still have guns and still murder if there was a world ban on guns. People murder in states where there is the death penalty but they still do it

  • Ray

    Many people think that the founding fathers added the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution to give citizens the means to defend themselves. That is not the reason. It was added to the Constitution as a means to stop a tyrant from ruling over the nation. It was a valid concern then and it is a valid concern now. A nation whose citizens fear the government is by definition tyrannical. A nation whose government fears the citizens is a nation of freedom.

    • Davilyn

      I applaud you that you know this tidbit of information. Most people have never even read the Constitution let alone understand it. Kudos to you. As an additional argument – the whole gun control issue would be better addressed spiritually. It does say in the Bible “Thou shall not kill”. This statement does not have sub-paragraphs of exceptions. It means just what it says – we should not kill anything, people or animals, especially for sport. People who think otherwise are the same kind of people who don’t understand what the Constitution was all about.

      • http://yahoo toomuchgovernment

        more than half the worlds population does not believe in the bible. not a valid arguement

      • Michael

        Davilyn, I will address the Bible comment that you make about the, “Thou shall not kill.” There are two versions murder/ and killing Christ speaks about it in Matt 5:21 Christ teaches that harboring anger is LIKE murder so that when Cain murdered Able in Genesis that is EXACTALY what it is. What Christ is saying is that Premeditation as well as action is murder. When King David kills Bathsheba’s husband he is committing murder. BUT, when he KILLS Goliath there is no premeditation. It is like the difference between a dead body from a crime of passion or self defense.

      • TWITTER USER

        Animals were killed in the Bible and so were people. Many were killed in war and the animals were killed for sacrifice to God and for food.

      • Donny

        translate your bible again…its REAL translation is “Thou shall not MURDER”!!!

    • chase

      Obviously you don’t understand yourself. The Bill of Rights is to protect the rights of peoples liberty and property. The militia referenced in the 2nd amendment is the people. Not the military. A militia is made up of civilians. If the people aren’t allowed to own guns how do you think the militia would have guns to fight? They wouldn’t. It doesn’t matter if the gun holds only 5 round or 100. If no one else has a gun to protect themselves or others around them who is going to stop the guy shooting? Any person can carry extra ammo or magazines and keep on harming people. You don’t need a high capacity magazine to cause lots of harm.
      “The strongest reason for the PEOPLE to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”-Thomas Jefferson

  • Bob Davis

    Jason is 100% correct.
    Nobody has ever been able to proviude a convincing argument that citizens should own assault rifles/automatic weapons.

    Gun nuts: knock it the fuck off. You can have your handguns and shotguns. Let’s just keep the killing to one at a time.

    • Donny

      The 2nd amendment guarantees that I retain the right to own a shotgun, a handgun, an AR-15 OR a bolt action model 70 Winchester (Military’s favorite for a sniper rifle) Without infringement whether you like it or not…So you can knock THAT the f***off Bob Davis!!!

  • http://webpronews.com John

    How about you stick to something you know, which is making jokes, not furthering a political agenda in the wake up a tragedy such as this.

    • Shawn

      Jason Alexander is a actor. He has no concept of fire arms or how to use them. An AR-15 is a .223 caliber round. I use a bolt action army surplus 30-06 for hunting and target shooting. That is more powerful round. I do have an AR-15 I use it for target shooting In my state I can not hunt with it. It is a nice gun to shoot if you know what you are doing. I repeat know what you are doing. You need to learn how to respect fire arms and the lethality.

      • http://yahoo toomuchgovernment

        AR 15 can be larger rounds than .223 I have one much larger caliber but that does not matter it is still a semi auto and not an auto the military has

  • Manny Po

    America is the real Anti-Christ nation..hiding under the flagship of democracy. Freedom (to kill, to marry the same sex, drugs)..sick..

    • Matt

      Then move back to Mexico you spic.

      • looking 4 u

        hey asshole, if you took your ass to Mexico the zetas would have your head rolling down the highway, go there you racist piece of sh*t tough guy.

        • Donny

          While I don’t agree with Matt’s hateful spew…Mexicans are nationals from Mexico…there “Race” is Hispanic and just because this guy Manny Po gave his opinion…it seems that there are alot of people that have no “smart” reply and must spit this type of venom!!!

          I disagree with a ban on any guns by type or look, and I disagree with throwing racial slurs at someone because I didn’t like what they said!!! Don’t make it about Race…

          It’s been skinny little Caucasian kids committing these heinous crimes that stir up a whole new gun debate every time another idiot wants to hurt people!!! The other racial demographic seems to stick to individual or smaller scale killings!!! Take THAT Aryan…err Matt!!!

  • Matt

    Jason Alexander is an idiot. Yes, a screwed up american makes the rest of the gun holders in America look bad. If it was not for the freedom to bare arms Obama would have turned us into a socialist nation. For the ones who do not believe in this amendment that have Phd’s please feel free to contact me. I have plenty of yard work you can do. This is what incentive you will have after a socialist reform is implied. My prayers and thoughts go to the families of this tragedy. It is very unfortunate. What has happened to holding the responsible party responsible? Guns are not bad: ignorant people are. Hell is warm, and Florida is nice, may peace be with the families and heat be with the JOKER……

    • Mo

      Did you bother to read what he was saying? WHY SHOULD ANY CITIZEN OWN A WEAPON MADE SPECIFICALLY FOR THE MILITARY??? Do you own those types of weapons, and if so, why?

      • Chris

        I’m for gun control on a licensing level like as a driver’s license level, proper training and approval from a non-gun store agency test before you have a “right” (sarcasm towards NRA) to a gun… but Jason Alexander and you make assumptions that the AR-15 is a military gun. I personal know people that use it for hunting… And the thing is, it shoots the same bullets and only shoots one bullet for every trigger pull like every other gun sold today.

        • Haywood Jablowme

          Ok…Chris, on this post I agree with you. Instead of taking guns away from the mass of people who respect guns and aren’t using them to kill people. Maybe they need stronger laws to obtaining them. There are MORE people in this world that own guns that don’t go ape shit and kill people. Why is it that the few always take away from the many?

      • http://yahoo toomuchgovernment

        I own an AR 15 because I like how it looks and how it shoots. The military has AUTOMATIC weapons the average HONEST person has semi automatic CROOKS have AUTOMATIC weapons big difference I own one because it is my right by the constitution. If the honest person gave up their weapons the criminals would still have theirs and they would still shoot up theaters and I wouldn’t have my gun to try and stop them.

        • Haywood Jablowme

          toomuchgovernment is absolutely correct. In the long run tougher laws make it harder for the good law abiding citizens to obtain guns, but if just one gun isn’t issued because someone doesn’t pass the background check than the whole system worked that time. On the other hand, criminals with always be able to obtain whatever weapons they want regardless of what law or laws are past.

  • Jermaine Lett

    Bottom line is, if you have a gun, your going to shoot the gun…..period..how and what you shoot is the issue…

    • Manny Po

      got it man..Gn=uns were made to kill..period.

    • Mac

      Are you paying attention? You must have slept through American history class. At the time the 2nd was written, the “militia” was every man capable of bearing arms. This is not up for debate as it was stated as fact by SCOtUS on several occasions. If you do not like it at least have the courtesy to understand your argument.

    • Haywood Jablowme

      That’s right….blame the guns, not the idiots shooting it. By this logic maybe we should outlaw cars too. When someone gets drunk and drives and kills someone, well darn it was the cars fault huh?

  • Reader of complete text

    People use the Bill of Rights the same way people use biblical scripture to bolster their arguments— very selectively. e.g., Why do those citing the Second Amendment to condemn any restriction on firearm ownership always conveniently forget the important “A well regulated Militia…” component that frames the entire amendment that follows? Read the text in its entirety… and then ask yourselves “how many gun nuts drooling over their stockpiled weapons are actually members of a WELL-REGULATED militia?”

    • Chris

      If you are going to argue a point… know the Second Amendment is on the US Constitution, not the Bill of Rights.

      • Haywood Jablowme

        Hmm…Chris, hate to break it to you, but the “Bill of Rights” is the first ten amendments to the US Constitution. So, if you’re going to “TRY” to make someone look stupid by responding like a jackass….do you’re research first, so you don’t look like a “tard” yourself. BTW welcome to the internet!!!!

  • Mike

    All this screaming about the type of gun used. People making comments about Timothy McVeigh having all those types of guns, when he didn’t use a single illegal gun. Instead he put together a bomb out of two chemicals, sadly proving that you don’t have to pull a trigger to kill many people without a single cause or reason. Personally I own 2 of these “type” of weapons. One came from my dad, and M1 he carried in the military. A M16 given to me by my uncle from Vietnam. An AR15 I bought on my own. Two of these weapons count as pure military weapons. The M1 while a military weapon didn’t have a huge capactiy. I also own a few hunting rifles, some handguns and yes I have a carry permit in TX. There is lots of ammo for all of these weapons and I’ve been around them all of my life. At NO TIME in my 50 plus years have I felt the need to load up and go find human targets…With an egnineering degree and my best friend with a degree in chemistry you could say we have all the things required, but we aren’t out looking for a reason to cause harm in any way shape form or fashion. For people like Jason Alexander and others to say its because of the “gun” and its design is just plain foolish. I’m sure he supports removing all the trees along highways and replacing them with breakaway versions so that nobody can hit one in a car and be injured. The weapons aren’t the cause of this tragic events and they never have been. I support the one thing that would make a difference and that is a change in the background checks. Making them a bit stronger is the only step you can take to keep a legally purchased weapon out of the hands of a killer with nothing on his mind but destruction. I hate that anyone would take any weapon and kill another human being. Without your own life being in mortal danger there is no reason to fire. I’ve been asked what I do with those high capactiy weapons and its simple. They are rifles, they are capable of hunting, but not ideal. What they are used for by everyone I know who owns one is to waste money sport shooting at targets. We’ll virtually never have to use such a weapon to defend ourselves. Its very much like the person who buys a 500 horsepower Bently. You don’t need it, but its something you collect. Perhaps some people have $50,000 in movie collectables which most of us see as a waste, but its neat I suppose. For the time being I can think of a lot of Hollywood types that I wouldn’t allow to own any firearm..

    • Donny

      Very well articulated Mike!!!

      However I don’t completely agree that stricter backround checks will stop nutcases from getting and USING weapons against us average citizens. I’m sure it would deter some, and possibly delay any planned crimes. However exactly how often are “legally” purchased guns are used in violent crimes such as this?? In fact this is the FIRST time I have ever heard of someone using guns that they bought from a gun store in a crime like this!!!

  • http://yahoo toomuchgovernment

    3 words for Mr Alexander no talent moron

  • Richard

    We were absolutely right in the 1960s “MAKE LOVE, NOT WAR!” Only one way to solve this…No Guns At All Period. The madman couldn’t kill 12 people with a baseball bat. End of story.

  • Frank

    I now own a Colt AR-15 as I fear the tyranny of the Tea Party!

  • Rob

    Jason Alexander–what a colossal display of arrogant ignorance. So much for thoughtful dialogue on a serious subject. Stick to acting, no wait, skip that.

    • John

      Rob? Rob who? what have you done?
      Probably nothing!! Alexander actually makes sense,and his contribution to the debate is far greater than youts!!

      • Donny

        That’s only because your opinion mirrors Jason Alexander’s. So you must AGAIN try and attack someone for exercising his rights protected by the FIRST amendment only because his opinion differs from your own!!!

  • dropdufn

    I love when people bring up gun registration, “oh we can find and register the couple hundred million firearms out there easily” but talk about illegal immigration and its “It would be impossible to find the fifteen to twenty million undocumented persons out there!”.

    • John

      Most people would agree that gun laws (registration,etc) would have little to no impact on your average criminal.
      It Is however,reasonable and attainable to ensure that assault-type weapons only be available for military applications.

      • Donny

        If you truly believe that than you have bigger issues John!!!

    • lefty

      On your point everyone has already forgotten about the DC sniper. WHo used a hunting rifle.

  • Ryan

    Jason Alexander – One american who speaks a morsel of sense. I don’t think he went far enough. All weapons should be outlawed. Plain and smple.

    • dropdufn

      I can kill you with a rock, fork, spoon, dental floss, etc etc. Anything can be a weapon if you want it to be and are crazy enough to go that route. Do you shit your pants when you see the mailman come to your door, people have been killed by mail bombs in the past.

      • John

        Your comment is irrelevant. Stop mixing apples and oranges and throwing mud in the waters of important debate.
        Can you kill 12 people in a couple of minutes with a fork or dental floss? doubt it.
        We are talking about military assault-type weapons. These weapons are designed to cause the maximum amount of damage in the littlest time. There is no good reason for these weapons to be in the hands of civilians.
        Just to put things into perspective, think for a sec, about which you would prefer; being attacked with a fork or an AK-47? which would you be more likely to survive?

        • badbasic

          It amazes me how narrow minded some people are.The civilian who just walked into a crowded train station with a bomb made from forks, nails and so on has no good reason for having it, yet he has one. He probably learned how to make it on the internet. I better hurry and post this before the internet gets banned.

        • dropdufn

          I can go to the local home improvement store, go home and make a bomb that will kill as many people, actually probably more then what happened in Colorado in as much time as it would take for my happy ass to the local gun store and get my background check done and what not.

          Most military sniper rifles can be compared to common decent bolt action hunting rifles. Should we ban those too because the military uses them and in the hands of someone that wants to can stand back from afar and accrue the same amount of fatalities inflicted in Colorado in short oder?

          Firearms nor what type used has any bearing on what happened in Colorado in my opinion. There are laws on the books to stop people from getting them that we have deemed shouldnt have them yet people get them and sometimes crazy is just crazy and hasnt been picked up yet.

          I think the discusion should be focused more on better mental health in this country rather then what those with mental issues use to carry out thier acts of violence because like I said earlier, you want to kill someome or groups of someone there is always a way and outlawing a “scary” looking rifle wont change the outcome of anything if someone wants to commit evil vile acts that leads to the deaths of many.

          There are four times more guns then cars in this country and yet more deaths happen due to vehicles. And thats including suicides with the use of firearms in that total tally wich I think shouldnt be in there considering if someone is going to kill themselves they will no matter what. Should we ban cars? Of course not, they serve a purpose, well guess what, firearms serve a purpose too!

          I have had to use my cc side arm once to stop a crim in progress against myself and my family. Purpose served. I like to hunt, purpose served. I like shooting shit at the range because its fun and a great stress reliever, purpose served!

        • Tommy

          When you have a gang of (fill in the ______) approaching you with the intent of killing, I would choose an assault rifle every time. If all I had was a small calibre single shot weapon, I would go ahead and shoot my self to prevent being tortured to death.

          I know zombies are not real, but they give proper context.

        • Donny

          John…To say that ANYONE’S comment, that differs from your own, is irrelevant is like trying to force your agenda on that person!!! Forks can (and HAVE) been used as shrapnel in bombs. Does that make it okay for you to try and violate the 1st amendment in your agenda to violate our 2nd??

          I truly believe that when the proverbial crap hits the fan…That YOU will be the first guy complaining that REAL assault rifles aren’t available!!!

          No gun available for purchase by a regular citizen is an assault rifle!!! You need to do some research so that you can at least SOUND like you’re educated!!!

  • John Smith

    Hmmm, funny, I own 13 guns and I’ve shot fewer than half of them (I collect pieces of history). Of the guns that I have shots, I have only shot as wood, metal, and paper targets. Maybe I’m using them wrong?

    • John

      A collection of pieces of history is far different from a collection of AK-47 type weapons.Someone who collects weapons surely knows this. If all you do is shoot at targets etc., nobody has a problem with that; but if your goal changes and you now want to shoot as many people as you can in the shortest time possible, we want to keep the type of weapon that you would need out of your reach.

      • lefty

        Ak-47’s are a piece of history.

      • Donny

        They already ARE out of our reach!!! First you push to ban guns that merely LOOK like the weapons our military uses to defend our freedom to own them!!! Next thing is the ban on any handgun that holds more than 6 rounds. Then we should go after pump style shotguns that hold more than 3 shells.

        Okay now that we have been able to accomplish these bans we need to take all of he guns away completely because people can hunt on a Wii without making YOU feel unsafe!!!

        After all of the guns are banned from the country and the criminals are the only ones with guns now…we need to take away your freedom to complain about the fact that violent crime has increased by 4 times it ever was!!! Then where will it end??

        What does “FREEDOM” mean to YOU John??

  • John Neuburger

    I totally agree with Alexander.There is no reason to possess military assault-type weapons outside of a military setting.

  • blitzen2010

    he’s right…cricket is gay…unless they all get ak-47s…then it might be ….no….its still gay

  • Clod_menez

    i come from a third world country with enough of its share of poverty and discrimination etc. however, guns are something that an ordinary criminal cannot get his hands on. Given the proclivity to violence in such a society, we dont hear about mass shootings here and usual (otherwise frequent) violence is within street gangs or sometimes organized gangs or street muggings using knives or swords. we cant imagine giving a gun to these people and the amount of crime it will result in. it will mean anyone “with a bad intention” can kill without a moment’s hesitation and go on. Physically stabbing to kill one with a knife is much more personal than just shooting from a distance. we realize that. one thing i cannot understand is, if a small country like ours understands the gun menace, why cant a supposed super power and advanced civilization understand it.

    • Laurel

      Clod – You may not hear of mass shootings in your third world country but what about the people that will strap a bomb to their body or their childrens bodies?

  • DC

    Guns don’t kill people…

    HAMBURGERS kill people…

  • badbasic

    “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” I have seen this sticker for years. By nature, we as humans are a destructive breed. I do not quote Bible verses nor the constitution because I am not an authority on either. Plenty of states have no cell phone use while driving, yet we still do. Before someone jumps on that cell phones don’t kill, as a paramedic I have seen first hand that they do. The point that I am trying to make is that regardless of what laws are on the books to try and protect us, they will always fail due to our destructive nature. The United States of America has given me the right to own certain guns(I have a small caliber rifle and a shotgun)to protect my family and property as well as recreation. An outlaw by definition is someone who is lawless. When you are speeding tomorrow going to work, you are an outlaw. Do we ban the cars? There will always be outlaws as long as humans are allowed to exist. Just don’t take away my right to protect myself and family from the outlaws who could care less that they gun they are robbing me with is illegal.

  • W.S

    I am so greatful that I’m not enabling those Whack-Jobs out there,because 9 out of 10 I wouldn’t even need that type of gun for protection.

    • dropdufn

      That type of gun? Would you say a 9mm pistol or a .22 pistol would be a good gun that could be used for your defense? Guess what, Seung-Hui Cho wracked up 32 deaths with pistols at Virginia Tech, didnt use any of those scary looking “military assault-type” weapons. Like I said before, crazy is just sometimes crazy and mental health should be the issue, not what is used to carry out said crazy acts of violence.

  • Randy

    I have an AR-15 that I use for hunting and target shooting. Use 20rd and 30rd mags for targets. With a 5rd mag it is very compact and light weight and is great for hunting.

  • jo mama

    Most of these horrific incidents involve a young male gone mad…maybe there should be a ban weapon ownership from anyone under 35.

    • dropdufn

      And what of the tens of thousands of examples over the years of those under the age of 35 that have legaly and responsibly used legally owned firearms (weapon) to stop crimes such as loss of life, pass another law to outlaw crimes against those younger then 35?

      Sorry but that one wont fly either, still going to have those that are crazy or could give two flying facks about laws, like I dont know, criminals. That just leaves those under the age of 35 that follow the laws defensless. Like others have stated, more laws just mean less protection and freedoms for the law abiding masses out there but does nothing to those that will break laws regardless of what they are. Punishing law abiding citizens is not the answer.

  • John B

    In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

    Alexander can’t understand the right to protect oneself is not only from foriegn armies, home invaders, people shooting at you in movie theaters and to protect one from an opressive government. Jason go back to acting and leave the heavy thinking to the smarter people.

  • goog22

    Jason AR style weapons don’t shoot farther or more accurate or more lethal than hunting rifles. AR15 actually use much smaller ammo than many hunting style rifles.

    • cody

      what the hell is wrong with you? The mans got a point here, and if that’s not clear for you, then something is wrong with you.
      You need assault weapons just to do massacres with them, not for defense, not for hunting.

      • dropdufn

        Well good thing an assault weapon wasnt used in Colorado.

      • G

        actually the 5.56mm round is subpar, its simply lacks the stopping power which is why the US military is looking for a better round. Th AR-15 is not an assault rifle in no way possible. AR stands for armalite the creator of the original design. Commercial AR-15 have only created advances in the Military weapon the M-16(a true assault rifle). An Ar-15 in the hands of me is only a recreational device. In the hands of a moron is a accident waiting to happen, JUST AS HE COULD HAVE WITH ANYTHING INCLUDING A CAR. Its amazing how people let things get bad without doing anything to stop. Someone could have been legally carrying a took this sad excuse for a human being just a easily as PENN STATE could have stopped a child molester. I carry and believe carrying a firearm legally should be treated the same as those who sit next to a emergency exit on a plane. They should act to help and assist others not run and flee.
        MY RIGHT TO ARMS ALLOWS ME TO:
        deterring tyrannical government
        repelling invasion
        suppressing insurrection
        facilitating a natural right of self-defense
        participating in law enforcement
        enabling the people to organize a militia system

    • Alfred Garcia

      Exactly.They are not for hunting deer or wild boar.They are for gunning down people.The AR-15 uses a .223 round which was designed for close quarters fighting but thankfully they jam up frequently(which saved a few lives in Colorado).Why this gun is so easily purchased by any lunatic is a question that every candidate should answer but they are afraid of the gun lobby led by NRA.Why Mr Holmes was able to have 5-6,000 rounds of ammo delivered to his apartment is another question to be asked.

      • dropdufn

        Actualy ar-10’s are excellent for culling wild boar herds on ranches at night. Think about this, if the police think they need such weapons for the protection of the public, why wouldnt you need it also?

        Nothing wrong with 6000k rounds sadly only have about 1.5k at the moment. Wish I had a 25k student grant to blow on crap other then school, recreational shooting can be a bit pricey, especialy when you get into .308 and 45acp rounds so when you see good deals its smart to buy in bulk.

      • Matt

        The .223 was not designed for “close quarters fighting”. It was designed for shooting varmints. The government adopted its designed and made some changes calling it a 5.56mm (used by the M16). It was adopted so that troops could carry more rounds in combat because it is significantly lighter to carry 5.56mm rounds than to carry 7.62mm rounds.
        Who of you actually believe CRIMINALS will follow the Gun Laws? Gun control only disarms LAW ABIDING CITIZENS!

    • http://n/a sharon joyce

      So it makes a smaller hole in the person who is shot. Are you crazy?

  • Borko

    The most moronic comment is “Drunk drivers kill, should we ban fast cars”….no, cars are not made as lethal weapons, they are made as a source of transportation. Weapons of any kind have only one use, to harm people, they are produced as a mean of war.

    • dropdufn

      And a means of protection, means of putting food on the table, means of recration, etc, etc…

      As stated earlier, over 4 times as many firearms in the country as registered vehicles yet more people die from vehicles then firearms in this country. Where is teh outrage there?

  • TONY

    THE DINGLE SHOULD HAVE eaten GEORGE!!!!!!!

    • Maximus

      The dingo, you mean the dingo should have eaten George.

  • David A. Laibow

    Mr. Alexander (whose acting I admire) is partly right: assault weapons should not be in the hands of the public. On the other hands, if they were unavailable, the Aurora shootings would have taken place with handguns, because of how many shots you can fire if you have a weapon in each hand with long magazines.
    I am a former resident of New Jersey, and I think that state’s firearms registration law is a model for the nation (I live in the Philippines, where non-citizens can’t own guns, but a high proportion of the adult population is armed (and banks and fast-food outlets have signs asking patrons to check their guns with the security guards [who typically carry a 2-shot pistol-grip shotgun] at the door).
    The New Jersey law requires a 6-month waiting period before you can make the actual purchase from a registered gun dealer. If you want a carry permit, you file a petition to do so with the Superior Court of your county of residence.
    A person who wants a gun illegally can always obtain one, of course — you don’t even have to go to New York City or Philadelphia, there are plenty available for sale in urban areas. But the law does not conflict with the Second Amendment. The solution, as I see it, is a waiting period to weed out criminals and the unstable, and also life imprisonment without the possibility of parole if you commit a crime with a gun, or act in concert with someone who commits such a crime. Most people who are going to commit a gun crime won’t be deterred by such a penalty, but the penalty can be applied, short of a death penalty.

    • PatriotPete

      Benjamin Smith, in the 1990’s this man killed a basketball coach for northwestern university and several other people in the chicagoland area. He was NOT supposed to be able to buy a gun legally with the risk of going to jail if he tried. Illinois has a 3 day wait, more than enough time for the state police to find this out. After 3 days Benjamin Smith went back to the gun shop and was told that he couldn’t get the gun. His money was refunded and the state police NEVER showed up. He then went and got a gun illegally and went on a murder spree.
      Wait times aren’t the answer, and you’ll never get all the guns off of the streets.

    • http://facebook ml

      I wanted to correct myself before it would have been rightfully brought to my attention. I meant to write 2007, not 2010. These numbers are also backed up by the CDC. Sorry about that.

  • http://facebook ml

    I don’t know what the answer is. According to Time magazine we had over 31,000 firearm deaths in 2010(I picked a year from random). That includes murder, accidents, suicides, etc. I don’t know any of those 31,000 personally, do you? Maybe if it was someone I loved or cared about that was killed I would have a definitive answer. Maybe we just like to shoot each other. Maybe it’s violent movies, violent video games, violent song lyrics even though other countries get those same movies, songs, and games and it is not happening in other countries like it does here. We’ve had 4 assassinated presidents, murdered civil rights leaders, thousands upon thousands of dead citizens but dammit there might be a zombie apocalypse heading our way and I want to be prepared. Seriously I have no problems with the weapons, what I don’t like is being able to go on the internet and buy ammo by the thousands like you are buying toothpicks. As a military vet I am always running into civilians who act like their latest weapon is an extention of their penis. My answer is always the same, if you wanna play with the big boys then get your ass down to the recruiting station and sign up. That hardly happens though. Suprised? Not me. Anyway we will have the same conversations the next time this happens and if our short 200 plus year history has taught us anything, it WILL happen again. We don’t build much in this country anymore but dammit when it come to gun violence we are still the best in the industrialized world!

    • mkimber

      ml, you are right on here…I have always thought the exact same thing about playing with the big boys..especially everyone so addicted to playing “fake” military video games to obsession and civilians with their guns. Yes, by all means, go volunteer to serve! We do indeed lead the industrialized world when it comes to gun violence, so horrible. Thank you for your insightful comments!

  • PatriotPete

    Sir: The 2nd ammendment was placed into the constitution NOT so the People could hunt or shoot for sport BUT to protect THE PEOPLE from a tyrannacle government. Even if you do not believe that at such a time as this time in history that our government is going down that road you Must believe that somewhere down our future we Could go down that road. The founders and authors of the Constitution stating that fire arms shall not be debarred use of freemen thought that that would mean that ANY arm that the government used SHOULD be afforded to THE PEOPLE, fore if the government took up arms against THE PEOPLE how else would WE THE PEOPLE be able to defend ourselves against these same types of arms used AGAINST us? And yes I believe that if a person could afford a military jet with all the trimmings they Should be able to purchase said jet.
    I hope to God that we never ever need to go to that place BUT, if we need too we should be ready. Look at owning one of these firearms like you would a health insurance policy, you have one you hope you won’t need one but if you do you’re glad you got one.
    One more point, in all these years we have never been invaded onto our shores… do you wonder why?

    • PatriotPete

      Oh yes, if you look at Switzerland the people all have firearms, military in use.

      • tp

        Let me guess, we’ve never been invaded because we have paid large sums of money to arm our military? Wait, you were going to guess ,because the American people were armed with assault rifles waiting for the invasion. We also pay good money to arm our police to protect those of us who want to live in peace from wanna-be Rambos like yourself. I hope you’ll live an easier life in the future by not arming yourself anticipating the “big” invasion you feel you’re protecting America from. Here we all thought the real heroes were the ones in American military uniforms, we didn’t even know about you. lol

  • Russell

    Jason (George) is showing us that his role in the sitcom shows his true mental capabilities and or limitations!

  • George Hashower

    To argue that an AR-15 (M-16) is of smaller calibre than a hunting rifle (normally a 7.62 mm) is immaterial to the issue. Mr. Alexander is absolutly right when he says they are more lethal. They are more lethal because of their capacity and rapididy of fire power. Any ligitimate hunter needs only a weapon that uses a manually operated mechanism to re-load the chamber. A bolt action, lever action, or pump action weapon with a magazine capacity of two or three rounds is sufficient for hunting purposes. Anyone who argues that a weapon that will fire and reload as fast as one can squeeze the trigger with a mega magazine capacity does not argue from a hunters perspective. It is more like Rambo identity complex. I totally agree with Mr. Alexander that such weapons should be banned from public access.

    • woodrow minchener

      The second ammendment gives the right to keep and bear arms not just hunting rifles. The most sane statement regarding this subject is that if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns. If this coward had believed that half of the people in the theater were carrying guns would he have attempted his assination? And if he did would he have made as many kills. I bet there are many people who lost love ones who wish that many people would have been armed that night. Most any gun can be modified. Guns are not that hard to fabricate. Taking guns out of the hands of good citizens would only make it easier for those who wish to do evil. Its just common sence. That’s the problem. No common sence.

      • tdog

        If half the people in that theater did turn around and start firing I’ll bet there would be far more than 12 funerals being planned right now.

    • vspk

      You are an idiot. A shotgun with 3 buckshot carries just as many pellets as a loaded assult rifle.
      Everyone forcing strict gun control is just making it easier for the criminals in this word to get guns by disarming the law abiding people.
      How about all the fat people in the world blame spoons for their weight gain, then people like you can chime in and try to ban spoons…

  • Margo

    I am European so I totally don’t get this. Are you really going to tell me that it is completely ok to own assault weapons… or any armed weapons for self defense? In case you are not living in a war zone or something, situations in which armed self defense is justified are quite rare, I guess. My point is, I don’t care what your father, or constitution, or Thomas Jefferson says, If anyone can legally get a weapon for no reason, something must be wrong. I just don’t get it, you see people shooting their neighbors in a blackout every now and then and still you refuse the idea of arm control? Really? I just can never wrap my mind around an idea that if someone decided to own a weapon, they would never ever consider using it against someone. How do you know.

    • dropdufn

      Is Switzerland not part of Europe? Most households have a issued military assault rifles. Most here in the us do not have assault weapons when refering to ar-15’s and what not, the civilian owned versions are not fully auto capable and or multi fire capable so they are not classified as assault rifles.

      Anyway by your logic the availability of scary looking objects in Switzerland one would think most of the population of Switzerland would be wiped out by now.

    • Ziggy

      if you dont like our guns laws….! GO BACK TO EUROPE….!!!

    • RAvenskeep

      @Margo
      The problem is Margo, we do live in a war zone. When a seemingly normal medical student can walk into a crowded movie theater and open fire on people he neither knew nor cared about, except as targets; when muggers can stop you on the street and beat you senseless and rob you; when crack-heads can break into your house and rob, beat, rape, and kill you – well that is the line that defines a war zone.
      I do not support unlimited gun dispersal, not like Eric Holder, Barack Obama, and George W. Bush before Obama, as I believe there needs to be some forms of check before selling someone a gun, and if that requires a few days to wait until that person gets that gun while their background is checked, their mental state is checked (not easy in a country where the government has terminated most psychiatric medical facilities) and then they can have their gun, so be it.
      But, I am fairly old, I have never committed a crime (other than a few speeding tickets) nor have I ever been analyzed with a mental issue, so, by my lights, if I want to purchase a riot shotgun and an M16 to protect my home, my wife, my property, I should have that right. “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    • Steve

      Perhaps people would have a very different view with regard to the general population owning of firearms if they experienced anything similar the current scenario playing out in Syria.
      I am sure some will say “This is America, that will never happen.” I would offer that it very much HAS happened.
      For those who put absolute faith in the protections afforded by our military and police organizations when it comes to the livelihood and safety of your loved ones, with all sincerity, more power to you. I WISH that I felt I had the luxury of that faith. That would be a beautiful and perfect world – unfortunately, that perfect world requires complete harmony among individuals with regard to alignment of life outlook, ranging from personal liberties to how an individual is impacted by the “greater good” of the national community.
      Unfortunately, this is a far from perfect world, and it will always be that way. That changing is about as likely as the judicial and corrections systems are effective at simply banning those that would do us harm, from street criminals to those corrupt individuals that are in positions of authority,law enforcement, etc.
      There is no perfect system. I fully believe, if a person is good enough to be taxed, they are within their right to have the opportunity to acquire what is optimal in providing an environment of protection for themselves and those for which they are responsible, so long as they make every effort in avoidance of oppressing other law abiding citizens.
      Things that one cannot wrap their minds around become all too clear when the loss is personal.
      Regards.

  • http://thepedestrianchristian.blogspot.com/ Alex Guggenheim

    The largest mass murder, that is serial killing mass murder, in modern history was done by…POISON, at a hospital!

    • dropdufn

      Ban teh H0spitalSSs!!!1!

  • silvermike

    I was living in Oklahoma when the federal building was destroyed with 168 people including 19 children in the day care. That bomb was built with racing fuel and ammonium nitrate fertilzer. Of course Alexander is probably an organic food zealot and heaven forbid he even knows the meaning of the acronym: NASCAR. Too bad Holmes didn’t stay in California and rake havoc there. Could it be cause it just isn’t worth the trouble, or since he was an academic himself, maybe he’s a liberal plant. ABC did try to make him a tea-party member and had to apologize. God bless the USA and it’s freedoms, include the freedom to put up with idiots like Alexander.

    • Mary

      I think you are a sick idiot. Why didn’t he rake havoc there. Are you some kind of sick twisted fool. Killing people in WRONG no matter the area.

      • Donny

        His point here, Scary Mary, is that the weapons used in this crime were all “California legal”!!! They have strict regulations about magazine capacity.

        All Silvermike said was that it was too bad he left California instead of committing his crimes in Colorado. Seems like you are looking for anyone else to attack and blame for 1 person hellbent on hurting others!!! Who would have done worse with violations to our 2nd amendment!!!

    • Mary

      Silvermike, Seek help you need it. Fool

    • tp

      Silvermike, I might add, we need more idiots like Mr. Alexander and less intelligent , sophisticated , people like yourself. Gun advocates believe the ability to kill is a right, as some of the scariest legislation ever passed, has come into existence within the last decade or so. Republicans can be very proud of their passing of “castle doctrine” legislation. Not to mention the onslaught of “carry and conceal” permits to anyone who can fill out the paperwork and has a few bucks. (Mental capacity is not an issue of course) No offense Silvermilke!

      • GB

        Quite a sweeping generalization there, TP. I suppose it never occurred to you that some people, such as myself, enjoy target practice as a sport. Really though I am in a sense killing a tree by shooting at paper targets. Also, how do you suggest dealing with a home intruder intent on stealing your possessions or far worse? Reason with them? Have a heart to heart healing moment?

    • PeterB

      I wonder what Thomas Jefferson would say today? I’m sure he would have a different opinion. Most people in the 1700’s didn’t have guns to protect themselves from their neighbors, they had them for hunting food. His words came as a result of his hatred for Britain and his resistance to the british military that were policing the streets of America. Besides, Jason Alexander was not speaking of normal guns. He was appaled at the kind of guns this man was allowed to purchase. He was only one man, not an army. A person in that theater didn’t need to protect himself with a gun that shoots off many rounds per second. Those types of guns are purchased by people who have some perverse sence of security whenever they carry those types of weapons.

      • http://facebook dc

        I agree. Who are we afraid of? Little freckle faced Andy down the street? Stop bringing up other issues such as drunk driving or poison.. C/mon, that is apples and oranges A drunk driver did not kill 4 of our Presidents. A drunk driver or poison did not kill MLK or the people at Columbine, Va Tech, Killeen,Tx, Aurora.I also liked what the military vet who posted. You wanna have an assault rifle then get yourself down to the recruiting station where you really have to know how to use one. One last thing why are a vast majority of these mass shooters white boys/men? Maybe little freckle face Andy IS the one we should worry about afterall.

    • http://facebook pl

      SilverMike, a liberal plant??? Seriously? Are you one of those paranoid guys who sees other people taking away the America you grew up with and love? It’s gonna be alright, I promise. LOL.

  • RAvenskeep

    “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson

    Need I “quote” more?

  • ratsoup

    I have owned guns for many years, all types and all variations. I worked in a gun store for a few years, and saw all type of people buy all kinds of guns. The majority of owners are normal human beings who enjoy shooting. If you take the number of gun owners, and the number of maniacs who use them in horrific manners, the percentage would be miniscule. However, the damage done is beyond comprehension. I understand the arguments on BOTH sides of this discussion,and I do agree with both sides. No one needs fully automatic weapons. No person can tell me that the need exists, if you think that the zombie Apocalypse is coming, you probably should not have a gun! The problem that gun owners have, and it is a reasonable belief, is that if some guns are banned, all guns will eventually be banned. I will close by saying this, my heartfelt sympathy goes out to all victims of gun violence, but if only a few of those people were able to carry a handgun, perhaps the number of victims could have been reduced.

  • karyn

    Guns are illegal in Canada. Do a little research as to the number of gun related deaths in each of our countries. You do the math. You draw your own conclusions.

    • Elaine

      ^^Karyn, you are wrong. I believe you need to do some research SMH.

  • PeterB

    I can’t believe that someone would make the argument that if we don’t get rid of tomatoes because a tomato killed someone, we shouldn’t get rid of guns for the same reason. Wow! Cars may kill people by accident but that’s not what their made for. Guns however are made to kill. The thought, the design, etc. is all based around moving a bullet out of the barrell and into the skin of another human being. How can we justify that? Products are going to do what their designed to do. Clouds are in the sky for a reason. Yes, sometimes they produce lightening that harms people but they are designed to produce rain which gives more benefit than harm because that’s what their supposed to do. Guns are designed to harm people. Occasional good may come from it but the harm will always out weigh the good. Lives are occasionally saved because people don’t wear their seatbelts. But for every story like that there are 10 where they lose their lives becasue they were not wearing it. Life is statistics and we always have to play the numbers on this stuff. That’s just the way it is!!

  • http://n/a sharon joyce

    couldn’t agree more with jason. guns have no purpose other than to kill. get them all off the streets. on the otherhand if you need one for legal reasons, get a permit and go through the process. what is the nra afraid of.

    • Marshall

      You CLEARLY have no idea what you’re talking about. Go get educated on the current gun laws BEFORE you speak your mind about it.

  • John

    Guns are illegal in Canada because the citizens there are too stupid to know how to load and use a gun.

    • Elaine

      John is clearly a misinformed idiot ^^

  • http://n/a sharon joyce

    I agree with Jason, guns have no purpose other than to kill and if you need one you should have to get a legal permit. What is the NRA afraid of. Try it for a while, everyone who needs a gun getting a permit,and see what happens.

    • ratsoup

      Some states have great laws on the books now, including the state that I live in, Mass. Any gun owner here went through hunter safety courses as part of the licensing process. A mandatory background check is also required, and for a License To carry,LTC, the chief of police in your home town decides on whether the License for a handgun is issued. When the Licenses are to expire, the background check is done again, to make sure that you are still able to keep the license. Any gun owner involved in any Domestic violence, including a restraining order, the guns will be removed from the home, and placed in a legal gun storage facility until the court decides if the guns can be returned to the owner. Some cases are frivolous, but, I have been to homes and seen battered women, and I find GREAT satisfaction in removing these guns from these men. I have yet to remove guns from abusive women, perhaps because they are armed, and not easily abused !

    • TheJohnykat

      I have a legal permit. It is called the 2nd Amendment.

  • Marshall

    The best analogy I can think of would be guns and alcohol. Alcohol serves no purpose other than to alter the drinkers state of mind and inhibit their decision making. Alcohol, whether by consumption or drunk driving, kill wayyyy more people than guns. Not only does alcohol kill more people, more INNOCENT people die from drunk drivers than from guns. Do you remember how prohibition went? Gun bans will be so much worse because it is the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. Banning guns will serve no purpose. The citizens will be defenseless and criminals will still have guns.

    • Zach

      Exactly!!! Well said!

  • Lola

    I never understood the casualty in which one could purchase a weapon. To even get a gun permit. To say we have gun control is laughable, seriously, anyone, anywhere, anytime can apply for a gun permit and receive it. Their background check, if one is done, can show crimes but it’s up to some higher up to determine if the crime warrants him/her not to possess a weapon. Everytime there is a shooting, or a massive shooting people wonder how did this happen. Seriously……it happened because guns are allowed for anyone. I suspect that until a shooting happens to one of the high ups loved ones, nothing will change at all. This world is in a very very bad way. Very sad.

  • RevWayneW

    Such deranged ‘Mouths from Hell’ don’t even deserve our Nation’s Freedoms – ‘Our Constitution is only for a moral and religious people’ – FOUNDING FATHERS

  • John

    The USA is number one in gun related deaths. By making guns illegal, the death rate would drop significantly. This is without question. While the gun nuts argue that if guns were banned, only bad guys would have guns. While this may be true, the net affect would be a DRASTIC decreas in unnecessary deaths. Again, this is undisputed and only a fool would argue against this fact.

    • kevin hoyt

      if that was truly the casethen why did the armed home invasion rate increase in austrailia immeadeatly following thier ban on private gun ownership?

      • John

        Please look at the numbers. If what you say is true, then it was merely an anomaly. Look at the numbers. The countries with the toughest gun laws have lower death rates per 100,000. Canada, Germany, Jaopan, Singapore, Sweden and Australia.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_death_rate

        While there may be a few exceptions, it is clear that tougher gun laws proportinately lead to less gun deaths per capita. This is unarguable.

        • Donny

          Okay…now lets look at the states that allow concealed carried weapons!!!

          Every state that allows concealed carry had seen a significant drop in ALL crimes!!! This is because when the criminals don’t know who has a gun…they get very tentative about getting shot at when they are committing their crimes! So you get to benefit from those laws and not HAVE to carry a gun on you!!! Make sure that you check THOSE numbers!!!

          In a 1998 book, More Guns, Less Crime, economics researcher John Lott’s analysis of crime report data claims a statistically significant effect of concealed carry laws on crime, with more permissive concealed carry laws correlated with a decrease in overall crime. Lott studied FBI crime statistics from 1977 to 1993 and found that the passage of concealed carry laws resulted in a murder rate decrease of 8.5%, rape rate decrease of 5%, and aggravated assault reduction of 7%.

          Now correct me if I’m wrong, but, ANY decrease in these types of crimes is a value!!!

      • Mike Kennedk

        Yes banning guns would have some impact on the number of gun related deaths. However why should the rest of us law abiding gun owners pay the price for 1 crazy person every few years. If we are so concerned about “saving lives” lets ban alcohol. I am way more concerned that I may be killed by a drunk driver than anyone with a gun and how about all the lives that are affected by alcohol and drugs.This is a way larger problem but nobody’s talking about banning alcohol. What happened when we banned alcohol ? We had a little thing called prohibition which was the base for the organized crime we have today. What you Liberals don’t understand is that guns to us “GUN NUTS” are like Football and Baseball to others. It’s a family sport and we are going to defend it to the end.

  • kevin hoyt

    I’m sorry to have to disagree with such a knowledgeable person,(yeah right) but asault weapons do NOT carry a more lwathal payload or shoot farther or more accurately, than a hunting rifle. Quite the opposite. In fact assault weapons are small caliber compared to most hunting rifles and have a much more limited range. They are designed for ease of operation in close combat (including home defense) with shorter barrels, meaning less accuracy and power. So before trying to tell everyne that they are more deadly than a hunting rifle perhaps you should actually compare the ballistics. thank you

  • William

    Maybe if a politician had a close one hurt/killed in a massacre they would feel gun control is needed. Or if anyone was against gun control.

    • r

      Please tell me more about how criminals follow laws…

  • Stephen Lynn

    Jason Alexander is just another liberal actor following popular actor code. he uses his fame as tool to express his opion. Of corse he’s he’s an idiot. I could never stand actor’s, etc. that use high profile to try to express their opion and sway their fan base. to use the tragedy (from both sides) is unconscionable. Besides he has no idea of what he’s talking about.
    I only hope he keeps his a–, his money and especially his mouth in California. Repete “what an Idiot”

    • Azalee Turner

      At least Jason Alexander can spell or know how to use spell check.
      Most of the ignorant comments are from people who cannot spell the simplest words.
      So, is ignorance the reason their thinking is so off base?
      This is not about gun control. It IS about protecting all of us, including policemen, from assault weapons. Regular guns and rifles are NOT assault weapons!
      Think, people, think.
      Thanks to Jason and many other sensible Americans, we have a chance to keep our families safe from the few mentally ill persons in our society.
      Stop letting Fox news and its kind mess up this nation with fear and hatred.
      We do need assault weapons control. Or else we will always be at great risk for other Aurora, Colorado tragedies.

      • Donny

        With a ban on guns that only LOOK like assault rifles is going to to NOTHING!!! Ban ALL guns will be next, and that will, of course, bring more tragedies like the Oklahoma City bombing!!! then what will we blame or ban?? This is NOT a gun issue…Probably the very first EVER crime of this magnitude with his tools of attack being purchased legally!!! So because it happened ONE TIME we should ban these guns forever…right??

        With drunk drivers killing, maiming and physically altering peoples lives forever (much like THIS crime has done,)does that mean that the Government should ban alcohol again??

        Before you attack the alcohol/car reference…The people involved in crimes like these (Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, etc). Were ALL people that skated along under the radar while they watched where to attack for the most damage and the biggest news story. Banning ANY type of gun would only exacerbate the situation with these people with some kind of short circuit in their heads causing them to WANT harm their neighbors!!! No gun control will stop that…not ever!!!

        Oh and Azalee…Attacking someone because YOU used you spell check shows just how uneducated you are on this subject!!! Most doctors can’t spell things very well. Yet they know more about your body than you do…something to think about next time you want to insult someone for their spelling!!!

        Just be glad that the guy next to you on an elevator could possibly be carrying a concealed gun. Because if another “short circuited” person with a gun/weapon of ANY kind attacked you…he could be the man to save even YOUR life as well as his own and others around you both!!! Any gun ban/regulation would prevent your survival!!!

    • http://yahoo Andrew

      actually Stephen are the idiot the man voiced his opinion. You do not have to agree with the opinion but it does not make Jason wrong. Nobody is going to change their mind because of an opinion from someone famous. By the way I don’t even like alexzaders work an I am not a fan but he is still has the right to his views without being insulted by a first class moron such as yourself

  • Dan

    What good is gun control? None. Do you think a criminal is going to pay attention to gun control laws? That will leave the people who are trying to protect themselves against a bad element helpless. Gun control will lead to more crime and murders. Look at the murder rate in countries where gun control thrives. Guns are not the problem.

    • Alex

      7 deaths in Japan this last year. Over 11,000 in the US.

    • Grunge50

      The “murder rate” is far lower in European countries, where there are much stricter gun controls.
      also, surprising as it may be to some, there are less accidental gun deaths.
      All has to do with the mentality of the testosterone boys. Can’t succeed in other things, so they take out their fury by having guns.

    • Steve

      Yes, the death statistics are much lower in other countries where gun control laws are enacted. For goodness sake – do you really want to be in Japan or most of Europe? By all means, let’s try to eliminate much of what is American about America, and make it just like those places. Let’s just give our property and livelihoods to those who would take it by force.
      Testosterone? For pity’s sake… Grunge50 – I assume you’re male. Be a male. To laugh at those who would equip themselves for the purpose of protecting their “herd” from potential harm is sickening. Otherwise, it sounds as though you think whipping out the cell phone and calling the police in a time of such distress is a suitable and only line of defense against such things.
      So, have a hearty laugh and label what I call being prepared as paranoia. So many people think, “oh, that would never happen to me”, until it does.

  • Scott

    I always thought this guy was likely a dumb ass. He confirmed my suspicions.

    • John

      He’s a dumb ass because his opinion differs from yours? Wow.

  • Dan

    why is this such an issue? Why is there never any compromise in the right wing agenda? Alexander never said guns should be banned, he said assault rifles should be banned. I think most Americans would agree with that provision.

  • Scott

    Politicians prefer unarmed peasants.

    • Donny

      Unfortunately they have so many that are drinking the Kool-Aide that they are continually trying feed to us as well!!!

  • NRA memeber

    I know what house I will break into if I get that chance, um Jason. However if you want to know where I stand on gun control then break into my house once and you will soon be educated. However, lets say for a moment you have a valid argument about assault rifles, among other thing you feel the gov should place more restrictions or control, where does it end? We have seen all too often when the Gov begins to involve itself in regulation how good intentions goes array.

    First it will be the fact that someone gain access to AR-15 to carry out his/her sick plan. Then what happens when guns regardless of caliber began to be banned and the only thing left are steak knifes? Are we then going to start putting bans on them too? This rhetoric talk about gun control is no more than a knee jerk reaction to a tragedy, which regardless of restrictions that are in place, was going to be carried out.

    I will sum up my point with this, if you still think that we need more gun controls then look no farther than our highways. We have all kinds of restrictions and laws devoted to operations of motor vehicles on our U.S. highways, yet people still have accident and yes people still die. So how do you tackle this issue? Do we put even more restrictions and laws in place to thwart off these tragedies? Do we reduce the speed limit down to 20 mph? So what is the answer if not putting more controls on our uses of the highway systems to prevent deaths from occurring?

    • ugh

      State an arguement without bringing cars into the mix… It works against you. And I believe the point was a ban on “military style guns” being readily available to the masses.

      • Felix

        Pistols are used in the military, should you ban them as well?
        I can hunt with an (admittedly very large caliber) air rifle, should that be banned as well?

        if you do that… isn’t a slingshot essentially the same?
        it’s a slippery slope. take away one thing, and the next is easier. the one after that even easier than that one, and then you have nothing.

    • Donny

      Bottom line is that people calling these guns “Assault Rifles” are just totally wrong!!! I have noticed some comments calling the AR-15 an “Automatic” rifle as well!!!

      The fact that there was a comparison for those that are not educated on guns or the terminologies involved is for a comparison to their “dangers” ONLY!!! Making a comment that it works against you is another uneducated attack against someone that knows what he (or she) is talking about!!! These guns are ONLY “military style” in looks alone!!! Their function is that of any OTHER “style” of semi-automatic rifle or handgun available to the masses!!!

      The bottom line is that the 2nd amendment is ONLY a guarantee that we will KEEP our right to defend ourselves, our country , and our weaker older neighbors as needed!!! I pray to God that I never need to use my guns in self defense, but THAT is the REAL reason why they were built in the first place!!!

  • http://Yahoo Mike Croft

    Jason Alexander is an idiot!

  • Janet

    I remember reading a book in school about a women who killed her husband with a frozen lamb chop. Can we please ban this item to be sold in the U.S.? As Jason Alexander has said this would serve a multiple of purposes for the U.S. In Japan, the diet is not consumed by the natives because meat is bad for your health which is shown to cause high blood pressure. Japanese are known for their longevity. Also, frozen lamb chops have the potential to kill humans as a means of a weapon. Europeans on the other hand don’t have an issue with bad diet or a lower standard of living which is why they are called Europeans and not Americans. I understand they accept Americans over their so if you want gun control I am sure you can easily find your way there.

    • Greg

      Same typical stupid gun nut argument…Can you commit murder with anything? Probably, but can you commit mass murder with a knife or a lmachop, far more difficult, where someone opening fire with an automatic can pretty much kill 20 people in 30 seconds…Nice try though, maybe tomorrow you’ll be able to think clearer and develop a brain, probably not though…Too bad for the rest of us..

      • eg

        Lots of massacres committed with lamb chops… I love the sound logic of morons who love freedom so much that they advocate for locking up psychos and banning violence in entertainment. So, guns are sacred and not to be bothered but we should lock people up whom we deem to be nuts based on some mandatory psych test and censor stories and songs. Sounds like good ol’ freedom to me.

        • Donny

          A “gun ban” or ANY ban for that matter…is real freedom too…right??

      • PeterB

        I’m all for that. At least I get one good meal before I go.

      • Donny

        I’m confused Greg…Where are there automatic weapons available for sale in the United States?? That and Blaming the guns is a panic response. History can show just how violent gun related crime isn’t curbed at all by taking away ANY guns from the American people. Nor restricting sales or the ability to even buy any type of guns. How many murders and assaults have there been since the passing of the Gun Control Act of 1968??

        Had this orange haired nutcase not had these weapons he would have blown up the movie theater and the death toll would have been in the hundreds!!! At the same time…How many lives could have possibly been saved had just 1 trained citizen been able to carry a gun on them and returned fire to this psycho?? I bet he would have run away armor or not…The bullets STILL break ribs when they hit that armor!!! It would have stopped him and the 12 people that died as a result of this guys terrorist attack on the people of Aurora Colorado!!!

        Of course you can’t possibly respond to that fact with anything other that another “gun nut” comment!!!

  • mike

    jason alexander must realize that blaming guns for the massacre is like blaming his for for making him fat.

  • mike

    jason alexander must realize that blaming guns for the massacre is like blaming his fork for making him fat!!

  • http://www.uglygeorge.com ugly george

    Said Jason Greenspan (illegitimate son of Fed. Res. Chmn Alan Greenspan) has pulled the CHEAP TRICK of keywording “ugly” and “george costanza” together to plug some obscure show he did in the distant past. Ugly George thus sentences him to dwell 4ever in the Negro Housing Projects, where there are NO assault rifles & gun-control laws are obeyed…

  • Steve Ramsay

    As with many he does not hold the Constitution near, and will follow the present government to tear the rights we have apart. Without the 2nd amendment how can he believe we will not lose the others? If he trusts greedy, self serving politicians then he does not have to act the idiot. It is proven that most politicians are only interested in their own interests, and if you can see and hear you can understand that. There are many ways too help curtail murder but you will never legislate murder out of human life. They have murder in prison and majority are in cities with stringent anti gun laws. Under your sink are the chemicals available to kill many more than were.
    I feel for those people and their families but we need mandatory death penalties that are used for people that kill others without justification. Alexander is using emotional thought not the right thing in any dire situation.

    • Jeff

      I agree with Jason Alexander somewhat. As our country progresses, along with medicine, weapons, transportation, behavior, and such, it only makes sense that our Constitution would progress with us. I realize we do add amendments from time to time, but that doesn’t mean we also can’t “adjust” some of the pre-existing amendments. Thomas Jefferson and the people of his time did not have the same kind of problems facing them as we do today. Guns to them were large, very inaccurate rifles that were used in war and eventually allowed to be owned by private citizens. Today, there is no need for people to have access to the types of guns that occurred in this shooting and many other types of incidents. A handgun for protection, a rifle to hunt with, a shotgun for both (in the south lol), but no need for an AR-15, or a type of gun like this. Either this, or more strict rules should be followed by people who own guns, such as more classes, a better way to track a gun other than serial numbers that can be scratched off, or even a mental evaluation before being issued a gun. Either way, we will have to change something because there are too many people with the heart to kill people nowadays.

    • Greg

      As with many, you do not hold the constitution near, if you did, you wouldn’t be quick to lick the boots of an NRA organization that does not have the courage of its convictions and can’t read. The Bear arms portion involves militias, never once is it mentioned for individual use. But hey, if you actually believes it does, you support the right for terrorists to bear rocket launchers and grenade launchers, those are arms too…So it’s only a crime if they use them…LOL, why are you a terrorist enabler, Steve?

      • Donny

        If you wish take our (And your OWN for that matter) ability to defend against those “terrorists” that wish to harm others for zealot religious beliefs, or just the lazy guy that would rather rob that work. Than YOU are the terrorist/criminal enabler there Greg!!!

  • Toby

    One thing is obvious: arguments over gun control brings out the idiots from both sides, making it impossible to have a civilized debate over the level of bumper sticker slogans and personal attacks.

  • Bill

    Who cares what a man who plays make believe has to say about the Constitution. His ignorance about the gun used in the attack is obvious. The firearm is military in looks only. It will not fire in fuul automatic mode. It is a small caliber compared to millions of hunting rifles sold to hunt large game. He sounds like a minion of Sarah Bragy’s bunch, who spread misinformation about firearms. At least she has a reason her actions, he’s just another Hollywood type trying to get free public exposure, at the expense of the victims.

  • jerry

    Who cares what this person thinks.?Do you care what the gardener or barber care?He is a nobody.

    • eg

      George Costanza is a nobody? Who the hell are you? And is it wrong to care what “the gardener or barber care”? I certainly get an inkling that I don’t care what you think.

    • Donny

      Jason Alexander is certainly free to express his opinion just as much as those of us who disagree can give ours!!!

  • Dean

    People that use the constitution as an argument for the right to bear arms are morons. When the constitution was written, they had guns that shot one pellet and and had to be reloaded manually after every shot. They didnt have semi automatics or guns that fire 100’s of rounds a minute. The constition would have been written differently if they knew how much deadiler personal weapons would become.

    • Donny

      Hey Dean…

      The constitution does not GIVE the right to bear arms…the 2nd amendment is only to KEEP the right!!! The founding fathers of this country were all a citizen militia!!! When you say that “America is a FREE COUNTRY ACCEPT FOR…” well that doesn’t sound like FREE at all!!!

  • http://comcast gail

    Many of you are making ridiculous remarks and not listening to what Jason is saying. Gun control does not mean you cannot have a gun for protection or hunting. The idiots that have these AR-15’s & AK-47’s do not have permits and are used to purposely commit crimes. In my city alone we have had many car jackings,home invasions, in store & drive thru’s robbed, neighborhood drive throughs,killing people in their homes, sitting in a chair,in the bed, young children playing on their front porch @ yard. This is exactly why there has to some kind of control as long as we have these idiots that don’t give a flip or have any compassion for life.

    • Donny

      Gail…Do you really believe that the guns used in all of those crimes were obtained legally?? Or with the government back round check that one must still pass in order to buy one?? If you think that banning these guns will stop crime like that you are truly fooling yourself!!!

  • Ken

    I agree with Jason. There is NO purpose for military weapons, except to kill more, faster. Those redneck idiots who think that private citizens should have access to these weapons are just that-Idiots. If you want to kill a deer, use a hunting rifle. If you want to protect yourself and your family, there are handguns. There is NO GOOD REASON for us private citizens to have access to AK 47s and related weapons. Go back to watching Hee-Haw and drinking Coors Light, you morons! I stand by Jason Alexander.

    • CB

      He wasn’t using an AK-47 MORON. Learn about guns before expressing your opinions. I have hunting rifles that come out of their Locked Safe once a year for the express purpose of hunting. All of my rifles are in fact far more powerful, lethal, and accurate (and at farther distances) than the AR-15 this nutjub had in Colorado. So now they should be banned? You people that keep calling this an assault rifle are sadly mistaken. You also keep confusing semi-automatic with automatic. The military uses automatice weapons (that means when the trigger is held the gun keeps shooting – Semi Automatic means you pull the trigger once for every shot fired – BIG DIFFERENCE). Semi-automatic guns are legal and in fact used quite a bit for hunting. In fact one of our most widely used guns in the Military was the Winchester Model 70 – Which today is almost strictly used for hunting (Bolt Action – One shot per trigger pull). Just because the gun looked like a machine gun, doesn’t mean it was and if you took 2 seconds to do your research you would know the truth.

    • Donny

      If God forbid some catastrophic event occurs Ken will be begging his neighbors that have the “Musket of the 21st Century” or an AR-15 to help defend him and his family!!! It’s funny how people that hate guns for law abiding citizens like to call names. Like IO have said before…”Criminals and terrorists will find ways to obtain weapons…You bleeding heart liberals want to take away the only true line of defense against such tyranny!!!”

  • Robert

    I agree with George. The right to bear arms needs to be ammended.

    In 1996 after a shooting in Australia this happened: Under federal government co-ordination all states and territories of Australia banned and heavily restricted the legal ownership and use of self-loading rifles, self-loading and pump-action shotguns, and heavily tightened controls on their legal use. The government initiated a “buy-back” scheme with the owners paid according to a table of valuations. Some 643,000 firearms were handed in at a cost of $350 million which was funded by a temporary increase in the Medicare levy which raised $500 million. Media, activists, politicians and some family members of victims, notably Walter Mikac (who lost his wife and two children), spoke out in favour of the changes.

  • http://yahoo Tracy

    “Well the jerk store is running out of George!”

  • Andrew of the Bay Area

    I will keep my California legal AR15s, thank you very much. I have no interest in even discussing the issue with the radicalized, irrational, hateful and tyrannical left wing Statists and what they should keep in mind is that we aren’t giving up these guns or our right to purchase new ones EVER and if they want to change that, they should send the military or police, who are overwhelmingly Consitutionalists and gun fans and NOT going to take guns away from their fellow citizens.

    NRA membership is booming, “liberal” Statists. That is the net result of your whining and complaining about you innability to take away more freedoms from people. You people are so ignorant and drone-like its appalling.

  • Serg M

    Love him as an actor, but really…? if we are talking about what causes so many deaths and sadness then don’t forget about alcohol and tobacco related deaths. Evil will always exist and at what point do we stop wanting to ban everything that scares us and can cause injury or death. In prison a paper and a needle are considered a weapon. We all need to just STOP blaming individuals, groups or politics. In some states certain breeds of dogs are banned…always makes me sad and laugh at the same time..I got attacked by a chicken once…I love KFC. Good luck humanity :)

  • Jason

    I am a fan of Jason Alexander but his comments are inaccurate about the uses for an AR15. Lets start by saying that it can shoot more rounds without reloading is a large magazine is used; however, it is not more lethal and does not shoot farther than hunting rifles. The caliber of the bullet is what determines those elements. The AR15 shoots a .223 (5.56mm) bullet. Its a .22 with more powder in the case. It is used for hunting small game, home defense or target shooting. With the advancements in materials the AR platform is now being used more and more as a hunting rifle. A .308 (7.62mm) caliber is now available as a hunting rifle. It comes with small magazines and surfaces to mount hunting scopes. The platform is beginning to make a run at bein the hunting platform of the future. If those opposed to ownership of assault weapons would do some independent research (crime rates involving assault weapons, where criminals get them, etc)instead of buying into the emotional arguments based upon no facts whatsoever, you may find that millions are owned and used responsibly.

  • ken steinberg

    truth is people kill guns don’t. guns don’t hav minds or consciences, morals/ethics. it really comes dwn to choices by the individual. oh, wat ’bout the looneys? well truth there is only ’bout less than 10% of those that kill r actually lunatics. it still really comes dwn to choice. that is why we need/shld hav the death penalty but we just need to b very circumspect on applying it & when we do we shld execute immed, like the nxt day period. i def hav a bad temper but i’ve never physically hurt anyone except once in defense of my own safety/welfare i.e., self defense. therefore, i come dwn on the side of the constitutional rite to bear arms but its ok w/me w/o the hvy duty stuff. i’m ok w/just reg rifles/hand guns. luv/peace y’all.

  • Eric

    Outlawing guns will no more prevent the gun trade than prohibition prevented the production of alcohol. All prohibition did was allow those who sold it to determine their own profit margins, eliminate quailty controll and eliminate a valuable tax income for the government. The only thing that bans accomplish are to keep the honest people from owning what is banned. Everyone else will find a way. This is the nature of the “morons” you are all speaking of and in their illegal activity they will outsmart most of all the “smart” people chasing them.

  • Doug

    Let me see over 3,000 people were killed in the 911 attacks and not one gun was used. This nut in Colorado could have killed almost everyone in that building with an element there is no way to ban. I’m not going to give nuts ideas.
    I have been a police officer for over 20 years. I can tell you I have seen more death from cars than guns. I have also seen more people killed with 6 shot handguns than assault rifles.
    The 2nd amendment is not about hunting. It is about forming a local militia. The best gun they had in the 1700,s was a musket. If they had an AR 15 I am sure they would have used it. The war of independance was fought by farmers who brought thier own guns. What if something in this country happened and we needed a citizen militia. I would expect folks to show up with assault rifles, the modern day musket.
    Do people really believe the police in a national emergency are going to come save you and leave their families to suffer. You have to protect yourself. Oh and buy the way I wonder how many of these Hollywood people have armed security around them. Yeah I am sure you can just walk up to Jason Alexander’s house and knock on the door.
    That is what is wrong with liberals. Whats good for them is good and they know better for the rest of us lower class people. Good advice for people that are liberals wise up, learn how to care for yourself, one day you may call 911 and no one answers, tink about that.

    • MIke

      Jason Alexander is a fat little bitch!
      Who cares what he has to say?
      Why shouldn’t law abiding citizen’s be able to buy what they want in this free country. These are machines/tools, pieces of metal and plastic that we are talking about. I should be able to protect myself and my family in any way I see fit in this ever changing world. If the criminals have weapons, I need them too, that’s only common sense. Why do you trust military and police with weapons, if you can’t trust your fellow citizen? It’s what you do with weapons that should be illegal. Not the act of owning them. Crazy people can kill a lot more innocent people with poisons and explosives, than they can with firearms, and remain anonymous while doing so.

    • Mike

      Doug, “what if something in this country happened” What are you talking about? That is crazy paranoid talk. You comment about cars is in line with what was said about tomatos. Cars are not mde to hurt people but these guns are designed for that purposes. Yes, I’m sure these Hollywood people have bodyguards with these kind of weapons but that doesn’t make it okay.The problem is when we divide this into the “liberal” and us “lower class” thing. As a police officer you’re not alarmed that God forbid someone could be on the other end of an assault rifle aimed at you or a fellow officer? The police officers I know deserve better than that. This isn’t about “us” versus “them” and sayig that confuses the issue and trivializes the pain that a lot of people are feeling right now. And I’m not a liberal.

      • Donny

        @ Mike,

        The main thing that Doug is saying is that “responsible armed citizens” save lives!!! The other aspect of this issue is that the 2nd Amendment is NOT a right, but rather a guarantee that our right to bear arms can NOT be infringed upon!!!

        Another aspect is that these are NOT assault rifles!!! An assault rifle by definition is a “Fully Automatic Rifle” and not just a rifle with a pistol grip as anti-gun advocates keep claiming!!! This guy was nuts and had I.E.D.’s (Improvised Explosive Devices) all over his apartment. Considering how he booby trapped the entire dwelling, and it took law enforcement officers 2 days to make it safe enough to enter it, says that this guy could have killed and injured many more people had he really wanted to!!!

        Bottom line is that criminals and terrorists will get any weapons that they want no matter ANY laws that puts an infringement on our rights to protect ourselves and our families!!!

        Thank you Doug for being a public servant/peace officer for the last 20 years!!! 9/11 sure had all Americans thanking you too…

        Shame how easily the masses forget WHY there have been very few wars fought on our soil!!!

      • FREE American

        “Crazy paranoid talk”?? Really?? So being prepared is the same as being paranoid?? When a pregnant woman and her significant other (Yeah you guys that want to ban guns have destroyed the sanctity of marriage too!!!) Well if the pack a bag to take to the hospital and make a route run (maybe an emergency “backup” route or 2 as well) so that the ride to the hospital is swift and without issue, make THEM paranoid as well??

        Guns were engineered to hunt for food and defend against tyrannical opposition or defend your home, country and family from invaders. Yes a gun can kill in the hands of a trained person. Or accidentally by an untrained person, and in that respect firearms as a whole are quite efficient!!! The reason that WE own them is because freedom is NOT free!!! How many of our fathers, sons and brothers have given their lives to defend the freedoms that so many of us take for granted?? The freedom that you have, and are now exercising, to publicly speak and try to convince others that your opinions are the only right ones. were earned by the spilled blood of those Patriots that made that sacrifice!!!

        Any freedom that we have, and that you may convince someone else to willingly give away. Makes those soldiers sacrifice meaningless!!!

        Who really WANTS us to be a communist country??

        Well I mean besides you GoodWill!!!

  • johnny rivers

    I think it’s stupid to ban guns. I think its wrong period! I would like to get my hands on a nuke but I can’t. Those damn liberals. Hell I can’t even get my hands on a 500 pound bomb. Why? My grenade launcher is awesome! I can kill dear like crazy with it!

  • Kevin

    People are idiots, we were put on this earth to live and we destroy ourselves its our nature either by guns or food.

    • Jim

      I think the point became lost to some of you. He was putting the point across that the main function of a firearm is to kill or hurt, thats what it is meant for. In certain circumstances it could be to take out revenge or to protect yourself, but regardless its meant to harm either way. Having guns available lets the american people decide who lives and who dies.

      The main point of a tomato is to feed and help you live, the main point of a car is to get you from point A to point B in a timely fashion. These things are not around to help you kill or hurt someone, that argument is invalid.

      If you would like to argue something more reasonable by all mean please do.

  • Indiayque

    I’m with Chris Rock when he said…control the bullets. Make bullets cost $5,000 dollars each. There would be no innocent bystanders, no massacres, etc. Who could afford the bullets?

  • GoodWill

    It seems that, in part, the news and some of our select observations have made the world, and our country, seem more dangerous while in fact they are becoming safer. Violence in the US has dropped nearly a third in the past decade. Fifty years ago, the majority of the US population was against individuals, outside of police officers, owning hand guns. Now, even though gun ownership includes less than 50% of households, most people think we need to arm ourselves. As an individual, I know that I am more likely to accidently shoot and kill a family member or myself than a burglar breaking into my home. In fact, I rarely hear about guns saving lives other than in the hands of police officers. But I do hear many stories of the 30,000 people in the US that lose their lives to gun violence every year. One-third of those people are under the age of 20 and homicide is the second leading cause of death among 15-24 year-olds. Relative to other civilized nations, we have tremendously more guns and gun related fatalities. While I do have a concern for my own safety, I feel like a collection of guns ready to be fired at the sound of cricket is not a reasonable answer. And I do understand the desire to hunt as a cultural aspect of our society, but at what point do we say that assault weaponry is not a necessity in an advanced society that gets safer every year. So, protecting yourself from criminals, real or imagined is one thing, but allowing anyone the ability to access assault rifles with thousands of rounds of ammo is asking for a massacre. It is true that guns don’t make decisions, people do. But anyone who is buying up an arsenal for one reason or another may need examination from a regulatory agency. That is why we have them, to protect the public interest. Thanks for reading my post. Please respond respectfully.

    • Jason

      Goodwill. Your statistics are incorrect… according to the US Dept Health and Human Services, there were 1,500 accidental firearm deaths in 2010. In addition, twice as many kids were killed playing football than were killed by firearms. The National Institute of Justice reports that guns are used 1.5million times in self defense each year. The CDC reports there is no evidence that gun control reduces crime. Should I keep going or would you like to do your own research?

      • GoodWill

        Thank you for fact checking my statistics. I do not believe I stated any facts on accidental firearm deaths. I was stating facts on overall death rates due to guns. Can you tell me where you found the statistic on football causing more teen fatalities than guns? I hear about gun related deaths of teens daily in the news but I rarely hear about football related deaths. I’ve also heard a huge range of self defense stats. The problem I have is not that people should not protect themselves, it’s that we too easily allow anyone to have a gun, whether it be a hand gun or assault rifle. I have read the opposite is true to what you are saying. I read that more guns lead to more homicides while states with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun violence.

        Here is the article I read for the last part of that…

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/23/six-facts-about-guns-violence-and-gun-control/

        • FREE American

          I read that article…What a lovely written piece…

          Of Anti-gun propaganda!!!! There are so many studies that come to the same conclusion on gun ownership and violent crimes that show the violent crimes decline drastically!!! Primarily because criminals are cowards and really do NOT want anyone else in the country armed!!!

          The same cannot be said about the studies like in this article that try so hard to make it look like it’s the opposite!!! You think if these guys were REALLY that smart that they would doctor up their findings in a more uniform manner so that it doesn’t LOOK like it’s been falsified!!!

          Good luck GoodWill!!! I prefer to remain a FREE American!!! Your anti-gun Communist agenda will only cost more lives…You will change tyour mind after your family suffers a loss because you seem so hell bent of giving up the freedom to defend yourself!!!

          • GoodWill

            You sound very silly calling people Communists and saying they are against freedom. Please have some respect for other people’s educated opinions. The only loss my family has had from guns is their own lives that were taken accidently once and from suicides twice. Those were the only significant roles guns played in my family’s life. I do not know of any times our house or lives were defended since burlars typically avoid confrontation. Your views may differ from mine about what defines freedom and what is necessary reach of our government, but facts do remain facts no matter how much you want to deny them.

      • GoodWill

        I attempted to post a reference article, but it is taking a long time to post. Here is my response.

        Thank you for fact checking my statistics. I do not believe I stated any facts on accidental firearm deaths. I was stating facts on overall death rates due to guns. Can you tell me where you found the statistic on football causing more teen fatalities than guns? I hear about gun related deaths of teens daily in the news but I rarely hear about football related deaths. I’ve also heard a huge range of self defense stats. The problem I have is not that people should not protect themselves, it’s that we too easily allow anyone to have a gun, whether it be a hand gun or assault rifle. I have read the opposite is true to what you are saying. I read that more guns lead to more homicides while states with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun violence.

    • http://facebook ml

      GW, now this is one of the most intelligent posts I have read. As the Libertarians say the 2nd amendment is the most hotly debated portion of the Constitution. We really do have to look at the other amendments in the Bill of Rights to see what they say about individual freedoms. Speaking of the Bill of Rights, do you know how many Americans I have had to tell that the “Bill of Rights” are the first 10 amendments of the Constitution? They should be embarrassed. What does the Declaration of Independence say? How about The Federalist Papers? I guess that is another conversation for another day. People need to realize the Constitution was written when we only had 13 colonies (I know many who do not know that either)and we have made alot of progress since then. We had the Federal Assault Weapons Ban from 1994 to 2004. So does that mean no one could protect themselves during this time? There are people who are such a lousy shots they couldn’t go hunting? All any adminstration,regardless of party, has to do is what Bush did with the American Patriot Act. Slap a “I Love America” sticker on it under the red, white, and blue. Use words that some Americans can easily understand and makes them weak in the knees and people will gladly give up their freedoms, oh, like their privacy.

  • http://facebook ml

    Wow, I have to say I just love most of these comments which in all honesty could have been written by someone with the brain capacity of a lima bean. Jason A is entitled to his opinion just like any other American. Remember freedom of speech which is the first amendment? I doubt most Americans have even read the entire Constitution. If you asked them how many amendments there are I will bet they couldn’t tell you without looking it up. No one is trying to take away your/my “guns”….sheesh. You have to understand Jason that in some parts of the country(for example where I live) there IS a cowboy mentality. That is just the way it is. We had a news story last month where a homeowner shot and killed 2 or 3 people who broke into his home(good for him, everyone has the right to defend themselves and their property). Then yesterday we had another news story of some idiot carrying a gun into Walmart that was in his pocket. The gun discharged at the register injuring a few people including a child. Another thing you have to understand Jason is these people think they are more patriotic than someone like you or Hollywood in general. It is white southern paranoia at its best. Rumors have been going around ever since Obama became President that he was going to show up a law abiding citizens’ homes and take away their guns. Ohhhh….now that is scary! Funny that out of the 2 main candidates only one has passed such a law on assault rifle bans while Gov. I wonder who that could be? You keep speaking out Jason on the things you believe are important.

  • http://Google John Harper

    We won the war against Hitler because we had more guns then him,
    we won the war against Japan because we had more guns(bomb) then them
    We win the war agaist violent people who have no regaurd for life by having more guns then they do.
    I have a 357 Magnum that I have carried for 32 years. I have pulled it out 4 times, twice I discharged it into the ground of people with knives and baseball bats who wanted my money. I can pull out my gun in 1,26 seconds and hit a target out to 50 yards. IF I was in the theatre and that man started firing at people I would have shot him in the face with in a couple seconds and most of those people who were injured would not be injured and most of those people who are dead would not be dead
    and yes gang banger will come into you house and rape your wife or kids, kill tham beat then burn down your house because they do not care about your existance in the universe, they only way that you will stop them is at the point of a gun (AR15)
    But this statement is a waste of time because you anti-gun-nut wak-a-doodles don’t care how many innocent people die at the hands of nut jobs as long as nobody has guns.

    • GoodWill

      With all due respect, our military wins wars. We spend about $500,000,000,000 per year to insure our dominance and safety. Wars are not won by my grandmother carrying a gun. It also sounds like you live in a relatively dangerous area if you have been mugged four times? Do you think you walk in areas where you shouldn’t knowing that you have a weapon and are able to use it? And no one has ever discussed eliminating all guns. That’s a complete exaggeration. The discussion revolves around access to what I would consider a wmd since it is capable of hurting many people in a short time period. Everyone is concerned about safety. We just disagree with the way to improve it.

      • Donny

        Look up the definition for an assault rifle…Or rather here look:

        as·sault ri·fle

        Noun:
        A rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.

        semi automatic rifle

        A semi-automatic rifle is a type of rifle that fires a single bullet each time the trigger is pulled, automatically ejects the spent cartridge, chambers a fresh cartridge from its magazine, and is immediately ready to fire another shot. …

        the definitions tell the whole tale!!!

  • jaxonbox

    I’m still so FREAKING CONFUSED on how this subject gets so skewed !! I hunt and definately believe in the 2nd Amendment. But just because you’ve gone to a “gun safety course” or are a member of the NRA doesn’t mean I want you defending my life. There’s plenty of nut jobs on both sides of the coin . . . none of them need to bear arms. I don’t care if our country comes knocking on your door with grenades there’s just some people don’t need to be armed. What I do NOT like is being regulated to death. I voted strongly against our town when they wanted to make it against the law for “texting while driving”. Why? Not because I don’t think texting while driving is a fabulous idea but because if you’re going to get behind the wheel of a car you damn sure better know how to operate it safely. I don’t want the government telling me what I can and can’t do. They’re in charge of running our government. Do you not see how messed up our governement is? Putting more regulations in place doesn’t solve a damn thing. Criminals are criminals are criminals. Idiots are idiots are idiots. What could we have done to stop Jeffrey Dahmer? Nothing !! Yet his crimes were rediculous and haneous. People, please understand solving issues is NOT REGULATING them. All of these issues are already against the law. Rewording the law is not going to stop a criminal. One is not to bear arms if they cannot do it responsibly. Read up on it and see !!! One isn’t suppose to drive wrecklessly . . . your insurance company can explain that one to you. Be responsible when drinking . . . don’t regulate how many freaking drinks I can have because it’s MY responsibility to be responsible . . . hence the 21 years of age requirement. If you do drugs . . . they will F YOU UP !!!! Should we make those illegal??? Oh wait !!! They already are. So regulating the use of them isn’t gonna solve a thing.

    I do like Jason Alexander but I am gonna agree to disagree with him. I don’t think he’s an idiot but I wish he would think about what he’s saying.

    • GoodWill

      You are right about the underlying issue here. It is the reach of government. What is the role of government and why do we have the laws we do and why do we not have others? I agree with you on making drugs legal, despite how taboo that sounds. Portugal legalized all drugs ten years ago and drug use actually went down. Prisons freed up and addicts got access to help. All of a sudden, it wasn’t popular to do drugs.

      As for governments reach in other areas, laws have been enacted because there was something that needed to be addressed. People were harming themselves, companies were harming citizens, whatever it may be. This is where the role of the government comes in. Not to punish people or companies, but to protect lives and the general well-being of the country. If drinking water is being contaminated by a huge factory, it is the government’s role to regulate that building. The factory owner could care less about policing themselves as long as a profit is made. This is also true with the sale of guns and assault gear. As long as a profit is being made, companies will sell to anyone who wants to buy their product, even James Holmes. He was in the market to kill a crowd and he could easily find the weapons and there was no oversight by anyone. His desire was not like yours and mine, but it is wrong that he could so easily access thousands of rounds and an assault rifle. Others will do exactly the same. How many times will we tolerate a self-destructing society before we set aside our pride and regulate ourselves. We did it with seatbelts and catalytic converters in cars to protect ourselves and the environment. Now everyone is used to these items and car industries are still in business. The world will not come to an end if the government is able to fulfill its role where needed. We are still a far shot from a European-like government.

    • Felix

      If you stop and consider the fact that police are not there to protect you 99% of the time, you would realize that it’s YOUR obligation and responsibility to protect yourself and the ones you love.
      Police are usually 15 mins. away.
      (hence the saying “When seconds count, the police are just minutes away!”)

      I realize its jingoism at it’s finest, but there’s a healthy measure of truth in it.

      The police arrive after the fact and investigate. If you get extremely lucky and have one nearby, its just that. Luck. I don’t bet my life on luck.

      • GoodWill

        Again, no one is wanting to pull your pistol out of your hand if you are an honest, law-abiding citizen. The discussion is related to improved background checks and denying access to assault rifles.

        But what’s most likely to protect you is your police force. Yes, they are minutes away, but they are likely protecting you from the bad guy before the bad guy gets into your yard. The safest cities in the US are the safest because they have the most effective, well-staffed police departments, fire departments and school systems. So, yes a pistol will help protect you, but the government’s role is to get the bad guy before you knew that he existed. We’re having this discussion today for this very reason. Someone else has been keeping us safe.

        • Donny

          Assault rifles are ALREADY out of our reach (Unless you enlist)!!! So this should be a NON-ISSUE for you…right??

    • Donny

      Well put!!! I for one appreciate the tactful and educated way you commented!!! Not ONE name call or insult…you just expressed your freedom to state your own opinion that is opposite of another person exercising that right!!!

      At least until they ban Freedom of Speech!!!

  • Tango Down

    Mr. Alexander needs to realize that “Hollyweird’s” impressions are most definitely NOT the impressions of the majority of America. When you live day to day in the REAL WORLD, everything east of California and excluding New York City and Washington DC, you are pretty much raised around at least one gun, be it a long gun or hand gun. The problems, there are more than a few; are due to many different and sundry things. Kids being taught wrongly to FEAR firearm, instead of being taught to RESPECT firerarms is the largest one pertaining to children and forearms! Let’s face facts, WE, as American’s have the Right to bear arms (the Right and have and keeps firearms). No matter how many laws there are and believe me there are far too many laws that just serve to overlap and do nothing more, CRIMINALS WILL NPOT OBEY GUN LAWS!!!!! Only law abiding citizens are affected by gun laws! There is one law thought that we will not adhere to and that is any law that attempts to strip us of OUR Right to have, keep and use weapons in self defense!

    • Donny

      AMEN TO THAT Tango Down!!! The 2nd amendment is ONLY a promise that we get to keep our rights!!!

      as·sault ri·fle
      Noun:
      A rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.

      Hmmm…This orange haired nutcase had a “semi-automatic” rifle…NOT an assault rifle at ALL!!!

  • ellen kehr

    I strongly agree that private citizens should not be able to possess military weaponry. Most of us would agree that private citizens cannot possess atomic weapons, flame throwers, and granades; so, why should they be able possess Uzi’s and AK30’s with speedy loading devices? Signed, Ellen Kehr

    • Devo

      Private citizens can not own military weapons. The weapon used was a semi automatic.

    • Sadie

      ellen,
      Grow up. Most of “us” agree that private citizens should be allowed to pssess any weapon the enemy is allowed.

      • Sam

        Sadie – Your response to anyone who disagrees with you appears to be “grow up.” You should seriously take your own advice. You come across as uneducated and incapable of presenting a cogent argument other than “I love my guns and you’re stupid if you disagree.” “Grow up” is simply the retort of someone who doesn’t have anything intelligent to say.

        • Mike

          Still waiting on your reply Sammy. I have noticed your vocabulary is improving, have you received your associates degree yet?

        • FREE American

          Insults are ALSO used by people that don’t have anything intelligent to say Sam!!! Put THAT in your communist manifesto!!!

  • Donny

    Jason Alexander is certainly free to express his opinion just as much as those of us who disagree can give ours!!! Calling names or insulting only shows that some people have to go low to express their opinions!!! This issue is because of the latest guy to drink that Rocky Mountain Spring Water and get a beaver turd wanted to hurt innocent people!!!

    If you think that it was ONLY because he got an AR-15 legally than you have a bigger issue than “gun control”!!!

  • Donny

    Military-style semi-automatic firearms (so-called assault weapons) do not differ materially from non-military style semi-automatic firearms (one bullet is fired for each pull of the trigger) and are no more powerful than other semi-automatic weapons. Further, a bullet fired from a semi-automatic weapon is no more powerful than one of the same caliber fired from a corresponding non-semi-automatic handgun, rifle, or shotgun. In fact most assault weapons are less powerful than hunting rifles. For example, the AR-15 (a semi-automatic version of the U.S. military’s rifle, M-16), is a .223 caliber rifle. Rifles of this caliber, when used for hunting, are generally used on small game rather than deer. A smaller caliber bullet is more likely to wound the animal (and allow it to escape and suffer a slow death) than the more powerful .24 to .30 caliber bullets normally used in deer hunting rifles (see this hunting rifle ammunition chart).

    Assault weapons are not the weapons of choice among drug dealers, gang members or criminals in general. Assault weapons are used in about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes and about one percent in gun crimes. It is estimated that from one to seven percent of all homicides are committed with assault weapons (rifles of any type are involved in three to four percent of all homicides). However a higher percentage are used in police homicides, roughly ten percent. (There has been no consistent trend in this rate from 1978 through 1996.) Between 1992 and 1996 less than 4% of mass murders, committed with guns, involved assault weapons. (Our deadliest mass murders have either involved arson or bombs.)

    There are close to 4 million assault weapons in the U.S., which amounts to roughly 1.7% of the total gun stock.

    • Annoyed

      Who cares. the point is that NO civilian has the need of a gun with the proper magazine that can shoot 100 bullets in succession. (pulling the trigger 100 times. i GET IT) And the silly ass Militia argument can’t even be believed by the idiots that make the argument

      • Donny

        The men that wrote the Constitution of the United States of America cared!!! They added the 2nd amendment to make sure that if need be, God forbid, we the people are still able to pick up our arms against tyranny, injustice and for our own self defense!!!

        The “silly ass Militia argument” as you put it MUST be remembered!!! That is what truly MADE this country what it is and even gave YOU the right to be annoyed and give your opinion on this matter!!! (That was the 1st amendment)

        If you truly believe that banning the sale of a semi-automatic weapon that only LOOKS like the M4 or M16 is going to stop violent crime OR even keep criminals or terrorists from obtaining them your are diluted!!! In fact they will obtain TRUE “assault rifles” to wreak havoc on the masses…but who will be able to defend against them after you have taken away the ability for law abiding John Q. Public from getting a lightweight AR-15 that would save lives??

        You are an accessory to the murder of ANY victim of violent crimes just on your stance to keep law abiding citizens from being free to own what they want!!!

        • Joe

          Keep your damn semi-auto assault rifles, just make the clip size smaller; is that a compromise you will allow.

          • Donny

            Joe If it’s a semi-automatic, it is NOT an assault rifle!!! Also if by “clip” you mean the “magazine”…how would the size or capacity make a difference?? California already has that into a regulation for their state and there are still criminals that get them and use them!!!

            By regulating the ammunition capacity these guns can hold before a reload, while not an infringement on the guns themselves, is still not quite the right choice when calling ourselves a “Free Country”!!!

            I could personally be okay with the regulating the capacity of the magazines. However I fear that the legislation involved would make those who already own the higher capacity magazines into some kind of labeled criminals, for owning/possessing some form of contraband, and that I could NOT agree with!!!

            But I can see your point and appreciate your position on the subject. I also appreciate the flexibility/negotiation nature of your comment as well!!!

          • Donny

            The magazine ban (from 1994 to 2004) was a failed idea from the Clinton era, and will have no impact on criminal misuse of firearms, now, or in the future. It only serves to limit the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.

      • Sadie

        Annoyed
        Are you annoyed because of your own ignorance? I believe so.

      • Mike

        Who says NO civilian has the need, you? And who are you? PLEASE!

        • FREE American

          He’s the “special” guy that doesn’t realize that ALL of our military personnel are also civilians before and after they serve!!! They risk their lives so that they can own the same guns that they are issued to protect their families after they return home!!!

          Sam is a communist and will insult ANY American that defends the 2nd amendment and what it means to freedom!!!

    • Trish

      Thank you for the stats. I am still of the opinion that semi automatic weapons are unnecessary, but, other than that, I loves me my guns. I am personally for requiring a gun test before you can own/use a gun. Like a driver’s license. And it has to be updated frequently. I also believe all persons in a home with a gun should have to pass the test. And I think there should be a general safety class taught in public schools that include gun safety as well as bicycle, street, stranger, car, pool, etc. safety. Every class! Just make it appropriate for the age level. I am a very liberal pro gun person. But there are too many idiots in the world. Just look at how people drive! Education is always the answer. Oh, and if we are going to have a stupid freedom infringing Homeland Security, they better get on the friggin ball! No one noticed an individual suddenly buying massive amounts of ammo and guns online? No one thought to check that shit out? Why do we even have Homeland Security if they aren’t actively looking for stuff like this?

      • FREE American

        Excuse me Trish,

        Not to stir the pot, but…

        If semi-automatic weapons are unnecessary then what about handguns?? They are ALL “semi-automatic” weapons!!! Unless it’a a “single action” only (or SAO) revolver like a cowboy gun!!!

        Just because this ONE guy was able to buy his arsenal legally, and used those legally obtained weapons in this terrorist attack on the people of Colorado. He is not the majority of criminal/terrorist that buy black market weapons and/or explosives for their attacks!!! The weapons he used themselves are not the problem. I think education for neighbors to look out for people like this orange haired terrorist scum and get their local authorities involved!!! THAT way these kinds of events can possibly be prevented!!! Banning ANY type of gun/weapon, from law abiding citizens, will not stop these occurrences, but rather make things worse!!!

        It’s up to we the people to provide ourselves with “Homeland Security” against any domestic threat!!! The government entity with that name is looking more for the “foreign threats” to our nation!!! THAT is what will be needed to try and stop this kind of tragedy from occurring again!!!

  • Annoyed

    Go watch Dunston Checks in. This idiot hasn’t done anything of worth since Seinfeld. I happen to agree with him but who cares what he thinks?

  • Chris

    When the founding fathers gave us the 2nd amendment, it was to protect ourselves from the GOVERNMENT. It also didn’t place restrictions on what type of weapons Americans could own, so we could protect ourselves from a tyrannical government….or king…..queen…..dictator, etc..

    Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, etc. – they were/are “Gun Free Zones”, and how did that work out?

    Criminals do these terrible things, not the 99% who follow the law – remember that.

    • Donny

      So true!!! By exposing the insanity of “Gun Free Zones” and calling ALL elected officials, opinion leaders, celebrities, and businesses who support the insanity of gun control exactly what they are… accomplices to mass murder!

      I know that sounds harsh, but someone has to speak up loud enough to be heard over the cries from those who perpetuate the unilateral disarmament of responsible citizens, giving criminals, terrorists, and the deranged ZERO resistance to carry out their assaults, rapes, murders and massacres.- Dr. Ignatius Piazza @ Front Sight Firearms Training Institute

  • joanna

    well thank god mr alexander had had his say….. I don’t know what i would have done without his insightful comments.

    • tom hulsey

      archie bunker lives

  • Benji

    For all you arguing that no law abiding citizen should be prevented from owning a gun, here’s a question assuming it’s not as hard the chicken and egg paradox. Which comes first? Owning a gun or committing a criminal offense with a gun? How, pray tell, DO criminals get their hands on guns if they’re already criminals??? And at what point did those advocating for stricter gun control laws suggest confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens?

    • Donny

      First off…the 2nd amendment is only the protection of our God given right to own any weapon to defend our homes our families and our country!!! Why do you think that no other country has even tried to attack us on our own soil (Of course other than Pearl Harbor) in the last 100+ years?? Before you say 9/11 that was a terrorist attack NOT an invasion/act of war from another country!!! Well point blank it’s because we as a free people have the right to bear arms!!!

      Any zealot that wants to commit a crime of this magnitude will accomplish their goals with or without any bans on AR-15’s AK 47’s or any other military “LOOKING” weapons!!! The only thing a gun ban will accomplish for us as a nation is our inability to defend ourselves from tyranny and other crimes such as this heinous act on our fellow citizens!!!

      How about you define what “freedom” means to YOU Benji??

  • Sam

    I agree that no law abiding, non-military, civilian citizen should need an assault rifle. You folks can foam at the mouth and scream about bearing arms until you’re blue in the face, but there is simply NO legitimate reason for a civilian to need that kind of weapon. For all of you who love to quote the constitution when it comes to gun control, you all know good and well that the founding fathers couldn’t have fathomed the types of automatic weapons we have today. Things change and evolve. There are lots of things that were viewed as acceptable back then that’s no longer considered acceptable today. Women can vote, and we can no longer own other human beings as personal property (thank goodness!). I believe in all areas of life, that when you know better you should do better. It seems to me that we really should know better by now, but clearly some don’t. Eventually, the nation will forget about this (except for those who were directly affected, of course), and move on to something else. Just as it did with Columbine. Just as it did with VA Tech. Just as it did with Gabby Giffords. I don’t know how many people have to get shot before the folks who are so in live with their guns finally know better and finally do better.

    • Devo

      The weapon used in this shoot was not automatic. It is not what the military uses. The weapon i no different than the ones hunters us to kill deer. The only difference is its black(and therefore its scary). What you should be more concerned about is why know one else in that theather was carring a gun to protect themselves or the loved ones they were watching the movie with… Thats the real question(oh wait… laws only effect the ones that obey them…thats why no one was able to defend themselves from this idiot)

      • amy

        OMG yes, an armed weapon would have definitively been able to shoot through the crowd of people and hit its intended target. Totally a nice thought, but seriously?

      • Trish

        Somehow I think a bunch of packing bystanders in a crowded, loud, smoke filled theater would have made things a hell of lot worse. Anyone with a gun would have found themselves being shot at by others with guns. There were bullets flying through the walls into other theaters. Most people wouldn’t have had any clue what to aim at in all that confusion. Let’s triple that dead and wounded count shall we. Don’t be an idiot. Having hunted my entire life, there is no reason for a gun that can shoot a round a second. None. Any decent hunter worth their salt only needs one well placed bullet. But then maybe I’m the only hunter who actually hunts for the meat and not the pretty horns. But that aside, the only real change I would like to see is people are trained on guns. We have to take tests to drive cars, why not to use a gun? And those who share a house with a gun should also be required to take a test whether they want to or not. People don’t realize how easy it is for bullets to go through walls… even people for that matter. And, yes, I believe everyone should have a background check as well before buying a gun. You have to have a background check to Sudafed for pete’s sake. And there should be a limit as to how much ammo and guns a person can buy at one time. Kind of like the limit they have on cash withdrawals at an ATM. And the what the hell was Homeland Security doing? Nothing pinged online when that guy started going nuts buying ammo and guns in such quantities? Why do we even have Homeland Security if they aren’t monitoring such stuff?

        • Jonathan

          Thanks Trish, You have given me some confidence in believing I wasn’t the only gun owner who thought it through to the end… All your suggestions are reasonable in the efforts to protect our members of society from abuse and malicious intent.

        • FREE American

          Hey Trish…You keep posting the SAME comment over and over!!! lol just making a joke about the Homeland Security parts =)

          Seriously though…have you ever seen a speed shooting competition?? There are people that compete that can fire faster than 1 bullet/second and right on target!!! There ia a 13 year old boy that is ranked #4 in the WORLD (ALL ages!!!) that can shoot faster than a fully automatic Uzi and more accurately as well!!!

          So again…it’s NOT the weapons involved…it’s the neighbors/families of these people that aren’t doing something when they see odd behavior BEFORE they kill innocent people!!!

    • Chris

      Sam, you are ignorant at best, and stupid at worst.

      Quote from Thomas Jefferson –

      The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

      Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.

      I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

      “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

      The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.

      The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.

      No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.

      To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.

      I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. (Back then!)

      When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

      I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

      Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.

      The god who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them.

      And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva, in the brain of Jupiter.

      In matters of style, swim with the current;
      In matters of principle, stand like a rock.

      What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?

      The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all.

      The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.

      When wrongs are pressed because it is believed they will be borne, resistance becomes morality.

      Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread.

      The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

      The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

      God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty…. And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

      Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.

      It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately.

      Liberty is the great parent of science and of virtue; and a nation will be great in both in proportion as it is free.

      He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.

      I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

      I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

      I have never been able to conceive how any rational being could propose happiness to himself from the exercise of power over others.

      To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

      In a government bottomed on the will of all, the…liberty of every individual citizen becomes interesting to all.

      I’m a great believer in luck, and I find the harder I work the more I have of it.

      Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life: if it has been honest and dutiful to society the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one.

      The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

      Most bad government has grown out of too much government.

      Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.

      The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.

      A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.

      I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others.

      Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?

      A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.

      The right of self-government does not comprehend the government of others.

      An elective despotism was not the government we fought for.

      History, in general, only informs us what bad government is.

      If there is one principle more deeply rooted in the mind of every American, it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest.

      It is better to tolerate that rare instance of a parent’s refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings by a forcible transportation and education of the infant against the will of his father.

      The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.

      I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.

      The man who reads nothing at all is better than educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.

      I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.

      In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to Liberty.

      • Sadie

        Chris
        you are spot on!

      • Sam

        Being called ignorant by someone like you? Trust that I won’t lose a wink of sleep over that. As I stated, you all can foam at the mouth with your craziness all you want. No civilian needs an automatic assault weapon. I don’t care how much copying and pasting you do, nor how much you twist and manipulate the truth in your disturbed minds. This isn’t the 1700s, but you all clearly still have an 18th century mindset. The fact that you even started your comment with a childish insult shows your own level of ignorance and stupidity. You all act like a bunch of rabid wild animals, not rational, thinking, civil human beings. I will repeat this, but I certainly don’t expect any of you to comprehend it…NO CIVILIAN NEEDS AN ASSAULT RIFLE. Get it?? Yeah, I didn’t think you would. Intelligence, logic, and common sense always gets you people worked up. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so pathetic.

        • Mike

          Yet you still haven’t explained yourself. What is the second Amendment, all knowing one? No copying and pasting now.

        • FREE American

          Sam…Can you define the word “Assault Rifle”?? You can certainly spew some insults and your communist propaganda about guns, because you want to disarm the masses to force your opinions on the rest of America, and then when you’re called out on it. You feel the need to attempt FURTHER insults because you think you are above the rest of us!!!

          You are just as guilty of mass murder as is James Holmes by trying to take guns away from law abiding citizens.
          Because you would prefer that the rest of America be unable to defend themselves!!!

          Unfortunately when you are wrong your’e wrong!!! No amount of insults or copy/pasting communist anti-gun propaganda is going to change that!!!

          It’s the self righteous, pretentious, arrogant, insulting, conceded A-holes like you, are why the rest of the world has a hatred for us Americans!!! Ergo we NEED to be armed to the teeth. Just to be able to defend ourselves when the anti-American, terrorist, extremists come to get YOU and mistakenly attack US!!!

          You should probably defect to a communist country where you belong!!!

    • Donny

      The “RIGHT to bear arms” is a right that the founding fathers believed to be God given!!! The 2nd amendment was written to fully PROTECT that right from ANY infringement!!! Only a communist would want the public unarmed and defenseless!!!

    • Sadie

      Sam grow up…all citizens have the right to protect themselves. this means the same access to the equipment the out of control government has. after all we have the right to stand up for our freedom. To protect ourselves. Just because some screwed up young man does something stupid the whole nation should not be held accountable. And you are rong about the founding fathers. They knew how money, power, controll over individuals is enticing to individuals. And if you believe we really should know better what is your explanation for wars. Individualls standing for what they believe in, the right to protect yourself should be unconditonal as love. You are the moron. Look at your fears and face them. there are plenty of legitimate resaons for civilians to have the same fire power.

    • crispin feliciano

      your a big idiot, we have the right to buy any gun thats legal to own , if thats the case why make a ferrari that goes 200 mph are you really going to go that fast ? on a regular street? its fast because people want fast , plain and simple i dont have the right to tell you what color car you should drive i hate purple yet people buy purple cars its their choice….i want a gun with fire power why? its my right..besides jason alexander has body guards w/ guns . look at rosie O’Donnell givng tom selleck a hard time about him being a member of the nra yet her body guards have guns….fuck you dont choose for me !!!!!!!!!

  • Steve

    You fat beady eyed bastard! What a stupid comment.Its a weapon that the military just happens to use.

    • Donny

      I think you mean “LOOKS LIKE a weapon the military uses”!!!

  • Marshal

    He really IS stupid !

  • Chris

    Sam needs to move to the UK………

  • John Q.

    So who asked this Cricket Nazi about his opinion on guns anyway?

  • John Q.

    I agree that no law abiding, non-military, civilian citizen should have…

    ANY of his rights infringed upon just because some idiot with a bad hair do wanted to hurt people!!! An AR-15 is nothing more than a semi-automatic rifle that has a sinister look to it!!! I believe that our military uses an M-4 and an M-16 that both look very similar to the AR-15!!! The receiver is almost the same look as well. The one MAJOR difference is the full auto or short burst feature (Shoots 3 rounds rapidly with each trigger pull) available on the M-4 or M-16 assault rifles.

    A pistol grip doesn’t make it an assault rifle!!! Otherwise I have an “assault shotgun” (With an AR-15 style collapsible stock)!!! Even though it’s a pump shotgun that holds 9 rounds!!!

  • Sadie

    Jason,
    The constitution of the United States Of America allows citizens the right to bear arms.. This right is given to us that we may hold are selfs safe from government that decided marshall law should be enforced. But that the majority of the individuals that make up this nation may decide otherwise have the right to purchase the same equipment to defend themselves against a government out of control. Please get off your high horse and shut the F_ck Up!

    • Sadie

      Sadie,

      I’ll put this in words you might understand…

      Sadie. You ain’t no lady!

      The constitution also gives us the right of free speech— and allows classless women like yourself to use foul and abusive language!

    • amy

      Yes, the 2nd amendment gives you the right to bear arms. 2 of them and permanently attached to your being.
      In case you are UNAWARE, private citizens with weaponry are the primary cause of UNDUE casualty in civil war, or do you not watch international news?

      • Mike

        Can you sound any more ignorant? Do you know what a civil war is? Then, may I ask, how is it “UNDUE”? Do yourself a favor and go back to school; that way when you open the hole under your nose you won’t need toilet paper to clean your chin.

    • Jonathan

      The United States of America Government I presume is the Government you are mentioning that you want to protect yourself from in the event it is out of control? Do I really need to remind you… The United States has Tanks, Air Craft Carriers and Nuclear Missles… All of which are items you cannot buy or own. A million AK-47’s, M-16’s, 240-Bravo’s and just about any other hand-held gun you can think of IS NO MATCH to the power of the U.S. Government… Your argument is pointless and only illustrates how utterly dim you are. If you want to keep your hand guns and rifles for defense and hunting… Please keep them, they do not pose the same risk high powered rifles do and still provide the same benefit. If you want all or nothing then get used to mass murders happening more often, perhaps you will change your mind about legislation when its your family at risk.

      • Donny

        Same thing was said about us against the British during our revolution.

        Also most hunting rifles are more powerful than ANY AR-15 or AK-47 ever made!!! Therefore THAT argument is pointless!!!

        Finally my family IS “at risk” every single day from criminals and people like YOU that don’t want me to be able to defend them!!! Responsible armed citizens save lives!!!

        You try and remember that when you are completely and totally defenseless against some criminal that will NOT follow any laws anyway…(and I quote YOU) “perhaps you will change your mind about legislation when its YOUR family at risk.”

  • Dan

    SORRY TO SAY BUT IT’S A LITTLE LATE FOR CERTAIN PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD WHY THEY CAN’T BUT HEAVY GEAR GUNS. Hell if most guns were legal in the usa then most people wouldn’t buy them because people are buying things that are illegal. It takes all the fun out of buying legal guns and that isn’t where the money is!!!! got to protect yourself some how because the law sure wont

    • John

      You sir are completely ignorant of gun laws.

      “Hell if most guns were legal in the usa” – MOST guns ARE legal in the USA. Only a small portion of gun types like fully automatic or short barrel guns are illegal or require additional licensing depending on the jurisdiction.

      “people are buying things that are illegal” – Where is your proof of this erroneous claim? The fact is, based on BATFE and independent data, most guns are bought legally (since all but a few rare types are illegal or require additional licensing)and are of a wide variety of types from single shot to semi-automatic

      Any more false statements from you?

      • FREE American

        John…there is a black market where guns cost 3 times as much, and they are chosen out of a trunk. Or a closet, and NOT a federally licensed gun store!!! THAT is how criminals usually “buy” there guns, and commit acts of violence against those not “allowed” to carry for protection!!!

        Of course the more “bodies” (or rather the number of crimes committed with the same gun, that has ballistic evidence in police custody)the cheaper the already inflated price!!!

        Dan has some research to do with his gun law ignorance AND his belief that most hunting/defense rifles and handguns are obtained illegally…

        Good luck with that Dan!!!

  • Steve

    “Clips” are for M1 Garand battle rifles. “Magazines” are for the AR-15/M-16/M4, M14/M1A,FAL,HK-91/G3/PTR-91/CETME,M1/M2 carbine,Mini-14/Mini-30, AK47/AKM/AK74 etc…. IF you don not know the difference,
    please do not bore us with YOUR IGNORANCE. Would one of you “reasonable” people PLEASE define what an “assault weapon” is? I’ve been around military rifles for years, yet I’ve NEVER seen one that is called an “assault rifle”. The closet is the MP-43 from WW2.
    It was called the “sturmgever” (storm rifle). Additionally, would one of you like to define “milita”? Hint: it’s NOT the National Guard!
    The Founders, in their wisdom, left the American people with the ultimate “NO’ vote should the government become tyrannical: ARMED REBELLION. Consider that the NEXT time some “whack” job thinks it’s OK to kill innocent people because he’s upset. FACT: EVERY houshold in Switzerland has a FULLY automatic battle rifle in it. Switzerland also has one of the lowest murder rates in the world. I personally own several battle rifles and thousands of rounds of ammo. I am NO threat to anyone UNLESS you enter my home without permission.

    • Susan

      Jehovah Witnesses beware!!!

  • Sam

    Some of you people sound like a bunch of ignorant, uneducated hicks. “I love my guns!! It’s my god given right to have as many guns as I want!! Don’t you dare try to take my guns from me!!” Ignorant, pathetic, backwards fools. Now go ahead with your crazed ranting and raving, and copying and pasting the constitution to twist to fit your own distorted idea of what the second amendment is REALLY for. You’re an embarrassment.

    • Mike

      Would love to hear what you think the second amendment really means. And how exactly do you warrant people wanting their guns make them uneducated sounding? Or even a hick? Ignorant of what? What is pathetic? backwards fools? You must have some family like this? Inbreeding maybe? Can’t wait to hear what you have to say since it was full of big, long words… Funny!

    • Dave

      Somebody has to remind your stupidass that guns are what bought our freedom from the British crown & that guns are what will keep us from living in some tyrannical nightmare ruled by people like Bloomberg or Obama.

    • Donny

      WOW!!! Sounds like ol’ Sam is losing HIS argument…so he has to insult gun owners as a whole!!! Well how about a rebuttal now!!!

      YOU Sam are an anti-2nd amendment, anti-freedom, anti-American and are more responsible for the deaths by guns in this country than ANY law abiding gun owner!!!

      You and the rest of your anti-gun agenda help every criminal in this country and every terrorist that HATES bleeding heart liberals like YOU!!! Your anti-gun agenda and it’s “gun free zones” are both more dangerous than anything in this country!!! Stop blaming the MANY for the actions of the FEW!!! The actions of the few can be countered with just 1 responsible armed citizen!!! YOU however are the TRUE EMBARRASSMENT to this country by being an a-typical gun ignorant “scared” sheep that most likely can barely walk out your front door due to your paranoid delusions, and think that every gun owner is a whack job like this orange haired freak in Aurora!!!

      That being said…the 2nd amendment was written to protect the masses from ignorant and tyrannical followers such as yourself!!! Maybe you need to move to a sovereign state like England and leave the freedom to those of us that can handle it!!!

  • Dave

    I’m shocked that another Jew talks about gun control (not)!
    I’m certain that Jason Alexander has no problems with Israeli’s owning machineguns.
    Jews despise the fact that the Goyim (cattle as we’re called in their Talmud) have guns.
    For every article that I read about this tribe wanting my guns, I buy more ammo!

  • Joe

    The words of Alexander Hamilton quoted in Jason Alexander’s tweet was a paragraph taken from the Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers are a collection of articles published with the argument for more powers to be consolidated into a federal government instead of the state governments as they were at the time the Federalist Papers were being written, while the US was operating under the Articles of Confederation. Hamilton’s point was that the federal government needed to control a full-time military for the better protection of the US as opposed to the states putting together part-time military powers of that would not be nearly as well-trained (and burdensome to the everyday life of the working American and the economy as it would take away from time spent in personal labors) as a federally organized and devoted full-time military. The paragraph Jason quoted is not a good fit in his argument since the Hamilton quote was taken out of context. So, the second amendment is part of the Constitution as is a federally organized and funded military. It’s important to note that the Constitution provides for both.

  • Stapress

    Thank you, Jason, for your intelligent comment. As you said, the “right to bear arms” does not mean automatic assault weapons in movie theaters. If you are a hunter, then go and get your gun or rifle or whatever is your favorite method to kill that animal. Automatic weapon? I don’t think so. Less guns on the streets will mean less shootings/killings. Period.

    • FREE American

      The guns that people purchase are NOT automatics. As those are not legal for purchase, without proper licensing from the ATF. So you are complaining about nothing…literally!!!

      The rifles that hunters or gun enthusiasts purchase are NOT the guns on the street!!! If you think that violating the 2nd amendment as written will make it so that fewer guns are on the streets. then you are just as “crazy” as this Holmes idiot in the Arapahoe County Jail spitting on the guards right now!!! All gun sanctions do is take the ability away from the general public from defending against any criminal that can either steal a gun or buy one from a black market connection (they’ve done it for years, not just in the movies)

      You communists that want gun control can’t really expect the truly free people of the United States, to allow you to remove or ignore any amendments from our Bill of Rights?? The same amendments that provide you with the right to not like that we are free. However that’s all you CAN do is complain commie!!!

    • FREE American

      Also…No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished (by the ban in 1994). Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision was mainly symbolic; its virtue was hoped to be, a stepping stone to broader gun control.

      Yet that ban was lifted in 2004 as it was deemed unconstitutional!!!

      Funniest thing about this whole entire thread is…

      The AR-15 is merely a “TACTICAL RIFLE” due to it’s “semi-automatic” ONLY nature!!! A “genuine assault weapon”, as opposed to the legal definition, is a hand-held, “selective fire” weapon. Which means that it’s capable of firing in either an automatic, or a semiautomatic mode, depending on the position of a selector switch. These kinds of weapons are heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934, and are further regulated in some states. Therefore assault rifles are ALREADY banned in this country!!! So you guys can ALL rest assured that you won…Back in 1934!!!

    • j storey

      Less guns or less legal guns, the AR-15 used was not and automatic weapon I promise you that your lack of education on weapons and what they can be used for is the sole reason people are afraid of guns. A gun can sit in the corner of a safe for years and never hurt anyone, mean while a sick twisted individual stabs someone with a pencil and kills them is the pencil an asault weopon? CRIMINALS dont obey laws they are criminals so take away my rite to defend me or you for that matter is not goin to stop the CRIMINALS!

  • Jerry Seinfeld

    I just saw this Shallow Hal movie, and just discovered that the most annoying person I have ever had the misfortune to meet (I’m not going to name names, but he played George Costanza on my old show) has a tail! What a freak of nature, when you add in that he has a hairy man-ass fetish. makes me wonder why he thought it would be a good idea to say ANYTHING to ANYONE about the gun used in Aurora Colorado on July 20, 2012?
    This is coming from a man that claims to be an actor, but he “acts” the same way all the time! so when does the “acting” begin and the real “Jason Alexander” end? My wife chased him from my front door with my own personal Smith and Wesson M&P 15 (which is the same as an AR-15 only not made by ArmaLite, it’s a Smith and Wesson) and he threatened me with a tweet!
    Anyone that is willing to listen to this loser (he is definitely a loser, I know him) I fear for your you as a human being let alone an American.
    The Rabbi said that you need to stop lying to all of these nice people and get back to your spot in the hospital Jay! just how long have you been off of your medication?

  • http://google tim

    jason you are a funny guy stick to being a comedian instead of spouting off about things you clearly know nothing about

  • matt

    My Father fought in the trenches in WWII in Italy. He killed many of the enemy rushing his position. He was bayonetted thru his side and hand and continued to fight and save lives for Liberty and Freedom’s sake.

    He received the Purple Heart, and other medals(Valor) for saving lives. He defended himself on the battlefield, but….

    He never had a weapon at home and went to Church every Sunday and armed himself with the Bible and what Gods word teaches us to do. I agree with the ban of military grade weapons in the US.

    In an early post one person commented on statistics, Japan had 7 murders with guns last year(as I am reading into the post)United States of America had 11,000.

    Please note there is another matt that posts with a capital M, I have a different position on this discussion and do not bash others. If parents raised their children with the golden rule Matthew 12:7 there would be less problems in this country.