ONTD Political

Jason Alexander Speaks Out On Gun Control

10:49 am - 07/24/2012
Jason Alexander's Amazing Gun Rant
The "Seinfeld" actor takes to Twitter to call for a ban on assault-style weapons


Jason Alexander, the actor famous for playing George on “Seinfeld,” posted a long argument for a ban on assault-style weapons on Twitter Sunday.

"I’d like to preface this long tweet by saying that my passion comes from my deepest sympathy and shared sorrow with yesterday’s victims and with the utmost respect for the people and the police/fire/medical/political forces of Aurora and all who seek to comfort and aid these victims.
This morning, I made a comment about how I do not understand people who support public ownership of assault style weapons like the AR-15 used in the Colorado massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15
That comment, has of course, inspired a lot of feedback. There have been many tweets of agreement and sympathy but many, many more that have been challenging at the least, hostile and vitriolic at the worst.



Clearly, the angry, threatened and threatening, hostile comments are coming from gun owners and gun advocates. Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence – these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands.
Many of them cite patriotism as their reason – true patriots support the Constitution adamantly and wholly. Constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. I’m no constitutional scholar so here it is from the document itself:
As passed by the Congress:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution – if you’re in a well-regulated militia. Let’s see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:
“A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.”
Or from Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Definition of MILITIA
1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
The advocates of guns who claim patriotism and the rights of the 2nd Amendment – are they in well-regulated militias? For the vast majority – the answer is no.
Then 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.
Then there are the tweets from the extreme right – these are the folk who believe our government has been corrupted and stolen and that the forces of evil are at play, planning to take over this nation and these folk are going to fight back and take a stand. And any moron like me who doesn’t see it should…
a. be labeled a moron
b. shut the fuck up
c. be removed
And amazingly, I have some minor agreement with these folks. I believe there are evil forces at play in our government. But I call them corporatists. I call them absolutists. I call them the kind of ideologues from both sides, but mostly from the far right who swear allegiance to unelected officials that regardless of national need or global conditions, are never to levy a tax. That they are never to compromise or seek solutions with the other side. That are to obstruct every possible act of governance, even the ones they support or initiate. Whose political and social goal is to marginalize the other side, vilify and isolate them with the hope that they will surrender, go away or die out.
These people believe that the US government is eventually going to go street by street and enslave our citizens. Now as long as that is only happening to liberals, homosexuals and democrats – no problem. But if they try it with anyone else – it’s going to be arms-ageddon and these committed, God-fearing, brave souls will then use their military-esque arsenal to show the forces of our corrupt government whats-what. These people think they meet the definition of a “militia”. They don’t. At least not the constitutional one. And, if it should actually come to such an unthinkable reality, these people believe they would win. That’s why they have to “take our country back”. From who? From anyone who doesn’t think like them or see the world like them. They hold the only truth, everyone else is dangerous. Ever meet a terrorist that doesn’t believe that? Just asking.
Then there are the folks who write that if everyone in Colorado had a weapon, this maniac would have been stopped. Perhaps. But I do believe that the element of surprise, tear gas and head to toe kevlar protection might have given him a distinct edge. Not only that, but a crowd of people firing away in a chaotic arena without training or planning – I tend to think that scenario could produce even more victims.
Lastly, there are these well-intended realists that say that people like this evil animal would get these weapons even if we regulated them. And they may be right. But he wouldn’t have strolled down the road to Kmart and picked them up. Regulated, he would have had to go to illegal sources – sources that could possibly be traced, watched, overseen. Or he would have to go deeper online and those transactions could be monitored. “Hm, some guy in Aurora is buying guns, tons of ammo and kevlar – plus bomb-making ingredients and tear gas. Maybe we should check that out.”
But that won’t happen as long as all that activity is legal and unrestricted.
I have been reading on and off as advocates for these weapons make their excuses all day long. Guns don’t kill – people do. Well if that’s correct, I go with @BrooklynAvi, let them kill with tomatoes. Let them bring baseball bats, knives, even machetes — a mob can deal with that.
There is no excuse for the propagation of these weapons. They are not guaranteed or protected by our constitution. If they were, then we could all run out and purchase a tank, a grenade launcher, a bazooka, a SCUD missile and a nuclear warhead. We could stockpile napalm and chemical weapons and bomb-making materials in our cellars under our guise of being a militia.
These weapons are military weapons. They belong in accountable hands, controlled hands and trained hands. They should not be in the hands of private citizens to be used against police, neighborhood intruders or people who don’t agree with you. These are the weapons that maniacs acquire to wreak murder and mayhem on innocents. They are not the same as handguns to help homeowners protect themselves from intruders. They are not the same as hunting rifles or sporting rifles. These weapons are designed for harm and death on big scales.
SO WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THEM? WHY DO YOU NOT, AT LEAST, AGREE TO SIT WITH REASONABLE PEOPLE FROM BOTH SIDES AND ASK HARD QUESTIONS AND LOOK AT HARD STATISTICS AND POSSIBLY MAKE SOME COMPROMISES FOR THE GREATER GOOD? SO THAT MOTHERS AND FATHERS AND CHILDREN ARE NOT SLAUGHTERED QUITE SO EASILY BY THESE MONSTERS? HOW CAN IT HURT TO STOP DEFENDING THESE THINGS AND AT LEAST CONSIDER HOW WE CAN ALL WORK TO TRY TO PREVENT ANOTHER DAY LIKE YESTERDAY?
We will not prevent every tragedy. We cannot stop every maniac. But we certainly have done ourselves no good by allowing these particular weapons to be acquired freely by just about anyone.
I’ll say it plainly – if someone wants these weapons, they intend to use them. And if they are willing to force others to “pry it from my cold, dead hand”, then they are probably planning on using them on people.
So, sorry those of you who tell me I’m an actor, or a has-been or an idiot or a commie or a liberal and that I should shut up. You can not watch my stuff, you can unfollow and you can call me all the names you like. I may even share some of them with my global audience so everyone can get a little taste of who you are.
But this is not the time for reasonable people, on both sides of this issue, to be silent. We owe it to the people whose lives were ended and ruined yesterday to insist on a real discussion and hopefully on some real action.
In conclusion, whoever you are and wherever you stand on this issue, I hope you have the joy of family with you today. Hold onto them and love them as best you can. Tell them what they mean to you. Yesterday, a whole bunch of them went to the movies and tonight their families are without them. Every day is precious. Every life is precious. Take care. Be well. Be safe. God bless.
Jason Alexander"


Saw this on ONTD, thought it would be worth the xpost. He added an extra zero in his gun deaths statistic, but besides that I think this is pretty solid and surprising- I would never have expected this from him. Thoughts?

Also, this is my first post here in 2 years, my apologies if I did anything wrong.


picture source
article source
original twitter comments

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
bnmc2005 24th-Jul-2012 04:12 pm (UTC)
I was hoping this would be posted. It's fucking righteous.
bnmc2005 Also24th-Jul-2012 04:14 pm (UTC)
BINGO. This part...

Then 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.


And they don't taste very good in sandwiches, either. But really - a killer tomato argument?

ms_mmelissa Re: Also24th-Jul-2012 05:14 pm (UTC)
People talking about death and tomatoes always makes me think of The Dread Tomato Addiction


92.4% of juvenile delinquents have eaten tomatoes.
87.1% of the adult criminals in penitentiaries throughout the United States have eaten tomatoes.
Informers reliably inform that of all known American communists, 92.3% have eaten tomatoes.
84% of all people killed in automobile accidents during the year 2006 had eaten tomatoes.

Of those people born before the year 1850, regardless of race, color, creed, or caste,
and known to have eaten tomatoes, there has been 100% mortality!
atomic_joe2 24th-Jul-2012 04:20 pm (UTC)
Imagine George Costanza with a gun! But this is good. Might follow him looking at this.
greenwick 24th-Jul-2012 04:43 pm (UTC)
Very good explanation of the "But cars/other things kill people!". I've always had trouble parsing that one out.

And here's the sing-along version of the second amendment - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuNEq7gHqF8&sns=em
crossfire 24th-Jul-2012 04:43 pm (UTC)
As a gun owner who owns enough weapons to make half this community side-eye me, I have some insight into the culture of gun advocates. Most of their fears are deeply rooted in one idea: that the government is going to come and take their guns and leave them defenseless. (There are definitely other factors, like territoriality, machismo, and libertarianism, but this fear is core.) This is a fear they have regardless of who is in office, though it is markedly more pronounced when Democrats are in power. It is a fear that is completely impervious to logic--believe me, I've tried. But it's there, and it's the source of much of the....stridency and immovability that Mr. Alexander is talking about. It's also the main cause of most of the cognitive mismatches I see in gun discussions. Gun control arguments are by and large based on logic, and logic vs. fear isn't usually a good match.

I don't know if that'll be helpful for anyone, but I wanted to throw it out there.
elobelia 24th-Jul-2012 04:59 pm (UTC)
My family, particularly my mother, is like this. She doesn't even own a gun or know how to use one. But she is PARANOID. You should have seen her when they were conducting the census. Turning out all the lights, hiding, saying she'd pay the fine, no matter if it bankrupted her. I had to give the data myself when she was out of the house just to get the census people off her back. My mom was CONVINCED that the government would use that data to take over our house or whatever. And she is an educated professional with several degrees. It drives me nuts. Every day there's a new paranoid theory. Logic does nothing.
thefathomist 24th-Jul-2012 04:59 pm (UTC)
Dang, first that heartfelt apology to the homosexual community for that joke he made a few months ago, and now this. When did George Costanza become the classy Seinfeld alum?
totesmasc 24th-Jul-2012 06:15 pm (UTC)
do you have a link to the joke/apology? i must have completely missed that.
kaelstra 24th-Jul-2012 05:04 pm (UTC)
I totally agree with this.
mirhanda 24th-Jul-2012 05:04 pm (UTC)
Bravo, Mr. Alexander. Bravo.
oh___princess 24th-Jul-2012 05:15 pm (UTC)
Thank you Mr Alexander!


If you want to own a gun, fine, but don't use the 2nd amendment as your "right" to have it. It's full and only purpose is to kill. Unless you're on a farm hunting for food, i don't see the need to have one. When people like to site the 2nd amendment i like to remind them that it was written 200 some odd years ago when your nearest neighbor was 10 miles away, and war was going on.

magedragonfire 24th-Jul-2012 05:56 pm (UTC)
You can still go hunting wild critters in the woods even if you live in the city. Just... y'know, leave your hunting rifles and shotguns unloaded and properly locked up when you're in the house/apartment/whatever, like you should be doing anyway.

There is no reason a private citizen needs a friggin' assault rifle, though. None.
whitewatergirl 24th-Jul-2012 05:27 pm (UTC)
I'm glad you reposted it over here! It needs to be read far and wide!
seasontoseason 24th-Jul-2012 06:00 pm (UTC)
how could he have tweeted this (re: character limit)?

/i'm ignorant
kitanabychoice 24th-Jul-2012 06:07 pm (UTC)
There's some new twitter program thing that allows you to post more than 140 characters. Kinda beside the point of twitter, but there you go, hahaha.
kitanabychoice 24th-Jul-2012 06:06 pm (UTC)
This post has all my love today.
dumpweeds 24th-Jul-2012 06:28 pm (UTC)
this reminds me of the mock election we did in my civics class. I'm from a small town in the bay area and there are definitely a lot of conservatives and I'm pretty sure people here are under the impression we live in texas.

anyway, one of my party's stances was pro-strict gun regulation. of course, this upset another party who was like "GUNS FOR EVERYONE!" and during the debate, our president was like "why do you need an assault rifle?" and the opposing party was like "to shoot targets with, duh" to which our president responded "well, people are targets"

pretty sure that won us the election. I was shocked we won because we were pretty far left...
kishmet 24th-Jul-2012 06:31 pm (UTC)
a;kldfjg I love when celebs say/do unexpectedly fantastic things rather than completely ruining my opinion of them
bmh4d0k3n 24th-Jul-2012 06:42 pm (UTC)
Wow. He articulates so many things I've wanted to say but didn't know how.
amyura 24th-Jul-2012 06:55 pm (UTC)
He's awesome.
nicosian 24th-Jul-2012 07:35 pm (UTC)
I got into it with someone who was "warrgarble you libs wanna take all my guns!"

No. Not really. I dont own one, i never will. I don't need one. But...I don't want to take all the guns. I want bans on heavy artillery in the hands of untrained/unchecked civilians, I want assault rifles off the board, i want regulation, I want some kind of moderate measures that keep guns just MAYBE, out of the hands of a few more criminals. Just a few. Do that for the thousands shot for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

But all he picked up was "You want a full ban".

I want responsible gun owners to go "yes, we'd like to see this too, represent the better".

And the argument that only criminals will have assault weapons if we ban em? Must we make it so simple to buy? Shall we ban murder, since only criminals murder ( oh wait). Is the death of thousands really worth the price of your convienience?

That this guy could amass quite so much in such a short time, should have been a flag. ( dude argued at least it wasn't a bomb, ignoring i guess, the boobytrapped apartment and tear gas).

And I side eye the armchair heroes who "if they'd have been there." I side eye the people blaming costumes and movies and the theatre for not allowing guns. I side eye anyone who puts blame but where it belongs, accessibility of said weapons, the culture that just blowing the hell outta people will solve it all for you.
hinoema 25th-Jul-2012 04:44 am (UTC)
I want responsible gun owners to go "yes, we'd like to see this too, represent the better".

This sums it up, right here. The people bleating about their 'right' to have guns need to attend to the responsibility of not being a burden to society because of it. As things stand, those who exercise this right are, as a group, a burden to society, not least in terms of the lives lost.
mutive 24th-Jul-2012 07:39 pm (UTC)
Is it wrong that I sort of want a SCUD missile?

My constitutional rights! Being infringed!!!!



kira_snugz 24th-Jul-2012 10:54 pm (UTC)
based on goldeneye 64, i want a p90, a grenade launcher and some proximity mines.

and dress uniform from every unit i can get my hands on. historical, contemporary, fictional. except the hello kitty ones. that'd just be weird

;)
dustbunny105 24th-Jul-2012 07:41 pm (UTC)
Beautifully written, even with the extra zero.
antique_faery 25th-Jul-2012 12:25 am (UTC)
Do you mean on the "100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence" part?
kindergrinder 24th-Jul-2012 07:56 pm (UTC)
shhh_its_s3cr3t 24th-Jul-2012 08:18 pm (UTC)
People forget that not all actors are dumbasses. This is one of those prime examples of intelligence shining forth brightly in a sea of dark stupidity.
stormqueen280 24th-Jul-2012 08:39 pm (UTC)
Bloody hell, that was PERFECT.
conjure_lass 24th-Jul-2012 09:34 pm (UTC)
I've owned guns all my life, and I've said repeatedly that I do not have a problem with guns being harder to get. You want me to wait three weeks? No problem. You want me to take firearm classes to prove I know what I'm doing and that i'm no danger to others due to ignorance? Good, people need to know what to do with a deadly weapon. You want me to be registered with the government? No big deal. You want to run my background with every agency known to man to prove I am who I say I am and that I'm sane enough to own a firearm? Sounds like a good idea to me, i've nothing to hide and other people might.

A responsible gun owner, one who knows that guns are weapons meant to kill, is not afraid of more regulations. In fact, we should welcome them! The more regulations are set on gun ownership, the less likely that they will be banned entirely due to panic and the less loonies will wind up killing innocent people.
londonsquare 25th-Jul-2012 12:37 am (UTC)
thank you. I'm glad that there are some firearm owners who are not completely batshit. I wish the vast majority were more like you.
nadejda My experience24th-Jul-2012 09:35 pm (UTC)
I'd like to tell you about my experience from living in the country there guns any of them (except my be very few hunter's rifles) had been banned.

I am talking about Soviet Union. The country there total control had been made and you can think that if there was this ban there was not guns in people hands.

Guess what- criminals , bad guys, etc had a lot of guns and they not hesitated to use them against unarmed ordinary people and even against the policemen ( they shoot policemen to get more guns).

So if even under control of KGB such gun's bans had been ineffective what do you expect in USA?

the situation will be the same- ordinary law abiding citizens will not have guns but anyone who want to do some criminal activity will easily find gun on the black market.

By the way Russian government( which has way less democracy ) now taking in consideration the opposite law- to allow citizens to have weapons.

And guess why?

Because the examples of all post soviet countries there such laws had been established after Soviet Union crashed show that the criminal activity decreased in such countries with allowed weapons and in some it decreased dramatically. For example in Hungary murders drops 4 times since 1991.
see more http://www.newsru.com/russia/24jul2012/korotkostvol.html

http://slon.ru/russia/vsem_korotkostvol-813158.xhtml
cinnamontoast Re: My experience24th-Jul-2012 10:06 pm (UTC)
I don't think that anyone is actually advocating a total ban on all guns. That's absolutism. I think that what people are asking for is tighter control on what actually gets into the hands of ordinary citizens and more checks within the system.

There's just no reason for a regular joe to have an automatic weapon that can get off a zillion rounds a minute.
kira_snugz 24th-Jul-2012 10:56 pm (UTC)
my husband, for the first time EVER sent me a link to something political, and it was to this. i was shocked, because wtf husband, and also, FINALLY HUSBAND, and awed. it was such a good read too.

Kudos to Jason Alexander, because this is well thought out and written.
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
This page was loaded Apr 23rd 2014, 5:56 pm GMT.