Kurt Russell blasts gun control push: “I think it’s absolutely insane”

posted at 10:01 am on December 11, 2015 by Ed Morrissey

When reporters want to discuss firearm policies with Kurt Russell, they’d better bring a better game than the hapless Jeffrey Wells managed. While promoting the new Quentin Tarantino film Hateful 8, Russell got into an extended exchange with Wells, in which the latter derided gun rights as “a totem… for disenfranchised white guys,” and urged Russell to consider the possibility that people on the no-fly list could buy firearms. Russell rips the reporter for believing that people who want to kill others will refrain from doing so because Congress passed a law against it (via The Blaze):

When Wells went on to say that guns are a ”metaphor that disenfranchised white guys need,” Russell let loose.

“If you think gun control is going to change the terrorists’ point of view, I think you’re, like, out of your mind,” he began. “I think anybody [who says that] is. I think it’s absolutely insane.”

“Dude, you’re about to find out what I’m gonna do, and that’s gonna worry you a lot more,” the actor continued. “And that‘s what we need. That will change the concept of gun culture, as you call it, to something [like] reality. Which is, if I’m a hockey team and I’ve got some guy bearing down on me as a goal tender, I’m not concerned about what he’s gonna do — I’m gonna make him concerned about what I’m gonna do to stop him. That’s when things change.”

Arguing back, Wells invoked the no-fly list, saying that the people on the list are there for a “good reason,” but that they can allegedly still “get [a] hold of a gun pretty easily.”

“They can also make a bomb pretty easily. So what?” Russell retorted. “They can also get knives and stab you. [What are you] gonna do about that? They can also get cars and run you over. [What are you] gonna do about that?”

What exactly is the thought process on this? If we make gun purchases illegal, the bad guys won’t be able to get their hands on them? How has that worked out in Chicago or Washington DC?

Wells regurgitates the no-fly list nonsense, apparently without discovering that no one in these attacks was on a no-fly list in the first place. Maybe he should have watched Josh Earnest’s dancing around that reality yesterday:

Mr. Obama has called on Congress to ban semiautomatic “assault” rifles and to ban people who are on the government’s “no-fly” terrorist watch list from purchasing guns. Mr. Earnest said Thursday that he isn’t aware of any perpetrators of mass shootings in the U.S. who were on the no-fly list.

Earnest says that it’s just common sense to allow the government to decide who’s too dangerous to buy a gun, but as I explained in my column at The Week, this proposes stripping a constitutional right without any due process. And even Earnest can’t explain how that would have prevented any attacks:

Nothing requires the federal government to actually charge people on this list. Nor are there requirements to remove people even if they have been acquitted of charges relating to terrorism, as The Intercept discovered when they acquired the procedure manual for the no-fly list. “The rulebook justifies this by noting that conviction in U.S. courts requires evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas watchlisting requires only a reasonable suspicion,” Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Devereaux reported. “Once suspicion is raised, even a jury’s verdict cannot erase it.” …

And for what purpose? Which of the terrorist attacks cited by Obama in his speech — which included two he had never before acknowledged as such, the Fort Hood shooting and the Chattanooga attack on a military recruiting office — would a no-fly gun ban have prevented? None of them. None of the suspects were on the no-fly list. Farook and Malik flew last year with no problems, and Fort Hood terrorist Nidal Hasan was still in the Army. In fact, even after Russia warned the FBI about Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev in 2011, the U.S. allowed him to fly to Russia and back in 2012.

In other words, the no-fly list is not just unconstitutional, it’s also a red herring. Democrats want to change the subject from the failure of this administration to prevent these attacks. When government feels the need to strip Americans of their constitutional rights — including the right to bear arms — they should prove their case in court while allowing for full due process. That is precisely why our founders wrote the Constitution in the first place: to protect a free people against the whimsy of tyrants.

If the government believes these people too dangerous to exercise their constitutional rights, then charge them with crimes and bring them to trial. In the absence of any evidence that (a) this would have prevented terrorist attacks in the past and (b) that it would prevent terrorist attacks in the future or even necessarily change their choice of weapons, it’s nothing more than a red herring to change the subject from terrorism to gun control.

Update, 12/14: Many thanks to the Drudge Report for the link, and welcome to Drudge readers!


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Assumes facts not in evidence. It’s possible, even likely, that “bad guys” have been “bad guys” since childhood. Civilized behavior has to be learned, uncivilized behavior does not.

Even if you were right, and there’s no reason to believe you are, but even if you were right you are still explicitly admitting that they were not always bad guys. No baby is born mugging the doctor. People become criminals at some point which means BY DEFINITION they were not criminals before that.

So, no, I am not assuming facts not in evidence. I’m pointing out a fact you yourself even admit (without meaning to).

I don’t see how. Yes, if you arm the good guys you are necessarily also arming the bad guys to some degree, though not necessarily proportionally.

You say you don’t see how but then admit what I just said was right. Proportionality has nothing to do with it.

Note the proportion of criminals using guns who actually legally owned that firearm as opposed to the proportion who do not. But that data point also tells you that disarming the good guys FLATLY DOES NOT disarm the bad guys in proportion.

It certainly helps. Disarm (so far as guns) society and criminals have to go outside of society to try and get guns. Which means it costs them more and is of less need to them.

So all you accomplish is to sort people into those who would prefer to obey the law and those who don’t care, and tell those who would prefer to obey the law that they can’t own guns, while those who don’t care… well, they still don’t care, so they get their guns anyway.

And when there is no follow up on people who tried to buy a gun and could not because the background check caught them, you’re accentuating that process.

And this is what leftists call success.

GrumpyOldFart on December 11, 2015 at 6:01 PM

Again magic thinking. You sort people into two groups, sure. Those that obey the law and those that don’t but those aren’t static groups. People from the first group move to the second all the time. Under my system when they make the jump they don’t have a huge arsenal, in yours they may. My system is clearly better.

Tlaloc on December 11, 2015 at 6:47 PM

That is just pure sociopathic idiocy.

dentarthurdent on December 11, 2015 at 3:56 PM

I’m sorry what I said went over your head, try first sounding out the words one at a time and then putting them together.

Tlaloc on December 11, 2015 at 6:48 PM

My system is clearly better.

Tlaloc on December 11, 2015 at 6:47 PM

It certainly is if you want the criminals to always have the upper hand.

antipc on December 11, 2015 at 6:51 PM

No baby is born mugging the doctor. People become criminals at some point which means BY DEFINITION they were not criminals before that.

So, no, I am not assuming facts not in evidence. I’m pointing out a fact you yourself even admit (without meaning to).

A child who tortures small animals has the mentality to become a mass murderer, even if he doesn’t have the ability and won’t for years. More to the point, many children engage in cheating, physical bullying and casual cruelty when they are young and are trained out of it.

You’re conflating motivation and worldview with ability. Either that or you’re defining “criminal” solely as a legal fiction with only an incidental relationship to a given person’s behavior. Under such a definition a mass murderer who kills his entire life but never gets caught isn’t a “criminal.”

Proportionality has nothing to do with it.

You’re saying the amount of available firepower never matters in a violent conflict? Seriously?

It certainly helps. Disarm (so far as guns) society and criminals have to go outside of society to try and get guns. Which means it costs them more and is of less need to them.

The part that is neither bolded nor italic I agree with. The part in italics… I can’t tell what you mean by that. The bolded part is a conclusion I don’t see being supported by available evidence. Are you going to try to tell me that it’s easier and cheaper, less hassle, for someone who has never broken any laws (beyond tickets, etc.) to get, say, an Uzi or a Mac-10 than it is for a gang member in L.A. or Chicago? I call BS.

Those that obey the law and those that don’t but those aren’t static groups. People from the first group move to the second all the time.

No, they’re not. But I suspect they’re close to being static than you think they are. Nonetheless, you’re saying it’s okay to take all people’s rights away because some of them may abuse those rights at some unspecified point in the future.

Under my system when they make the jump they don’t have a huge arsenal, in yours they may.

Under your system, once they start ignoring the law to begin with it’s still easy enough to get one. If you don’t think so, well.. tell it to the people of Paris. Or Chicago. The only difference is that those who still care about obeying the law are disarmed prey. In short, it rewards criminal behavior and punishes people for obeying the law.

My system is clearly better.

Tlaloc on December 11, 2015 at 6:47 PM

Only if that’s the result you want.

GrumpyOldFart on December 11, 2015 at 7:33 PM

My system is clearly better.

Tlaloc on December 11, 2015 at 6:47 PM

Only if that’s the result you want.

GrumpyOldFart on December 11, 2015 at 7:33 PM

If you’ll recall the Death God’s previous statements on the subject, “his system” is one in which first Big Daddy Government disarms you, and then Mr. Death God “kicks your a$$” with his awesome Martial Arts to prove what a Tough Guy he is and “teach you a lesson” about violating his definition of “enlightenment”.

In short, he wants a system in which he can safely beat you up to reassure himself that he’s the cock of the walk. Sort of like the toughs who used to strut up and down the Bowery in poorboy hats and wife-beater T-shirts, chomping on cigars.

They loved the Sullivan Law, and their type end up as the local “leadership” in every disarmed society. Rule by the biggest, strongest, and most brutal.

As for Mr. Death God, like most “progressives”, I believe that at heart, he’s a schoolyard bully who never grew up. He’s been coddled and thus never had to. So he can fantasize about a$$-kicking because he’s never been where he’d face the consequences of actually trying it.

I’d say that even today, there are places in NYC he should avoid. Or at least leave his attitude at home.

clear ether

eon

eon on December 11, 2015 at 8:22 PM

In Tombstone Kurt Russell had to me the most spot-on Wyatt Earp of all the people who have played him. The History Channel had him on to talk about Earp and it was obvious he buried himself in the part. He had a great deal of knowledge about him and the somewhat charmed life Earp led when it came to gun battles.

And if you’ve never seen John Carpenter’s The Thing, it will raise the hair on the back of your head.

itsspideyman on December 11, 2015 at 8:37 PM

And if you’ve never seen John Carpenter’s The Thing, it will raise the hair on the back of your head.

itsspideyman on December 11, 2015 at 8:37 PM

YES YES YES!

Love that movie. He is just the coolest dude. That is in my top 2 favorite horror movies.

The Notorious G.O.P on December 12, 2015 at 12:37 AM

I’m just sorry he outlawed go-go boots after he married Goldie Hawn. I liked go-go boots.

NoPain on December 12, 2015 at 6:51 PM

Kurt rocks!

No dummy he.

petefrt on December 14, 2015 at 10:08 AM

Wish Kurt would get into politics. There may be another Reagan lurking in there.

But seems not his cup of tea.

petefrt on December 14, 2015 at 10:10 AM

Gun control freaks see the piles of unarmed victims in San Bernardino and lament the fact that they weren’t even MORE defenseless. “Totally insane” is the only way to characterize it.

stout77 on December 14, 2015 at 11:08 AM

The most interesting part of Kurt Russell’s stand, is the fact that he does not hesitate to make a stand

Kurt made the headlines because defending the right to be armed is so rare in his industry which is dedicated to the propaganda that man must relinquish his powers to the state, for the good of the state

Even if you were right, and here’s no reason to believe you are, but even if you were right you are still explicitly admitting that they were not always bad guys. No baby is born mugging the doctor. People become criminals at some point which means BY DEFINITION they were not criminals before that.
Tlaloc on December 11, 2015 at 6:47 PM

Bad Definition. The noun ‘crimial’ is equally used to describe persons with criminal intent

Men may become labeled as criminals by law at the point they finally behave as criminals, but that does not prove the criminal mind was previously absent. Babies are not born mugging anything, because their nervous system has not developed to the point of allowing either the physical action, nor the decision making.

Again magic thinking. You sort people into two groups, sure. Those that obey the law and those that don’t but those aren’t static groups. People from the first group move to the second all the time. Under my system when they make the jump they don’t have a huge arsenal, in yours they may. My system is clearly better.
Tlaloc on December 11, 2015 at 6:47 PM

Bad assumption. Your system is not clearly better. Under your system, the huge arsenal is still available to those who do not obey the law. Europe is the best example.

Kurt Russel makes a good assumption: that the wolf prefers to attack the sheep, not the lion

entagor on December 14, 2015 at 11:31 AM

For the fans, don’t forget Big Trouble in Little China. And he was great as Elvis.

WestVirginiaRebel on December 14, 2015 at 1:26 PM

The no-fly list, we are told, consists of people who present a “known or suspected” threat to aviation. This is different than the Terrorist Watch List.
A person who argues with a flight attendant can be placed on the no-fly list. A person who has a disagreement with a rude TSA Agent can be placed on a no-fly list. In 2004, Senator Ted Kennedy found himself on the no-fly list, resulting in months of paperwork to correct that situation. Granted, he should have been placed on a “no-drive” list, but that’s not the point here.
If the desire is to keep people from exercising their constitutional rights to bear arms (the operative word being “bear,” not “purchase”) then lawmakers only need to create a nebulous “list” with no definable rules around the “who” and “why” of membership, then ban those on the list from exercising their rights. Specifically, the “suspected threat to aviation” is so vague and broad that it doesn’t take much creativity to build a no-fly list the size of the Beijing phonebook.
This type of approach to controlling the citizenry was perfected in Germany and the Soviet Union in the past century. History, apparently, is of no importance to the ruling class in the USA. Or, maybe it is?

TimeOnTarget on December 14, 2015 at 1:30 PM

Escape from LA sucked!

pcwichita on December 14, 2015 at 4:53 PM

But in Earnest he was only Joshing ;)

russedav on December 14, 2015 at 5:01 PM

Kurt’s thoughtful macho manner is so rare and much relished in a world of pansies, a big reason Trump’s regrettably so popular, but Sens. Cotton and Sasse are even greater/better, and as Churchill showed, one man CAN & DOES make a difference, though sadly little corporal Adolf’s meat tenderizer is a hideous example of that in the opposite direction.

russedav on December 14, 2015 at 5:08 PM