Brent Spiner gets attacked by gun nuts for daring to comment on guns.

[onehandle]

Last edited Mon Nov 11, 2013, 12:47 PM - Edit history (1)

And expands his comments...

The gun owners have expressed a need, a right, to protect themselves and their loved ones from potential danger. I understand this and sympathize. Danger in this world is a very real thing. Gun owners do not feel safe without a gun to protect them if they are attacked. They don't trust the great unknown masses. I get it.

I, on the other hand, do not feel safe with guns in the hands of...well... anyone. I don't trust the great unknown masses, either. Someone sent me a message and asked, "Do you think all gun owners are dangerous lunatics?". I answered, "Not lunatics, but dangerous." I regret saying this as it was too glib, too brief, to actually express my feelings on the matter. Here's what I wish I'd said, what I should have said. I think guns can be very beautiful objects. If I look at a gun on a table, say, I am able to see the craftsmanship and artistry that has gone into it's making. But, once it is held in a human hand, any human hand, it becomes something else to me. It becomes, by the very nature of humans, potentially dangerous. People say, "Guns don't kill, people kill". I agree. But the gun on the table isn't going to kill or injure anyone. When you put it in a hand, it becomes a possibility.

More...

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rre9mn

https://twitter.com/BrentSpiner

[Nuclear Unicorn]

1. "I don't trust the great unknown masses"

There's a statement that is the foundation of every democracy.



BTW -- it's no surprise that those who reject the right to self-defense would also be against free discourse and characterize the rebuttal of others as an "attack." Anti-rights, anti-dissent and pro-control; more and more the fascist mask slips.

[LanternWaste]

2. I don't think that " I have received so many messages in the last three days" is characterizing anyt

I don't think that " I have received so many messages in the last three days" is characterizing anything or anyone as an attack... unless I missed the bit in his blog where he stated that as such

But yeah... "fascist mask"," control", "against free discourse" "anti-rights"... isn't characterizing anyone either. (Insert floundering rationalization here)

[EOTE]

4. So, you DO trust the great unknown masses?

Then it would certainly be very hypocritical of you to attempt to stop any of their attempts at sensible gun control legislation.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

30. Is that what you said about the Colorado recall elections?

[EOTE]

35. I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

You know, context is often quite useful. Cogency is even better.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

37. In your previous post you seemed to appeal for me trust the masses who elect

legislators that pass gun control laws. Did I understand you correctly?

[EOTE]

38. No, you suggested that it's always best to trust the masses.

You expressed your scorn that someone would suggest that they don't. Well, the masses are attempting to pass sensible gun control legislation and every gun nutter out there is apoplectic for it. If it weren't for special interest groups like the NRA, we'd have had it many times now. So I ask you why you're so against the masses when they don't agree with you? Seems rather undemocratic to me.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. Yeah, that's exactly how I interpreted your first response.

And then I responded with the fact that 2 Colorado state senators had been recalled for the law they passed over the objections of the people. The pro-2A crowd is working on a third state senator and if they succeed the state senate will flip to the GOP. That's how self-destructive this lunacy has become.

However, when other states loosen gun control laws the pro-control set stays true to form and shows nothing but contempt for the democratic process.

It should also be noted that while democracy is the bulwark of our national politics there are certain things that remain inviolable. There are essential human rights that are beyond infringement, even by democratic process. You will find many of these rights codified in the Bill of Rights, including the right of self-defense and it is echoed in the constitutions of most, if not all, the states.

[EOTE]

40. And what about the public outrage that's being ignored?

After Sandy Hook, 86% of the public wanted the gunshow/internet loophole closed, yet the fuckers at the NRA assured that wouldn't happen. That's as undemocratic as you can get. As the gun nuts are always so reluctant to admit, the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean they can own whatever fucking hand cannon/nuke that they want. Those who don't think that sensible regulations can be set on the arms one own are frankly, not even worth addressing. The public wants sensible gun control and the NRA and similar disgusting groups continually override the public's wants. You claiming to be some kind of populist who always trusts the public is a joke. If gun nuts truly trusted the public, we wouldn't be having national tragedies every few weeks. What a sad joke.

[EOTE]

43. Of course it's absurd. Any form of regulation is absurd to the gun nuts.

They say over and over that any form of sensible regulation is against the 2nd amendment, yet there are very real regulations we have in spite of 2A. Gun nuts don't give a fuck about anything other than their paranoid little fantasies. It's not fiction to suggest that the NRA and their followers are greatly responsible for the bimonthly tragedies we've been having as of late. Fuck you for saying that I don't care about people. Talk about projection. Other countries have sensible gun laws and FAR LESS GUN VIOLENCE that we do. We're like a third world country when it comes to gun violence and the nutters couldn't give one flying fuck. YOU are the reason children are being gun down daily. A moron could see that it's the nutters responsible for this. But their utter lack of common sense and common decency makes you fight every common sense piece of legislation aimed at curbing this madness. Sickening.

[IdaBriggs]

5. I can think of maybe three people in my life I trust with guns.

I know more that if I could put a "for the love of HEAVEN, NO WAY!" notice on a database somewhere, I would do so.

We recently lost an extended family member to suicide. His family is big on hunting. Everyone knew he was struggling with depression as he was both medicated and had attempted suicide in the recent past, and yet the family kept their guns because they are "hunting people."

He blew his brains out in his father's bedroom.

Twelve days ago I stopped at a cemetery to pay respects to my father. I ended up talking for nearly an hour with a woman whose eighteen year old son (diagnosed with bi-polar, being treated) decided in one of his "down swings" to take his own life three years ago. His family is still struggling with their grief. Might he have taken his own life another way? Yes. But easy access to a gun was how his life ended - and to my knowledge, they had never had reason to use one for "self defense."

I don't know many people I would trust with guns. I know more than I want to about those whose lives have been negatively impacted by easy access to these dangerous tools.

If a hobby endangers your family, my personal belief is that you should get a different hobby.

I applaud Brent Spiner's candid remarks. I think we are all better off with fewer guns in the world.

No, I'm not a fascist. But if it makes you feel better to think so, please keep the paranoid delusion going.

[BrotherIvan]

6. Therein lies an essential difference

I agree with so many of your political opinions, and yet there is a huge divide in the gun debate.

You call it "self-defense" and see gun ownership as a positive. But I, as an admitted control-freak, see gun ownership as someone with the ability to kill others, en masse or singly, and that someone could be me or someone I love. Mass killings have become an everyday occurrence. And with each day, I and most others move from moderate control to cries of full disarmament.

What do pro-gunners plan to do about it? You can talk all you like about 2A which can be defined as narrowly or as broadly as society demands. But it's not the control-freaks and gun control advocates who are your biggest problems: it is the crazies and open-carry terrorists and hoarders arming for armageddon and dumbasses who shoot kids accidentally. How do you advocate dealing with them? (And please don't answer the laws already on the books.)

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. First, it's important to have a proper context; to separate sensationalism from fact.

What the pro-control crowd espouses is NEVER based on facts. For example, why all of the mania about banning semi-automatic rifles when the number of deaths annually from rifles, period -- of which semi-automatic rifles are only a subset -- is less than 400 of the 30,000 gun deaths annually?

Then I have other questions like -- Is gun violence rising or decreasing? Do nations with stricter gun laws have higher or lower rates of violent crime? What if it's a cultural issue? Why focus on gun control to deal with the half of all gun deaths that are suicides if those advocating gun control are leaving the mental illness untreated? If the mental illness is addressed doesn't that mean the gun ceases to be an issue? What exactly is the definition of "reasonable" and "sensible" WRT gun control and at what point will the anti-2A crowd say, "Here and no further.".

[Skidmore]

45. So 30,000 gun deaths a year is just fine eith you?

That is the number of people who live in the nearest population center to us if someone lined every man, woman, and child up and mowed them all down. It is 29,800 more people than live in our village here.

Every additional gun sent out there has the potential to claaim more victims. But that okay with you. I am just not feeling your pain.

[Vashta Nerada]

10. I don't trust great unknown masses with guns.

Way to take his message out of context.

[baldguy]

11. Not trusting "the great unknown masses" is the reason most people get a gun, isn't it?

Spiner represents a more enlightened community.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. No. They don't trust the criminal few.

[baldguy]

33. But, the problem is you don't know who the "criminal few" are.

And therefore everyone is subject to the threat of harm. Which is the same problem Spiner expressed concerns over.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

36. The criminal few are robbers, rapists and violent criminals

You can generally tell them by the acts they are committing. Unlike pit bulls that seem to go off for no apparent reason.

[baldguy]

47. And you want to allow these robbers, rapists and violent criminals to have access to guns.

And maybe you should keep your ignorant comments about Pit Bulls to yourself, since they have nothing to do with the subject at hand & doesn't help your argument.

[gcomeau]

12. Ahem...

The right to self defense against *who*?

Those masses you are busily claiming not trusting makes you a fascist?

[onehandle]

13. 'Gubbermint Is The Problem.' nt

[ajk2821]

17. You forgot

"Scary dark skinned people"

[Lizzie Poppet]

18. Nor do I.

Not in all things, anyway... This is why I support things like more stringent requirements for CCW permits (that is, demonstration of competency, annual qualification, etc...the things we require of police).

[Bradical79]

20. Being pro gun control is not anti self defense

Thats a very paranoid and delusional stance.

[Bradical79]

24. Also you are spreading a lie

By associating gun control fascism you are propagating a common gun nut lie, that gun control was an important tool of the Nazis in their seizing of power in Germany. Gun control in Germany was actually passed prior to the Nazis ascent to power specifically to prevent them or other private armies from seizing power by force. In the end it didn't matter though as they gained control through the ballot box later effectively ending any real rule of law in Germany.

[Eleanors38]

3. 2nd post (with M. Moore) agreeing with the hoariest of all "NRA talking points."

Is there a trend developing in the gun control dialog?

[rrneck]

7. Looks like a fairly benign day in the gungeon.

I think he'll survive his brutal attack.

[Arkana]

8. Commander Data has no tolerance for your bullshit.

[xmas74]

34. I can't believe it took me this long to find a Data comment in the thread!

And the people "debating" with him-do they really want to do that? Chances are he'd wipe the floor clean with them. I remember hearing stories about him when I was a debater. TNG was on the air and everyone was talking about him. Turns out he's a legend in the NFL. (National Forensics League)

[Tree-Hugger]

44. Spiner ?

In the forensics league? I've never heard that. I have heard, and also surmised by what I have heard and read from the man himself, that he is extremely intelligent. He is also very progressive politically. Heard he used to be a big hippie back in the 60's and protested Vietnam. I have no idea why I am rambling.

[xmas74]

46. My old high school debate coach claimed to remember him at nationals

back in the day. Supposedly the man was a powerhouse of knowledge and had a golden tongue, though the event that he killed at nationals was actually DI. (dramatic interp) My coach said something about how, even though he was in events and not debate, he seemed extremely knowledgeable about the debate topics and seemed more than able to hold his own in extemp at the national level.

Jason Sudeikis was really good at IDA back in the day. He attended Shawnee Mission West. My partner was a year behind me and would tell me stories of how that damn team from West was kicking the crap out of him and his new partner in duet.

[Tree-Hugger]

48. Very cool

Thanks for sharing!!

[xmas74]

55. No prob

Last edited Wed Nov 13, 2013, 01:16 AM - Edit history (1)

My coach remembered him because he was also competing in the same event.

I think he said that was the same year Shelley Long was also at nationals but for a different event.

[Tree-Hugger]

52. I found info

I went all nerd and googled it. I found this:

http://www.pointloma.edu/experience/academics/schools-departments/department-communication-theatre/faculty/skip-rutledge/famous-folks-who-did-forensics

It says;

"Brent Mintz won Dramatic Interp with a selection from Elia Kazan's AMERICA, AMERICA competing for Bellaire High School in Houston, TX, in 1967. He went on to fame as Brent Spiner, a.k.a. "Data" on "Star Trek: The Next Generation" and numerous other TV and movie roles."

Pretty cool.

[jpak]

9. Gun nuts suck - ass

yup

[AtheistCrusader]

14. That's a very comprehensive and diplomatic stance.

I appreciate that he took the time to elaborate. I think it is sad that his position will be treated the same as Jim Carey's more glib, and intentionally inflammatory statement.

This is the sort of dialog that is productive. More of this.

[Tree-Hugger]

16. +1 nt

[Tree-Hugger]

15. It was interesting

Someone sent Spiner a pic of their child holding a gun and then call Spiner a commie.

Been a fan of his for a very long time. I was fortunate to see him portray John Adams in "1776" on Broadway back in the 90's. I have been following his Twitter for a few years now. He seems like he would belong on DU. He's very liberal. He gets crapped on by right wingers when he expresses his progressive views.

I'm not a fan of banning all guns, though I do want to see more regulations. I don't agree with Spiner 100% here, but I understand and respect his point and think he has expressed himself well.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

19. He should mention the lunatics arming up against the government.

[DonCoquixote]

21. unknown masses

If people were willing to take courses to use their guns, like anyone wanting to drive, to regsiter their guns, like I would have to if I wanted sell a car, then they would not be unknown, would they?

[genxlib]

22. here is my answer

This discussion generated from rhe question "do you think all gun owners are dangerous lunatics?"

Here is my answer

No I don't. But I don't trust them to self select who is. That is why we need much stiffer regulations.

[sarisataka]

23. Best lines:

Most profoundly, what I have learned is that both sides are not that different from each other

Should we take peoples guns from them? Of course not. Should we stop trying to find a way to encourage people not want to use guns. Of course not.

[VADem1980]

25. Not Sure I agree with those sentiments

One side consist s of reasonable, intelligent progressives. The of consists of paranoid, gun toting, Tea Partiests.

[hack89]

28. Where do pro-gun Dems fit into your world view? nt

[One_Life_To_Give]

26. First Option or Last Option

I have known people who have and/or carry weapons. Some view them as the first option while others as the last resort. I have found the former bother me, while the later do not. Someone who prefers to call upon our Blessed Lord of Acceleration rather than the Lord of making others Holey.

Some people are just too fearful to be allowed to carry deadly weapons into populated places.

[SummerSnow]

27. oh no

[Blue Idaho]

32. Gun nuts are their own worst enemies...

In the race for the hearts and minds of America - intimidation flat doesn't work. These assholes, and the equally out of touch open carry crowd are likely to do more to dive voters to limit guns instead of becoming NRA true believers.

[Packerowner740]

42. Just another wanna be elitist spreading his opinion that I don't care about

If it was Joe Shmoe it wouldn't be news.

[Skip Intro]

49. Brent can decide for himself to own one or not.

But he doesn't get to make that decision for me, or anyone else.

[Logical]

50. LOL, ok. n-t

[Tree-Hugger]

54. Doesn't look like he wants to

"Should we take peoples guns from them? Of course not." Brent Spiner

[nomorenomore08]

56. "Should we take people's guns from them? Of course not."

Right there, near the end of his post. So he's not advocating confiscation by any means. More just questioning the mentality that makes people stockpile weapons and ammo.

[Deep13]

51. So they need guns to protect their constructed realities from other opinions? nt

[leanforward]

53. What have these toters have to hide?

I don't know Brent Spiner. I have read some of the toters responses. The tone of their language is down right hostile and these guys are toters. The toters seem unreasonable. These toters may be completely responsible, but their responses makes them to be completely irresponsible. To me they need to pass a background investigation. I have no problem with weapons' ownership as guaranteed in the constitution. But, in that same section there is the word regulated. Based on some of the above narrative they are probably trigger happy if they got too excited.