Brent Spiner, perhaps best known for portraying Lt. Commander Data on “Star Trek: The Next Generation,” is understandably upset about gun violence. Unfortunately, his solution to the problem is to do away with private gun ownership.


Attention, gun owners: You’re all “dangerous.” Gee, insulting much?

It’s indeed OK to disagree. What is not OK is demonizing an entire group of Americans — a large group, at that — as violent or dangerous for exercising a constitutional right.

Fellow actor Adam Baldwin attempted to reason with Spiner:

Bingo. Responsible gun owners are a danger only to those who seek to do harm.

Ever the gentleman, Baldwin invited Spiner for a day at the range:

(Note to Mr. Baldwin: We at Twitchy would be glad to join you.)

Unfortunately, Spiner doesn’t seem likely to take Baldwin up on the offer anytime soon.

Baldwin had the answer:

Nailed it.

Other tweeters joined Baldwin in shooting holes in Spiner’s arguments:

And they made the case for gun rights:


And the right to do so is protected by the Constitution.

Responsibility is key. And legal gun owners understand that.

Gun control laws only wind up hurting the people they’re ostensibly meant to protect.

Correct. Time and time again, gun control has been proven ineffective as a solution to violence:

“Gun-free zones” only give criminals a green light.

But if Spiner changes his mind and decides he’s ready for a reality check:

* * *


  • V the K

    Gee, and all this time I thought 7 of 9 was the biggest boob on Star Trek.

    • Thale Taxurfeet

      The easiest on the eye, but apparently not the biggest.

      • V the K

        OK, then, Jolene Blalock.

        One of my guilty pleasures is watching ‘Enterprise’ and replacing the first person pronouns in her dialogue with “My breasts.” As in, “Captain, my breasts are detecting an anomaly in this nebula.”

        • Thale Taxurfeet

          Yeah, I recall who played 7 of 9.

          However, being happily married for close to four decades, I will, on the advice of council, Dewey, Cheatem, & Howe, take advantage of my right to remain silent rather than try to stay abreast of this line of commentary.

          • sardiverdave

            This is a titillating conversation.

          • Creel Otters

            Been outside this evening? Kinda nippy.

          • TheOriginalDonald

            If Seven Of Nine told the Chicago Tribune to shut up or else face a lawsuit, ObamaCare and Benghazi wouldn’t have happened

          • Thale Taxurfeet

            “If Seven Of Nine told the Chicago Tribune to shut up or else face a lawsuit, ObamaCare and Benghazi wouldn’t have happened”

            Sheesh. Coulda, woulda, shoulda… Dragged back into this, what did dave say, titillating conversation.

            Ok, just to flesh this out:

            1st: 7 of 9 was played by Jeri Ryan

            2nd: Ms. Ryan was married to Jack Ryan for about a decade.

            3rd: Jack Ryan ran for the State Senate Seat in Illinois against Obama but dropped out of the race (see 4th:)

            4th: The corrupt political machine -including a sitting judge who released court ordered sealed records related to the Ryan’s divorce and custody battle for their child(ren) to the CHiTrib over the direct objections of, IIRC, both Jack and Jeri.

            5th: I have a hard time placing blame on Ms. Ryan for the actions of those involved political cogs in the Chicago machine, including the judge who unsealed the previously sealed records, all working to the benefit of the Obama campaign.

            6th: Ms. Blalock played the Vulcan in the rehash of Star Trek Enterprize.

            <EDITED to correct count… which jumped the rails shortly after two. 8-/ >

          • Zathras11 @B5

            Enterprise was not a rehash. It was a prequel to ST: The Original Series.

            No, I’m not a Trekkie or Trekker. I just know.

          • Thale Taxurfeet

            I know. Prequel did not pop on the neural stack when I threw out the comment.

          • sickofthebs

            Did you know that 7 of 9′ sealed divorce records actually helped Obama’s political career? Look it up.

          • Thale Taxurfeet

            “Did you know that 7 of 9′ sealed divorce records actually helped Obama’s political career? Look it up.”

            Did you read my comment above/below? The one in which I listed 6 points? If not see points 3rd, 4th and 5th.

          • TheOriginalDonald

            I think the point was they were SEALED records. Lawsuit for big $$$$$=Trib goes somewhere else for dirt.

          • Thale Taxurfeet

            “I think the point was they were SEALED records. Lawsuit for big $$$$$=Trib goes somewhere else for dirt.”

            Howdy Donald,

            I understood the point. <edited to clarify:
            And the Court subsequently unsealed the records against the wishes of the Ryan’s making the records public.>

            The problem for the Ryans becomes how best to protect their child, which was originally stated as their primary concern in having the custody battle records sealed in the first place.

            The Ryans mutually agreed upon point in the first place was to try to keep the documents sealed for the sake of their child(ren)… and the Judge presiding over their divorce/custody battle agreed and sealed the records of their custody proceedings.

            < No longer wanting to just rely on my memory, I looked this Ryan divorce records nonsense up. The same Judge who initially sealed the records, unsealed them!>

            Schnider, a California Judge said:

            “he had weighed the public interest of disclosure against the private interests of the Ryans and their child. “In the end,” Schnider found, “the balance tips slightly to the public.”

            So along comes a Judge (the same Judge who initially sealed the records in the interest of the child) who releases/unseals the documents over the objections of the Ryan’s and the prior Court order to seal them.

            The Ryan’s recourse at that point is to appeal that decision, which often requires more depositions, –future records with additional dirt, real and/or imagined– that may be made public which may bring more harm to their child.

            Long story short, I don’t think there was/is a clear path to suing the Tribune given the Court unsealed the records, IOW made them public.

            I could be mistaken and will consider the opinion of any legal beagle who cares to opine, but I don’t think any recourse was available unless and until the Ryan’s could convince a higher court to overturn the Judge who ruled to unseal the records.

            In any event and IIRC, the Ryan’s first concern was for their child(ren). For prioritizing their child(ren), and from my limited experience in courts, don’t ask, not to mention casual conversations with some friends who practice law –yeah, I’ve got friends in low places– I can not fault the Ryan’s for not wanting to climb into another legal battle with the potential for further exposure of their private lives that such a battle could/would undoubtedly produce.

            The Chicago political machine, ∅, and those who voted for the ∅? Hell yeah, I can fault them. The Ryan’s? Not so much. But that’s just me.


          • PJSTX

            can we get this judge to unseal Obama’s records? College records especially.

          • Thale Taxurfeet

            “can we get this judge to unseal Obama’s records? College records especially.”

            You think you’re going to find a Court in N.Y. or Mass that would unseal the ∅’s documents in the public interest? Bwaaaaaahahahaha…

            Excuse me… It’s not funny. No, I’m afraid that we can no longer confuse our legal system for a justice system. All too often it more closely resembles a coin operated laundromat.

          • PJSTX

            Well said. Except that I personally do not believe there is a judge in the US who would order those records unsealed. I do kinda wonder why though.

          • Thale Taxurfeet

            Lack of integrity and/or spine.

          • Zathras11 @B5

            7 of 9 was played by Jeri Ryan on ST: Voyager. Jolene Blalock played T’Pol on ST: Enterprise.

          • Thale Taxurfeet

            I thought I said that.

            But thanks for your attention to detail.

    • JamesMc

      Spiner’s comments were one of a hoplophobe. But, he was much more polite and intelligent than most of the gun-grabbers.

      • Osumashi Kinyobe

        It is that kind of talk that throws a wrench into this debate. It’s quite alright to be upset with gun violence; it’s quite another to blanket any gun-owner or gun use with the aspersion of maniacal violence. Rural dwellers will need guns to fend off large predatory animals that may attack them or their own animals. How are they in the same league as some thug who uses an illegal gun to kill innocent people?

        It’s no wonder there can never be resolution to this debate.

        • NRPax

          The way I look at it is this: With all of the gun control laws that have been passed these past 100 years, we as gun owners have compromised with them. It’s time for them to give just as much back in return.

          • Osumashi Kinyobe

            The “compromises” were, therefore, a path to complete disarming of a populace that has placed its trust in the authorities.

          • NRPax

            I was talking to a liberal about that on another site. His answer was “Our compromise is that we allow these dangerous things to exist!”

          • Osumashi Kinyobe

            What a maroon, as Bugs Bunny would say.

        • JamesMc

          Not sure what you mean by “that kind of talk”. I believe that Spiner has an irrational fear of guns based on his arguments. Though I could be wrong on that. His arguments do, however, argue that people are too irrational to hold a tool that would make them dangerous to others.
          He’s partly right on the “dangerous” part. People with guns are dangerous under certain circumstances. An armed citizen poses no danger unless circumstances make him dangerous. Those circumstances are determined by the armed citizen. Spiner seems to believe that people can’t be trusted to rationally determine those circumstances. I disagree.

          • Osumashi Kinyobe

            I meant that kind of hyperbolic talk that brushes over the issue. How is a young woman who owns a gun for protection in the same category as Adam Lanza? Those kinds of statements are unfair and counter-productive.

          • JamesMc

            Thank you for the clarification. I wasn’t sure if you meant my comments or Mr. Spiner’s.

            As I indicated, I didn’t find Mr. Spiner’s comments really offensive, just incredibly naive. I agree that lumping all gun owners into the same group is hyperbole. A woman defending herself against a rapist is not the same as a Adam Lamza. If Spiner had stated a position that it is better for a woman to let herself be raped rather than enabling her with the ability to kill her attacker, I would have been offended.

            But, all in all, his words seemed to be well considered and not the usual abusive inflammatory remarks of most gun-grabbers. Generally, it is those who launch immediately into invective that lose the debate.

          • Osumashi Kinyobe

            His statement might not have been as inflammatory as others but it’s still broad.

        • schveiguy

          Rational always beats ignorance. Indignation causes digging in and does not help.

          • Osumashi Kinyobe

            I would opt for the rational discussion of this issue, not broad, sweeping statements that condemn people for owning what they are legally allowed to own.

          • schveiguy

            If you have rational points to make, and make them correctly, you win. Even if the other side simply spews blanket ignorance. To anyone watching, the other side just looks like crazy or misinformed fools.

            Mr. Spiner makes a terribly ignorant statement, but is not exactly incorrect — anyone with a gun in their hand IS dangerous, like anyone with a firecracker is dangerous. Like anyone with a knife is dangerous. But experience and respect COUNTERACTS the danger, and makes them safe to use by responsible adults. I don’t consider a chef with a knife dangerous. He likely does not consider a police officer with a gun dangerous. Why not?

            Use reason and logic (ironically, like his character would), and you will win the argument. If someones being ignorant or irrational, make them play in realityville. Don’t go on the defensive against the strawman.

          • Osumashi Kinyobe

            Don’t tell me how to make an argument. The tenor of Mr. Spiner’s statement is not at all dissimilar from other such statements: guns are dangerous just as their owners. it does without saying that guns and their owners can be dangerous. It doesn’t further the debate by making blanket statements which is what he did.

      • Andy from Beaverton

        So does Spineless have any regrets of the countless beings he killed on Star Trek? Maybe he doesn’t equate phasers with guns?

        • Osumashi Kinyobe

          What kind of damage would concentrated beams of light have on the human(oid) body?

          • Patrick Chester

            Perhaps you should do some research on lasers, military applications thereof.

          • Osumashi Kinyobe

            Concentrated beams of light that cause one to be “stunned” can’t be good for you.

          • Patrick Chester

            Actually, having all or even some of the water that composes your body converted into steam in a millisecond or less would be worse.

          • Osumashi Kinyobe

            I’ll say.

        • LinTaylor ✓vitrified

          He did actually address that in the conversation above, saying that Starfleet is a military organization so it’s okay for them to have…can you really still call them “firearms” at that point? Darn future tense.

          • Bruce Merkley

            sidearms then?

        • JamesMc

          It is somewhat interesting that Spiner played a character where necessity demanded of him to defend himself. Strange, that after playing out such stories that he doesn’t see the utility of a weapon.
          But, I don’t really see this as a hypocrisy on Spiner’s part. Just ironic.

        • TomJB

          He said he was just acting a part. Like how Data had intelligence too.

        • Just Some Dude

          He’d probably babble about phasers having a stun setting…

    • Mark81150 Never/Trump/Hillary

      ehhh.. Worf rocked,.. something about his need to break things.. with his head.

      not that I ever went there…


      yes I did.

    • alanstorm

      Shouldn’t that be plural?

    • rssllue

      Aw c’mon, he just needs more Data on the subject. 😉

  • thedumbblonde

    Ouch w/ the Gabby Giffords pic.

    • Garym

      The way she is leaning backwards in that pic, if she fired that weapon she probably fell over ………

      • Bruce Merkley

        Only if there was a comedy being filmed at her location…the recoil impulse of the semi-auto version of the AK is very low….(one of the reasons that it is not an assault rifle, cartridge is a medium powered round, barely adequate for hunting deer but fun to shoot.)

      • Jay Stevens

        Don’t worry too much. It is on “Safe”.

      • Thale Taxurfeet

        “The way she is leaning backwards in that pic, if she fired that weapon she probably fell over …”

        I hate it when that happens.

        When I qualified on the .45 ACP during basic training — pre-Holocene age– in an indoor range, the rangemaster made it a point to have all shooters look at the ceiling. It was full of holes. The RM claimed to know each hole individually and if any of us added to the count, well, life could and would get much worse for anyone adding to the hole count or otherwise screwing up.

  • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

    He’s right about one thing– guns can be dangerous.
    I damn sure hope the guy who’s breaking into someone’s house thinks so, anyway.
    And flees from that danger.

    • FilleGitane

      I like to say, that door is locked for your protection, not mine.

    • Thale Taxurfeet

      “He’s right about one thing– guns can be dangerous.”

      And there are a lot of folks who are dangerous with or without firearms. But the crux of the matter is as simple as that old saw, God created man, Sam Colt made ’em equal. Along with small and infirm folk who, if armed and trained, need not fear a thug twice their size, twice their speed, and half their age.

      • ObamaFail

        You can knock another person down and proceed to stomp them to death with your feet. I don’t hear libs proposing the removal of our hands and feet because they can be used as weapons.

        • Thale Taxurfeet

          “You can knock another person down and proceed to stomp them to death with your feet. I don’t hear libs proposing the removal of our hands and feet because they can be used as weapons.”

          With training and knowledge, you can drop the average person pretty quickly and easily, sans all the stomping.

          The older I grow, the more closely I watch the world and our Government, the more I’m suspecting Huxley’s Brave New World to be the current How To guide for Government Dummies.

        • Creel Otters

          Do NOT give them any more stupid ideas, please. They’re plenty capable of coming up with them on their own.

  • pinupartist

    So smug in his ignorance.

    • Orpheus75

      They usually are

  • Hayekguy

    Brent Spiner try ejecting your emotion chip and look at this logically!

    • Paddy_O_Door

      Here’s a syllogism for you:

      P1: 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.
      P2: We have (since) delegated the job of securing a free state to the military, police, and law enforcement.

      C: Therefore, the people have no right to arms.

      • Creel Otters

        Feel free to turn yours in, should you have any. I’ll hang onto mine.

      • NRPax

        Except for the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right as opposed to a collective right and law enforcement is under no obligation to protect anyone.

        • Paddy_O_Door

          The 2nd amendment speaks not of any individual, but the people in the context of a “militia”.

          • Thale Taxurfeet

            “The 2nd amendment speaks not of any individual, but the people in the context of a “militia”.”

            Recent SCOTUS decisions disagree with you. See




          • Paddy_O_Door

            You are correct that the recent interpretation applies to individuals.

            This is merely an “interpretation”, it is not the 2nd verbatim. Prior to 2008 Heller decision, it could be argued there was no individual right.

            Of course, another case could be brought to court that changes the current interpretation altogether.

          • Thale Taxurfeet

            Prior to that decision, the SCOTUS had not considered the matter. And if you read the majority opinion, it speaks clearly, albeit through a textualist lens, to the matter.

            “Of course, another case could be brought to court that changes the current interpretation altogether.”

            Let me know when that happens.

          • Paddy_O_Door

            Sure. In the meantime, from Heller pages 54 and 55:

            “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”[46]

            The Court also added dicta regarding the private ownership of machine guns. In doing so, it suggested the elevation of the “in common use at the time” prong of theMiller decision, which by itself protects handguns, over the first prong (protecting arms that “have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”), which may not by itself protect machine guns: “It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home.”

          • Thale Taxurfeet

            Yeah? Did I say anything not supported in the piece of the decision you posted?

          • Paddy_O_Door

            I didn’t say you didn’t. I am simply citing the language of the decision for those who believe it is a full endorsement of the 2nd amendment. The decision is compromise.

          • Thale Taxurfeet

            Fair enough.

            I posted a link to the decision so that those interested in the current interpretation of 2A could read the SCOTUS decision for their own gratification, rather than be forced to rely on your words or mine.

            I’m currently more focused on lunch so there’s no telling what I might say.

          • Corey Dennison

            Yeah…9-0 is a ‘compromise’.

          • Paddy_O_Door

            Sigh, the vote was 5-4. It was indeed very close and very much a compromise.

          • NRPax

            And what is the militia composed of? Individuals. It’s not a reference to the military, the national guard or a police force.

            Now, if you choose to exercise your rights and not own or carry a weapon that is up to you. But you don’t get to take that right away from others. Sound fair?

          • Corey Dennison

            No…not in the context of the militia. No matter how much you want it to be so, reality is a different matter.

      • Sharkteeth

        Since when did they make a cop light enough to carry on your hip?.

        • Paddy_O_Door

          A gun is not a cop. That aside, your comment is humorous.

      • Jeane

        Your syllogism’s half-life is shorter than that of ununoctium.

        “P1” is a thing of beauty; your “P2,” on the other hand, is total excrement.

        We the people have not delegated (shirked) that job, and never will. That would take a constitutional amendment repealing the second amendment, which will never happen.

      • Corey Dennison

        Sorry, but the Supreme says you’re full of crap.

        See: D.C. v. Heller

        Plus, you should really learn to read for comprehension.

        • Paddy_O_Door

          Thanks for your advice. The Heller decision also stated “reasonable” gun control is NOT against the Constitution or second amendment.

          • Thale Taxurfeet

            No but it speaks pretty clearly to the individual’s right to bear arms, as well as the intent of the amendment.

          • Corey Dennison

            Well, the point you so spectacularly missed was that they held (9-0!!!) was that the 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right, not a collective one–which pretty much shoots your stupid point down very nicely, now doesn’t it?

            Even the most libtarded Justice knew in that case that our right to keep and bear arms is NOT contingent upon being part of an organized militia.

          • Paddy_O_Door

            Actually the vote was much closer: 5-4

            Sorry to burst your bubble, the 2nd is NOT a slam dunk.

      • Patrick Chester

        D: The well-regulated militia is *A* reason for why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and is not the sole reason.

        • Jay Stevens

          What was “the militia” at the time the U. S. Constitution was written?

          Simple answer: “Everyone.”

          • Paddy_O_Door

            False. And if you’re going to be a strict originalist, realize that women and slaves were not included. See also the 3/5s man clause, a disappointing addition to the original Constitution that is now ignored.

          • JamesMc

            Disappointing for what reason? The 3/5ths clause reduced power to the slave holding states and the institution of slavery. If the slave holding states had their way, (i.e. no disclaimer) slaves would have counted for 5/5ths and gained more political power.

          • Paddy_O_Door

            That is one way to look at it. My position is more global: why was slavery even tolerated in 1787 that debate over population counts was necessary?

            The country was founded on notions of equality and freedom for all, except slaves.

          • JamesMc

            Slavery was an ongoing institution globally that had existed for thousands of years in one form or another prior to the founding of our government. Excluding states that were dependent on this pre-existing institution would have been catastrophic for our newly born nation.
            Practicality aside, you’re judging our founding through the lens of 21st century morality. Eventually, slavery was finally cast aside and amendments were made so that such a thing wouldn’t happen again. That’s the beauty of our Constitutional form of government. Rights are protected, not easily amended by a capricious state, and can be changed by will of the populace.

          • Paddy_O_Door

            Your thoughts on the institution of slavery are reasonable, but it was still a moral outrage until corrected after the Civil War.

            “Practicality aside, you’re judging our founding through the lens of 21st century morality.”

            Exactly, which is why I have trouble with the 2nd being sacrosanct and beyond question, when other reasonable interpretations exist. In that vain, 18th century slavery isn’t so different, as proponents could argue slaves were private property, not subject to government regulation.

          • NRPax

            OK, so what “reasonable interpretation” do you want for the Second Amendment or gun rights as a whole?

          • JamesMc

            The right to bear arms isn’t a property rights issue, so your analogy is pretty weak. Nothing is preventing you from seeking the repeal of the 2nd Amendment or petitioning your government to do so.

            In regard to 21st century thinking, forbidding the peasantry from arming themselves is a morality that dates back to feudalism. The right of the individual to arm himself and act in his own defense is a classical liberal position that supports a morality that believes that the individual is rational enough to make his own decisions. You can support serfdom if you like, I’ll oppose it.

        • Paddy_O_Door

          Where in the 2nd is your interpretation delineated? I only see “militia”, not, “militia and individuals”.

          • theal

            That would be this line from the 2nd- the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed

          • schveiguy

            I don’t think it says the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

      • schveiguy

        Last time I checked, it was the supreme court, and not lepretroll deciding that.

        • Paddy_O_Door

          True, the Supreme Court decided. To be fair, however, their decision was not a blanket endorsement of the 2nd. Justice Scalia stated “reasonable” gun control is NOT against the Bill of Rights or Constitution.

          • schveiguy

            You are mixing up your terms. The supreme court upholds ALL the amendments, and the constitution, that is their job.

            What you are referring to is a blanket *interpretation* that everyone has access to all guns. And for what they have interpreted, it seems reasonable to me (so far).

            Do you think reasonable gun control is OK? From your earlier statement, it seems like you favor a total ban (which is NOT constitutional by any measure).

      • Hayekguy

        That’s just creating the risk of another totalitarian state.

      • John Rebori

        1) The 2nd specifies that it is the “right of the people”. Every
        other use of that phrase in the Constitution means an individual right.
        In the tenth amendment it is made clear that rights of the people and of
        the state are two different things, so the 2nd is not a right of the
        state, but the individual.

        2) 10 USC S 311 specifies that all able bodied males between 17 and 45 who are citizens are members of the militia. The militia is NOT merely those who have taken an oath to serve either in the military, police or other uniformed service.

        3) merely forming a syllogism does not mean it is valid.

        • Paddy_O_Door

          2) I am aware of the Militia Act of 1903, amended a few times afterwards for troop mobilization purposes.

          Taking 10 USC S 311 at face value, it would appear ONLY males 17-45 are part of the militia, and therefore have the right to bear arms for the purposes of being part of the militia.

          That means women of all ages, boys below 17, and men over 45 are not included. There is an extension in age for former military members, but no mention of the general populace.

          I am forced to conclude the right to bears is in fact constrained with respect to the “militia” and how it is correctly defined.

          • John Rebori

            You skipped over the first and more important point, the right explicitly belongs to the people and therefore is not dependent on being in the militia.

            I only used 10 USC to point out that even your original claim that the militia means only the military and law enforcement was flawed and invalid.

            The right to keep and bear arms is one all competent and lawful citizens retain by the simple fact those people exist.

  • [r]on

    I used to like him until he went to the dark side

  • SturJen

    Aw, now I want to go to the range w/Adam Baldwin! Do you think he’ll take Vera? Please take Vera….

    • almarquardt

      I wanna go too!

  • Jenna McCoy

    Adam Baldwin has been a favorite of mine for a long time. If you’ve never seen Firefly, you need to do so. you will LOVE his character, Jayne.

    • Malcolm Reynolds

      Firefly? never heard of it. 😉

      • Jenna McCoy


        • Thale Taxurfeet

          I suspect Mal only means to misbehave.

          • almarquardt

            Best line in that movie!

          • Thale Taxurfeet

            Indeed… For some reason, I felt as if in that one moment, Mal was channeling my misspent youth. 😉

    • John W.

      And Adam Baldwin’s character in Independence Day was more likable than Brent Spiner’s, too.

    • ozconservative

      Wonder if he will bring the 60 to the range??

  • Ben Bollman

    Jayne 1, Data 0

    • CatHerder ✓fire! ✓fire!

      Literally zero.

      • Creel Otters

        As in “what a.”

  • CatHerder ✓fire! ✓fire!

    So the cops are going to save us and therefore nobody else needs guns? Do you have AAA? Then why keep a jack in your car?

    • Bathing Suit Area

      A lot of small cars are now sold without spare tyres or jacks, for exactly this reason.

      • Corey Dennison

        OK, by your spelling of ‘tire’ we can all assume here that you’re not an American–>shut your mouth and mind your own business.

      • QueenB ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        Well, at least when a woman is stranded on the side of the road waiting for AAA with a flat she would normally change herself but can’t cuz some genius did away with jack and tire irons, she can protect herself with her gun.

  • Guest

    Speaking of tools, look in the mirror!

    • Ryan Cooner

      A mirror is a tool… one which can be broken and used as a dangerous weapon.

      Therefore, I will now campaign to ban ALL mirrors, as they are dangerous!

  • Jack Deth

    To quote the psychopath Super Hero, Rorschach from ‘Watchmen’:

    “I’m not locked up in here with you. You are locked up in here with ME!”

  • mike_in_kosovo

    Someone tweet Adam Baldwin and give him the CORRECT attribution for “Why the gun is Civilization”:

  • ozconservative

    As usual, lefty inner-city dwellers can’t think beyond their own block. If a farmer has to humanely euthanize sick/injured livestock, what are they supposed to do??? Bash it’s head in with a rock??

    • Thale Taxurfeet

      My father’s father used either a hammer or a rope to secure the animal and sharp knife to dispatch animals on their farm. That was during the depression, the one that started in 29 and ran up to and including WWII. Ammo was an expense and not to be wasted.

      Of course, my dad used to tell me tales of walking to and from school, up hill, both ways.

      • Ryan Cooner

        … in the snow, don’t forget. =P

        • Thale Taxurfeet

          Didn’t often snow in that locale. But it was an embellishment. How do I know? Grandpappy told me pappy rode a mule to school, up hill, both ways.

          • QueenB ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            And he LIKED it.

          • Thale Taxurfeet

            “And he LIKED it.”

            Yup. Undoubtedly better than plowing fields behind the mule.

        • mike_in_kosovo


    • Bathing Suit Area

      Perhaps leave an exemption for those with legitimate use for a firearm. You might have heard of a country that’s already done that…

      • Corey Dennison

        Again, who the hell are YOU to determine who has a legitimate need to use a firearm?

        You think an awful lot of yourself, don’t you?

        • Markward

          He is a king in his own mind. In reality he is but an idiot to be mocked mercilessly

      • NRPax

        Oh “Perhaps” leave an exemption. How magnanimous of you. Are there any other rights you would also like up for discussion? For instance, perhaps there is no legitimate need for you to post here?

      • ozconservative

        Well aware of that. However I believe that self-defence is a legitimate reason.

      • QueenB ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        The “exemption” has already been written. Its called the 2nd amendment.

        • ozconservative

          BSA is referring to my home country, Australia, where we have to fill in mountains of paperwork and adhere to pretty strict regulations in order to own a firearm.

          • NRPax

            And to folks like him, there is no legitimate need to have an exemption, which solves the problem for them.

      • JamesMc

        Self defense is a legitimate use for a fire arm. And, yes, I have heard of countries that prefer their citizenry defenseless. There was even one particular limpwristed country in which moslem extremists beheaded some soldiers while the soldiers’ fellow countrymen watched helplessly nearby.

  • Tigerspike

    All tools, all potentially dangerous in the wrong hands.

    • ObamaFail

      Cars and your bare hands can be used as weapons as well.

    • Bathing Suit Area

      So what do you need a gun for? Use your hammer to defend yourself from tyranny.

      • Corey Dennison

        Who the hell are YOU to demand that anyone justify their right to keep and bear arms?

      • Tigerspike

        Thank you for missing the point of my post.

        My hammer is not designed for defending against tyranny (which wasn’t brought up by me btw), nor for hunting. I live in a rural area that has bears. These animals have come into the yards of friends and family.

        • filter

          We get coons, from spring to fall, least I’m getting practice on moving targets.

        • Markward

          Forgive him, for he is Stupid incarnate. If there was a Stupid elemental for Pathfinder, BSA would be it.

      • Patrick Chester

        So why does every tyranny severely restrict firearms?

      • QueenB ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        Because a gun is the more appropriate tool to use in that circumstance.

  • Evil Otto

    Spiner made a fortune playing a mechanical man who had access to magical weapons that could stun… but never seemed to work, frequently malfunctioned, or just flat-out had no effect on the alien of the week.

    Still, I’m a reasonable person. Tell you what, Brent, bring me a real working phaser and you can have my guns. OK, yeah, I’ll set it to “disintegrate,” but hey, no guns, right?

  • Rebecca Adams

    A liberal/progressive with a gun with an “assault magazine.” Now that IS scary. #stalin, #mao, #hitler, #UN

  • Gallatin

    Brent Spiner ✔
    The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, a Well Armed Militia who defends
    against foreign and domestic.–the British Are Coming!!

    Why is it so difficult for libturds to think of the possibility of a tyrannical government taking power and committing genocide on the American people? All one needs to do is just look on any given day to what is going on in the world to see examples of governments killing their own people.

    • therealguyfaux ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      Well, they can’t see how anything they do could be remotely connected with tyranny– no slippery slope to anything they propose; nope, nevah happen.

      But even if the prospect of that WERE really remote, what would people do in the event it really did happen?

      I’ve always wondered how “oppressed” people in the Third World were supposed to throw off their chains, without having guns to do it– but maybe that’s just me. Obviously I’m trying to make sense of what it is they advocate, and the short answer is, there ain’t no sense.

    • alanstorm

      “Why is it so difficult…”

      Because they are unwilling to entertain the thought that it CAN happen here. The question to ask them is, “What, if anything, WILL prevent ‘it’ from happening here?” and watch their little eyes spin like pinwheels.

    • almarquardt

      In fact, the Japanese admitted after WWII the main reason they didn’t
      attack the mainland was because so many of the citizenry was armed.

  • Diane Stephan

    I’m exhausted after reading all that.

  • AMERICAN Kafir™✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈwhitey

    .@BrentSpiner @Rdsknsfan3 So I suppose you’re against builders using nail and staple guns? Tools that have made revolutionary changes…

  • tops116 ✓Quipper

    Perhaps Mr. Data would like to lead an away mission to Chicago to see how well anti-gun laws have made things less dangerous. Piece of advice, Commander, don’t wear a red shirt.

  • TJ

    Is there anyone that was on Star Trek that has not let their inner leftist come out thanks to Twitter. Shatner is the only one that could be said to lean to freedom every other one is leftist no footprint. Sir Patrick is apolitical for the most part.

    • Thale Taxurfeet

      Another plus, at least in my book, for Mr. Shatner is that he is an accomplished equestrian. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

    • unknown

      Has Jonathan Frakes gone political at all?

      • WilliamAmos

        Haven’t seen him yet or at any time I am on twitter.

      • TJ

        He has little to no footprint. He is under 500 tweets but has one RT of Obama from July.

    • Stephen L. Hall #NonquamTrump

      An industry built upon acting, an emotive process by nature, attracts those prone to promote emotion over reason. It is not that acting creates emotive leftists as much as acting attracts leftists, like moths to a flame. If you want to be an actor, start worrying.

  • ee1774

    So….if all countries agree to ban all guns….no one anywhere will illegally make them?
    Everyone everywhere will obey this new law?
    And we’ll never, ever have to worry about lawlessness?

    ……good to know.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “Everyone everywhere will obey this new law?”

      Duh. That’s why we need global communism!

      • filter

        Never gonna happen.

  • alanstorm

    “Of COURSE guns are dangerous. That’s why they’re effective tools for self-defense.”

    Exactly. This needs to be said more.

    No guns? The Persians, Romans, Mongols, Assyrians, and countless others had societies without guns. Peaceful lands of unicorns and rainbows, every one.

  • LinTaylor ✓vitrified

    I do have a question for the gun control crowd…how long until you guys start shutting down martial arts schools and dojos? After all, a well-trained martial artist is arguably worse than a gun owner, since you can’t disarm him – and in fact he can probably turn anything into a weapon (cf. Jackie Chan).

    • Stephen L. Hall #NonquamTrump

      Not surprisingly, many schools of martial arts developed where and when weapons were banned.

      • LinTaylor ✓vitrified

        Oh, indeed. And many classical martial arts weapons like the tonfa and kama were invented by people modifying farming implements when their real weapons were confiscated.

    • Bathing Suit Area

      Probably when there’s a need story about a madman going on a martial arts spree and punching a dozen or so people to death every other week.

      • Corey Dennison

        Are you intentionally obtuse, or does it come naturally?

        • filter

          He’s like concrete, all mixed up and permanently set.

        • Markward

          As I have said before, BSA here eats two big scoops of stupid for breakfast everyday!

  • copperpeony

    What it all boils down to: W✔ @BrentSpiner is really afraid of guns and doesn’t realize that a baseball bat, straw etc etc…are all potential weapons if one knows how to use them.

    He also must know that ALL criminals will always have access to guns and we will always be at their mercy but maybe he needs a first hand experience to change his mind.

    • Bathing Suit Area

      “ALL criminals will always have access to guns”

      What’s up with this assertion I keep hearing? Do you guys think that as soon as someone decides to commit a crime, a gun materializes in their hand?

      The guns used by criminals come from the same manufacturers as the guns used by responsible gun owners, and are sold (at first) through the same distributors.

      Sure, as long as guns are freely sold by the millions, and nobody even thinks about trying to track where they’re going, criminals will always have easy access to them, but those are changeable things.

      • Corey Dennison

        See: Chicago–gun control capital of the U.S.

      • filter

        TO has no guns allowed! Murder every week now…

      • NRPax

        Just ask Mexico how easy guns are to track.

      • schveiguy

        Your statements are incorrect. We DO track guns. If a gun is stolen, we report it. We can’t exactly track it at that point.

        Believe it or not, guns are VERY SIMPLE machines. There is no super-secret on how to build them. If we banned them, they would still be manufactured, underground (and less safe).

        Finally, what do you think happens when anything is banned? 1. it goes way up in value, and 2. Criminals are the only ones who obtain them.

        None of this ever seems to dissuade people who want to ban them, you think we can just hand-wave all the problems away. Banning DOESN’T WORK. As long as there is knowledge of guns, there will be guns. Period.

  • John Kerry’s Forehead

    I’d happily give up my gun when, and only when, every singe gun in the entire universe is 100% positively absolutely without any question gone and not one single shred of evidence that there are any projectile firing devices left anywhere…even police and military…I will give up my guns. But not before.

    • QuadGMoto

      But what about muscle powered weapons? They were also used to rob, kill and destroy before there were guns. Can we get rid of them too? And rocks, pencils, screwdrivers, hammers, poison, karate, and… and… and…

      When we get rid of all weapons, then it should be safe. Or will it?

      • aegean1

        The body is a weapon, as is the mind. I suppose some people would be happy about disabling both of those too..

        • Thale Taxurfeet

          “The body is a weapon, as is the mind. I suppose some people would be happy about disabling both of those too..”

          DHS did start their menace to society list in April of 2009.

      • John Kerry’s Forehead

        Better yet, we must all live in tiny, isolated bubbles. I almost said we need to only have access to pillows but those seem to be used to kill people quite frequently too.

  • TJCrane_NCC1701

    Anyone else watch that vid that Adam linked to ? Capt. Verhoef is SMOKIN’ HAWT !

    Sorry but my mind is where it usually hangs out…in the gutter…..

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Take away the guns and feed the people instead! What’s wrong with you heartless bloodsuckers? You’re just too lazy to visualize world peace and too greedy sitting on your stacks of gold.

  • QuadGMoto

    Of course my guns are dangerous! … to those who want to commit a violent crime against me, my loved ones, or anyone else in my vicinity. Mr. Spiner isn’t planning to engage in such behavior, is he? Then what is he worried about?

  • Mark81150 Never/Trump/Hillary

    Gun grabbers have one universal trait, absolute faith that tyranny, cannot happen here..

    Like a guy telling you, you never need fire insurance, modern materials make fires SO much less likely that 50 years ago.. except, fires still happen..

    The British were driven out.. and 80 years later we had our bloodiest war with .. each other.. The most technically advanced, science loving people in Europe, adopted a form of National Socialism which after disarming people, began exterminating those they didn’t like..

    In 1979, we were saddled with our most buffoonish incompetent government in our history.. but people could endure till the next election, because they didn’t fear what Carter would do to each American for opposing him..

    2013,.. the even worse government in history, which aside from incompetence, has actively turned entire agencies into rabidly partisan attack and persecution machines.. and they want our guns too.. we can no longer afford to think it cannot happen here..

    Odd’s are against it, their hackary and incompetence against it.. but their burning wretched contempt for citizens who disagree, who oppose, coupled with the brand new very real persecutions..

    only a fool gives up his defense, when the worst most petty thug on the left has the weapons of government to use against you.

    it can happen here..

    The best prevention, is keeping HIM afraid of what we would do if he tried..

  • Jack Deth

    Memo to Mr. Spiner:

    There’s a reason why you were chosen to play a pasty faced, yellow eyed, emotionless eunuch.

    Seems the role has gone to your head.

    PS: I always preferred Garibaldi and Ivanova on ‘Babylon 5’!

    • TheOriginalDonald

      I have a group of people I call The Vir List. It is called so because they are so evil they deserve the same fate Mr. Cotto wished on Mr. Morden

      • NRPax

        Still surprised that Morden got away with flipping Vir off like that. -:-)

    • NRPax

      I composed a list a few years back about why B5 was better than Star Trek. One of my favorite items:

      When the crew of the Enterprise has a problem with their government, they file a complaint and hope they don’t trash their careers. When the crew of B 5 had a problem with their government, they seceded.

  • Stephen L. Hall #NonquamTrump

    All weapons are, by definition, dangerous; used properly, a danger to one’s enemy. The coward flees from danger; the fool rushes into it; the wise avoids danger when possible; the brave faces it when necessary. To be both brave and wise is virtuous.

  • ObamaFail

    Another Hollywood liberal whining about guns while probably guarded by armed security. And which liberal troll was it telling me I shouldn’t lump all Democrats in the same group when I called them “wastes of space?” Oh, right. WhoDat. Well WhoDat, are you going to call Spiner out for labeling ALL gun owners as dangerous people?

  • ObamaFail

    Liberal Logic says, “It’s wrong to call all muslims potential terrorists because you can’t blame all of them for the actions of the few.” Then those same libs turn around and say, “ALL GUN OWNERS ARE VIOLENT KILLERS!!!!!!” The hypocrisy is astounding.

    • Stephen L. Hall #NonquamTrump

      Perhaps if we pointed out that those terrorists own guns?

      • ObamaFail

        I think they’re okay with terrorists having guns. Because the terrorists are overseas so they are okay with it. And if Obama armed said terrorists (see the Al-Qaeda linked Syrian Rebels), then they’ll applaud.

        • Stephen L. Hall #NonquamTrump

          You have a point.

        • Thale Taxurfeet

          “I think they’re okay with terrorists having guns. Because the terrorists are overseas“…

          Prior to the recent scrubbing of political Islam from the terrorists driver list in the FBI/DHS documents and manuals, FBI reports beg to differ.

      • SheerPolitics

        In some cases, own guns this administration GAVE THEM!

    • Bathing Suit Area

      I keep missing who these liberals are claiming all gun owners are violent killers. Do you have an actual quote on that? Shall I wait while you make one up?

  • ObamaFail

    Besides, guns aren’t the problem anyway. People are. Libs never look at the person, they only see the gun. Without a person, a gun is a useless piece of metal that will just lie there forever if no one moves it. Guns are just tools. Yes, they are dangerous, that’s why you are to not treat them like toys and you are to learn to handle them correctly and safely. A knife is a kitchen utensil to cut up vegetables and what not, yet you can choose to use it as a weapon and murder someone with that. Where is the outrage over that and the call to ban them?

    The real issue is that Libs are just upset that the Constitution actually labels owning a gun a right but doesn’t say anything about abortions and free birth control being a right. That’s what the problem really is. Plus there’s the fear that an armed populace will prevent a possible Democrat dictator.

    Another thing, why is there never one word uttered by a lib about the gang bangers in Chicago that obtained their gun illegally or the Mexican Drug Cartels that were armed by Obama and Holder. No, they only target legal gun owners.

    • SheerPolitics

      They will protest if a killer gets the death penalty, but turn around and blame law abiding gun owners.

      • ObamaFail

        They’ll yell “right to life” about killers on death row but then demand that an unborn child not be called a human so they can sleep at night for being pro-abortion.

    • Stephen L. Hall #NonquamTrump

      Because the gang bangers might shoot them.

      • ObamaFail

        Plus the gang bangers probably vote Democrat, so they won’t call out one of their own.

    • Bathing Suit Area

      Knives have non-violent practical uses (e.g. cutting up your veggies).

      Guns can be used for violence, for threatening violence, or as toys. That’s about it.

      • Corey Dennison

        And your point is????

      • filter

        Or as a deterrent. One scum bag tried sneaking into our garage/home one late night…one shot in the chilly still night air and he was gone as fast as a jackrabbit… :)

      • Markward

        Again, watch as our black hole of stupid continues to suck intelligence out of the thread. Hunting, no use there. Self defense against someone carrying said peaceful knife, no use there. Defending against a possible tyrannical government (because never has a republic ever been replace with an emperor, except this guy named Julius Caesar.).

      • schveiguy

        You have unwittingly invalidated your own argument, by inserting “your” in there. In other words, for YOU knives have non-violent uses, but for YOU guns do not.

        For me, defense and recreation are non-violent uses (I don’t hunt, but I understand that it’s a non-violent use). Most gun fearers don’t get that, so I don’t blame you. You just need to have a little empathy, which is difficult for leftists. Just because you have no use for guns, does not mean others don’t. And it’s allowed by our constitution, fortunately.

  • SheerPolitics

    Another actor who thinks he’s an expert. Back in Shakespeare’s day, actors were viewed on about the same level as whores. Too bad that changed.

  • Belinda Duras

    data sure is dumb dumb man did he get his wires crossed

  • sardiverdave

    He’s right. We’re dangerous. Best not f#(k with us. Don’t start nothin’, won’t be nothin’. If left alone, we’re a harmless lot.

    • Bathing Suit Area

      “A harmless lot.”

      That’d be why guns are never used in assault or murder.

      • filter

        Or by bombs, or bullying, or stabbing, or mass gas poisonings, or by vehicles plowing through crowds, or strangulation, or bludgeoning to death, and etc.
        Guns are not the problem. Idiots are.

      • Markward

        Yeah, people were totally peaceful until gunpowder came about. Just ask the folks living in Carthage… Oh wait. Or what about Hasting in 1066… Nope… The Vikings, yeah! Those were a peaceful lot… Oh wait.

      • therantinggeek

        You don’t get out much, do you?

      • sardiverdave

        Right, and there’s no difference at all between a gang member defending his turf from rival dealers/bangers and a person who carries concealed to defend himself and family. Both defending something, and both willing to kill with the gun if need be. Same, same.


  • Frustrated Teacher

    I disagree with him, but he is surely much more rational about debating the issue that most of the idiots in Hollyweird. It a person isn’t raise to understand and use guns correctly and wisely, their knee-jerk reaction is often to fear them. A couple of times at the range with a knowledgeable person would help him. It sure helped Kari Byron of Mythbusters who said “I have grown quite fond of firearms. I have always been an anti-gun liberal, but the rush you get from an M134D Gatling gun with 30 caliber bullets firing at 3,000 rounds per minute is unbelievable.” (Source: Geek Monthly, January 2008, p. 35)

    • NRPax

      Rational except for the part where he calls all gun owners dangerous lunatics. Kind of kills any desire to give his views any further consideration.

      • Bathing Suit Area

        “Dangerous lunatics”

        I somehow missed that part of the quote. Care to point it out?

        • NRPax

          Oh, excuse me: “Not lunatics. Just dangerous.” was the exact quote. Gee, I thought you liberals hated stereotyping.

          • therantinggeek


  • QuadGMoto

    It’s been a while, but I just watched that video again. Mr. van Uhm is exactly right… if the government with the monopoly on force is an honest one. However, he totally ignores—both topically and statistically in this century—what happens when a government with a monopoly on force is bent on evil, such as the Nazi regime that frustrated his father. Then the 20th Century becomes the bloodiest time period in history.

  • MrApple

    Spiner comes across as an Anti-gun troll.

    • TheOriginalDonald

      I blame Wesley Crusher

      • World B. Free

        What does Rachel Maddow’s sister have to do with this? :-)

  • Creel Otters

    Brent Spiner. Just one tiny step above the John Fugelsangs of America.

  • ObamaFail

    Abortion kills more people a year than guns, yet libs want more of them. Drunk driving kills more people a year than guns in the US, yet dry counties have libs constantly pushing for alcohol sales and more bars in said areas. But no man, let’s whine about guns.

  • Jeremy

    Data had a programming error don’t worry the tech is on his way.

  • Jeremy

    This isn’t the first time that someone had too use a face palm for him

  • Right Wired ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

    It’s always ‘actors’ with armed guards who are for gun control. Always.

    • LegalizeShemp

      Yes, and actors who make millions shooting all sorts of fancy guns at people on the big screen.

  • LegalizeShemp

    Data was probably programmed by the same people who designed the Obamacare website.

  • deano24

    “Why I Chose the Gun,” by Peter van Uhm?- ” That’s my favourite video from TED TV

  • Richard Jefferies

    The Stephen Molyneux quote sums it up perfectly. The technological genie has been out of the bottle for 4 centuries, it isn’t going back in. You could take away everyone’s gun, but some would be armed; the designated guardians of the oligarchy. However the know-how to create guns is already wide spread and understood, I’ve seen an AK-47 made from a shovel. I’m sorry people get shot. I’m sorry people die in airplane crashes, but the airplane isn’t going to get uninvited, and neither are guns.

  • Semper Fi

    HAHAHA “Best known for portraying Lt. Commander Data…” How about that’s the only job that loser has ever had? Paris Hilton has been in more movies! HAHA Please just post stories about someone relevant, Twitchy…

  • Rulz

    Let me put it to you this way:

    If guns are dangerous, would they go to war or shoot each other if man just vanished tomorrow?

  • JustChuck57

    I get it. Next time I’m confronted by a bad guy, I’ll call SAG and ask them to send over an actor.

  • rdrodd1

    This guy is a stone cold idiot.

  • JD Son

    Several things on weapons, and “drunks”. 1. The radical left, and that includes MADD, are changing the rules and definition of being “drunk”, almost to the point of prohibition. 2. Most people who drink a few may be considered “drunk” according to the left, but they are not using the vehicle for “malicious” intent. 3. Further proof based on this thread that logic needs to be used in things, not emotions. 4. Guns in and of themselves are not dangerous. However, mentally deranged morons with guns are. 5 Brent Spiner should learn from his “Data” character and use more logic, not less of it.

  • TrishD

    There were so many illogical statements made by Spiner. Data would know there was something wrong and do a diagnostic check immediately.

  • Lisa Wiese

    Well if you are scared, go on and GIT, you are not even offering entertainment any more, plenty of gun free places for you to be than America, and you have raped our country of plenty of money thru the entertainment industry, so why don’t you do what the other Madonna dirtbags do, and take your American money, and get the hell out?

  • ked5

    these people are so painfully naïve.

  • filter

    What a maroon.
    Is his career in such bad shape that this is the only way he can get attention?

    • Julie the Jarhead is always willing to oblige.

  • cmazzJK

    How do I set my phaser to shut him the f#ck up?

    • Corey Dennison



    As usual, without realizing, the clueless make sense. Spiner, at one point, tweets, “Who decides?”

    Exactly the issue. In a country of rights and freedoms, there are some decisions left to the will of the people. In this instance, because of my rights granted to me in the Constitution, I DECIDE! Then the next decision I make is to be safe, responsible, and law abiding.

    • kateorjane

      Apparently he thinks he and people who think like he does should be the final voice on the value of uns.
      Did I miss his cry for the elimination of knives?

  • $41798064

    There are no dangerous weapons. There are only dangerous

    – Robert Heinlein

  • $41798064

    If it ain’t dangerous, it ain’t a weapon.

    -Ryan Stiles

  • Medicinewoman2

    What a fine job my 17yo did with a bow this weekend! Hmmmmm

  • RememberSekhmet

    Dude, Brent Spiner is from HOUSTON, he should have grown up with a number of responsible gun owners.

  • schveiguy

    I liked emotionless data better.

  • TocksNedlog

    The leftist-propaganda tool doesn’t understand how a gun is a tool.
    This, from a guy that once played Denise Crosby’s life-size sex toy.

  • old_ogre

    He IS a hypocrite and worse! I find it worrisome that “Actors” are willing to do all kinds of things that go against their supposed character or morals while “acting” and try to claim that because its “make believe” that its ok to do so!

  • Mark Jackson

    @BrentSpiner is correct. Guns are dangerous. That’s why criminals and tyrants desire to remove them from the hands of the common, law abiding citizen.

  • Leslie Ward

    Mr. Spiner – Could you see/understand the ‘anger’ if I were to say – All Actors were stupid (re: your ‘dangerous’ comment)? Well – here’s the problem Mayim Bialik proves that statement wrong, You sir, prove it correct. Thus I am already at 50/50 and my statement is incorrect. Get it? People’s ‘anger’ is justified and yes, you did smear the majority of gun owners. Forget all the gun violence (check the DOJ stats on it – gone down since 1993 consistently) . Forget that you (probably never having handled and/or shot a gun) are misplacing your fear and disgust for the use of guns by violent people with the tool used rather than upon the criminal using it. Simply look to the fact that the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment give American citizens the RIGHT to ‘keep and bear arms, [that] Shall not be Infringed’. It is simply the law of the land and has been since 1791. And please do some simple research – Chicago, IL – strictest gun laws in the US – had 512 gun homicides in 2012 alone. Kennesaw, GA – passed a mandatory head-of-household own a gun law in 1982 – there have been 3 gun homicides (in Gun Free Zones, big surprise) since (31 years). Gun ownership does NOT cause gun homicides. Criminals and the mentally ill cause the majority of gun homicides.

  • Julie the Jarhead

    What’s with all these washed-up television science fiction actors positioning themselves as the conscience of social media?

  • nice guy

    Are you drunk again, Brent?!

    Seriously, is there anyone on Star Trek:TNG I will be able to respect anymore?!

  • RedSoloCup

    Brent who?

  • puggish

    God how disappointing. I used to like this guy, way back when.

  • FirstBoot

    What a tool.

  • ClarkFL

    He says that he would like to see no more guns. To do this would meant that people would have to willingly destroy or give up their weapons, or they would be confiscated by an authority group. He then sounds surprised that we would be angry about this?

    No Conservative wants to invite tyranny into our country by giving up the one effective tool we have to check a possible dictatorship or an invading force. These liberals act like countries have never had anyone invade them or that it could never happen here in the states. Whenever someone makes this argument, the liberal always tries to ridicule it by snark and making it sound as if it could never happen, instead of debating its merit. Such cowards.

  • sickofthebs

    disappointing, Data was one of my favorite Star Trek characters…

  • Jim

    “Starfleet is military”? I thought the whole premise of the latest Star Trek movie was that Starfleet isn’t military, just a benign peacekeeping organization. In fact, I seem to recall Scotty quitting the Enterprise over the very suggestion that they might be on a military mission.

    • Thale Taxurfeet

      The premise, IIRC, always was that Star Fleet, while a military organization, was enlightened such that they acted more like explorers with olive branches from an armed Department of State. Their ROE prohibited revealing themselves to primitives, interfering with the native cultures development, and for goodness sakes, never, ever set the phasers on more than stun! Unless the continuation of a main character’s life depended upon it.

    • nice guy

      He must be thinking of the episode “Yesterday’s Enterprise” when they were on a military mission and the Enterprise was a warship, in an alternate dimension.

      I think Data must have stayed there. That would explain his comments. 😉

  • Hi This Is My Username

    As usual, I like actors and actresses better when they aren’t playing themselves.

    It seems anyone that disagrees is angry. Good grief. He got some pretty polite and respectful comments. Way to twist things.

  • Conservagrl

    How many lives have been ruined because of a weapon called the “casting couch” in Hollywood? how many lives have been destroyed because of Hollywood and their lack of morals? Maybe Hollywood should be banned? It’s amazing how the right is constantly bashed by those in Hollywood, the same people who scream about the right and how they don’t respect women, those comments coming from over-paid people who work in an industry where the exploitation of women is commonplace and accepted.

  • CrustyB

    People are dangerous. Guns are inanimate objects. Brent Spiner played a robot on a TV show 20 years ago. Jesus.

  • Wag_a_muffin

    This is so silly. We should just outlaw “bad people.” Then we’d all be safe and nobody would have to own a gun for protection.

  • tcvegas

    “@BrentSpiner I look forward to the day that there are no shootings to report. Agreed?–or…wait for it…no guns”

    That was the situation for almost all of human existence…??

  • gastorgrab

    If the 2nd amendment is outdated, then what does that say about the 1st amendment. Isn’t the 1st amendment even older than the 2nd?

  • HanaFiveO

    What an ignorant idiot.

    I hate people that re-tweet every tweet that shows up on their timeline, it makes a conversation very difficult, not that its easy on twitter to begin with.
    Never even bothered to address any of the counterpoints, just I want, I feel, I don’t care.

  • James A Colfer

    Brent is entitled to his opion about Gun Control and his right is covered under the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights -Also owning guns is also covered by the same rules that he use in his right to his opion. The constitution is the same as back when it was written and not a living law that changes when someone does ot disagree with it unless we have a addition to it.We had liquor laws to make the moral majority happy and it was thrown out in the end because you can ot legistlate morality and gun control does fit under if you don’t like change th law and get rid of guns. Being a Retired Police Officer and a NRA Pistol Instructor. I want everyone to own a gun as in Switzerland and have to posses it for the time you are 18 yrs till you either die or turn 7 yrs old as Switzerland has for a law. They just do not have gun crimes because everyone is armed and no one is willing to take a chance on getting killed by a Government issued rifle. Brent if you answer. I hope you can repeat the part about the British are coming again. I laughted for about 5 minutes on that statement.. That was not the best answer you could have given . God Bless you .

  • DisqusTRS

    Man, I loved TNG. Anyway, yes Brent, anyone with a gun can be dangerous…good thing most of these “dangerous” people are GOOD GUYS!

    A gun is just a tool, no more, no less.

  • Ken G

    Flash-in-the-pan actor with dying career + typical actor craving for visibility = anti-gun screed.

    Dying career:

    Oh, and I’ve met him. If he’s 5’11”, I’m 7′ tall. And I’m not.

  • Guest

    So glad I clicked this! Im a big fan of TED talks and Peter Van Uhm is a fantastic speaker.

  • John Alvarado

    Mr. Spiner, Remember nearly everything can be misused. You know it is illegal to make a bomb yet people still make them. Crystal Meth is illegal yet people still make it. Sorry to make you lose sleep at night thinking of all the terrible things that are illegal yet people make or do it.

  • Dan Defoe

    What is universally dangerous are liberal/marxist/statist ideas. They have caused more death, destruction, poverty, misery, disease, and oppression than any inanimate object ever could.

  • Chris T.

    Another Hollywood has-been etrying to exploit a hot button topic to make that last dying attempt at popularity before they fade softly into the night never to be heard from again. Some people will do anything to trend on twitter… I won’t even dignify his assanine remarks with a response.

  • John Galt

    So assuming that he’s correct and some of those who spew venom at him would be dangerous if armed (he makes a connection that is not warranted-freedom of speech, however vile, is in no way connected to wrongful use of a firearm-otherwise Alan Grayson would be in a bell tower with a rifle), then by his logic, the surgeon’s scalpel should be outlawed because there are surgeons who, through incompetence, kill people.

    He wants to throw the bomb of “guns are dangerous” without taking any responsibility of the downside of banning guns.

  • Apollo Dezno

    ok, This guy is an actor. His opinion is as important as the guy washing dishes at your local diner. What he thinks is only important to himself and anyone who actually cares what he thinks. I sure as hell am not one of those people.
    Though I did enjoy the character he played on Star Trek I couldn’t give a shit less what he thinks on the gun issue or any other issue for that matter. But I also feel he has every right to believe what ever he wishes to believe no matter how absurd I find it. So relax people again he is an actor his feelings on your right to firearm ownership is meaningless :)

  • Richard Vandiamondsworth

    How many times did a phaser–set to “Kill”–save the robot’s a–?