Jim Carrey Calls to ‘Revise’ 2nd Amendment After Empire State Building Shooting
Details regarding this morning’s tragic Empire State Building shooting are still emerging. The blood isn’t even dry, but as always, that’s not stopping the opportunistic gun control ghouls like Mayor Bloomberg from politicizing the shooting.
A 41-year-old is dead, several more people are injured, and shameless Smarter Than You™ celebrities are more than happy to build their gun-grabbing case on the backs of the victims. As Twitchy already reported, Kim Kardashian is calling for Americans to “rethink gun laws.” And actor Jim Carrey wants to “revise” the Second Amendment.
Jim Carrey✔
@JimCarrey
No semi auto guns!Every 2 wks now, another mass shooting.AMERICA allowing this behavior is beneath us!Revise the second ammendment. ;^\
24 Aug 12
So, Jim Carrey has no use for the Bill of Rights? What exactly is keeping him here in America, eh?
***
More on Jim Carrey at PJ Lifestyle:
*IF* reports are accurate, the biggest problem wasn’t semi-autos in the hands of everyday Joes, but full autos in the hands of police.
And the irony of a guy who once crawled half-naked from the behind of a rubber rhinoceros saying ANYTHING is “beneath us”… well, let’s just say that we shouldn’t toss out the 1st Amendment due to “Batman and Robin”…
Isn’t Carrey Canadian? Has he become a U.S. Citizen? I wouldn’t know, since I don’t follow the minutiae of his life.
He has dual citizenship now, so he gets to make stupid comments about American affairs, and hence proceeds to do just that.
What a twit. NYC has some of the most draconian gun laws in America. Work a treat, don’t they?
Sure, we can do that. But first, the Democrats have to agree to “revise” the First Amendment to 1) require diversity in newsrooms, editorial boards, etc., in all news media and blogs to have a 50-50 balance between liberals and conservatives; 2) reduce vulgarity, nudity, and sex on TV; 3) a strict definition of what pornography is and banning it.
That will never happen of course. Just as Conservatives have our “sacred cows” like gun ownership, so do liberals have their sacred pigs as noted above.
…require diversity in newsrooms, editorial boards, etc., in all news media and blogs to have a 50-50 balance between liberals and conservatives…
Oh dear me no. Then they’d need to have some sort of law to make it happen. Call it something like the “Fairness Doctrine, and…”
Never mind.
Isn’t Jim Carrey A Canadian? If so, I’m confused as to why we’d give one moment of consideration to his opinion…
“Allowing this behavior is beneath us.” I’m not sure what the link is supposed to be between “this behavior” and semi-automatic weapons. Guns don’t cause extreme reactions to life crises. Getting rid of semi-autos won’t stop angry men from seeking revenge against people they feel have wronged them. You can kill your mean old boss with a shotgun, with a six-shooter, with a muzzle-loader, with a machete, with a baseball bat, with your bare hands – if you’re angry enough.
People don’t think before they tweet.
Exactly! I read about a case where a guy with a bow shot someone in a public library. Clearly, we have to ban bows and arrows too.
That’s right Carry, NYC needs gun control !!! Bloomie better stop being such a right-wing knuckledragger and get on the ball !!
I just heard a report that several bystanders were shot by cops. Maybe Carry means more gun control for police, you know, make sure of your target, don’t point a gun at anything you don’t mean to shoot, squeeze the trigger don’t jerk it etc.
I’m curious, what kind of guns do Carrey’s (and his family’s) body guards carry?
Guns for me not for thee, right Jimbo?
Putz!!
Revise? To what? NYC’s already got the most gun control in the nation and that still didn’t prevent squat. Carrey’s not exactly the brightest.
– marital and relationship advice too?
– Carrey?
Why don’t we just make it illegal to shoot innocent people? Wouldn’t that have the same effect?
Well, I recall that some years ago there was quite a bit of thought given to the idea that murder should be enacted a serious crime. Of course that was in a time well before Ezra Klein was considered a wise opinion maker and quite well-qualified to work for the NYT.
Let’s suppose that every week or so, some two or three get killed in a random act of violence and let’s suppose furhter, we ignore the Second Amendment and confiscate all the guns owned by law-abiding citizens in America. Now where does that leave us? The only guns available will be in the hands of the police (allowing them to lord it over us) and in the hands of the non-law-abiding, allowing them to terrorize us. My guess is that the two or three random acts of violence we are now experiencing will mushroom into hundreds of deaths per week as we get terrorized by the non-law-abiding gun owners. Just look at places where guns are difficult to acquire (and there are insufficient police officers available): Detroit, Chicago and Washington DC. I make my guess aboutviolence that will arise based on the fact that guns are used 800 thousand to two million times a year to ward off bad guys. So, we would trade say 150 deaths a year for 50 thousand deaths a year. Of course, we could go the New York City route and have about 500 police officers per 100,000 inhabitants, but that’s a lot of money, and a lot of people will still get killed. Remember, when seconds count, help is just minutes away.
Finally, somebody tell the Jim Carrey types, you may be passable actors, but you’re not thinkers, so don’t think your short-sighted solutions are any panacea; and as others have pointed out, those Hollywood types do have their bodyguards to protect them (but let’s see what happens should the bodyguards be disarmed – they’ll squeal like pigs).
Hey Jim; we can cut off our fingers to make sure no one fires a gun in the future
Makes the same sense as your suggestion
Ahh, Carrey.
The un-American high school dropout.
Yeah like anybody cares what he thinks.
If I’m not mistaken the guy who was shot and killed was the vice president of the company. Obama has been attacking the higher ups of companies. It stands to reason that if every time there is a shooting and the media and democrats falsely blame the tea party and no one blamed the tea party for this maybe we should look at the president.
The photo about sums it up.
Carrey has a point (besides the one atop his head). I suggest the following revision:
“Reports suggest that while Johnson drew his gun when he was confronted by officers, he did not fire; all those injured appear to have been shot by police.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/24/empire-state-building-shooting-nypd-response?CMP=twt_gu
Personnaly, I am shocked that Bloomy allows police officers to walk around New York City brazenly armed.
You draw a weapon on Police while they’re in pursuit of a deadly assailant, then you are going to die. Period.
Any other opinion could only come out of some ivory tower somewhere, staffed by Liberal nitwits.
Would anyone go to see George Will, Thomas Sowell or Mark Steyn star in a slap-stick comedy requiring a rubber face? Then why should we listen to a slap-stick actor when he screws up his narrow brain and tries to think social policy? Celebrity and money equals special socio-political insight? Where’s Trump when we need him?
Mr. Carry reminds me of myself back when I was in college, with limited knowledge & life experience. I & my friends would get hammered & discuss all that was wrong with the world. (“We need to end war, poverty, hunger, disease)…… Bla Bla Bla. In other words; we were CLUELESS…… ALL HAT & NO CATTLE. Mr. Carry appears to be intellectually stranded in that time zone. He suggests the 2nd Amd. be “revised”. Obviously Mr. Carry hasn’t read the Constitution. I advise him to refer to Article 5, which outlines procedures for amending the Constitution. Once he understands the process, he needs to study US demographics & then do some simple math to understand why his suggestion goes beyond STUPID. It’s a Liberals Delusional, Wet Dream Fantasy. But if you’re reading this Jim…… Dream On. LOL
What do you suppose Carrey thinks “semi auto” means? Does he think you can’t kill people with a revolver?