Sunday, December 7, 2014

Wahlberg pardon bid ignores outstanding gun questions

For an actor who made anti-gun public statements concerning the National Rifle Association and its then-president Charlton Heston, the question among pro-gun activists is how he could appear in movies with real, albeit blank-firing guns, and how he could hit 1,000-yard targets in front of witnesses, when all indications are he was prohibited by law from even touching a firearm, and that doing so would make him a federal "gun criminal."

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Special people get special treatment. This even includes those FELON POLITICIANS who received their illegal ammo mags yet they feel like they are exempt from the "Laws" they passed.

Anonymous said...

Artistic expression - a First Amendment scenario. That's the argument.... That he was exercising his First Amendment rights .... Which were, of course, unaffected by the prohibited person factor.

Convoluted I know , contrived even, but that's the claim.

Anonymous said...

Who cares if convicted violent felon Dirk Diggler illegally possesses a firearm now and then? After all, the guy he beat with a stick still has one good eye left, so what's the big fucking deal?
Cops have more pressing issues to deal with, like tracking down "illegal" cigarettes and then choking the life out of the unlucky bastards selling them.

Anonymous said...

All animals are equal..but some are more equal than others.-- One of the best things that could happen to this country would be an enormous gathering of all Hollywood actors and big-shots in the Venice area, and then an earthquake followed by a tsunami that washes the whole disgusting load of them out to sea never to be seen again. I do believe I will start praying for that...

Paul X said...

Laws apply to peons, not to the elite. Everybody knows that, right?

Anonymous said...

So, just to clarify, do you wish to see him forcibly disarmed at the hands of federal agents?