Alec Baldwin kills one,inures another with Prop Gun on set.

Does the 2nd amendment have such condition?

Many argue that it does, because the "well regulated militia" means "well functioning" and basic training would a part of that.

Well functioning militia (armed citizens):
- Adults only
- Physically and mentally capable people only
- No habitual drunks
- No drug abusers
- Mandator basic firearms training

However, many others argue there are no conditions, and that everyone should be able to own and operate firearms without any kind of requirements.

 

I'm not sure about that.
Just googling shot while cleaning gun produces millions of hits.
Just Google instructor accidentally fires gun to see many cases.

 

Pardon me for asking, but why is the discussion gravitating over to rifles? The Remington 700 is a rifle, after all, and I'm guilty, too, of writing a short post about the Remington 742. Surely we can all agree, at least, that Alec Baldwin killed Halyna Hutchins with a revolver, not a rifle.

To my knowledge, there is no 'safety', per se, on a .45 Long Colt revolver, other than it must be manually-cocked each time it is fired.

.. I don't see a "safety" on this .45 LC revolver....

 

Yes, accidents happen to the best of us. Even the military has a term "friendly fire accident/incident". In Vietnam, about 8 000 of the US killed were friendly fire casualties, which is about 15% of the total.

 

You're not seriously going to compare James Brown's situation with Baldwin's? I wonder if you even read why Brown went to jail?

 

Because no one believed the Remington 700 could fire on it's own which has since been proven wrong. Now let's talk about these prop guns that were probably not well maintained and throughout their use on movie sets were most likely thrown to the pavement in many scenes causing untold damages that could cause them to fire when the hammer is cocked but the trigger was never pulled. IMO if any gun/rifle would be less likely to fire on it's own it would be the single bolt action Remington 700 and not some movie set prop gun. But we'll see what the investigation finds as to whether the trigger was pulled or not which IMO again wouldn't amount to bringing charges against Baldwin for reasons I have already explained.

 

How do you know he allowed actual ammunition on the set? Has he stated he knew? If so provide a source.

 

There is a safety of sorts. Say you start cocking the hammer and let it go before it latches. There is a secondary stop if the trigger is not pulled. The only way this gun can fire is if you pull the trigger. Pietta firearms are new models of antique guns.

 

And if a gun has not been well maintained which I suspect many prop guns are not, perhaps even damaged from prior use/abuse? Damaged guns don't perform as designed.

 

That’s why they have armorers on set.

 

Does the law require you to have formally been asked or otherwise agreed? Face it. As a producer, he is still responsible for the actions of his set. From that perspective, he was grossly negligent. Similarly, as an actor who was handed a hand gun, if he took the word of someone and failed to clear and safe the gun, he's also negligent. Further, aiming and shooting a weapon is a conscious act by Baldwin. It demonstrates intent. So, the facts do seem to be incredibly against Baldwin here. He at the very least committed negligent homicide. More likely, manslaughter. The jury should see all of the evidence in his murder trial. I bet you can't wait.

 

True. One would hope that the armorer was competent. But, who knows. First thing you do when handed a weapon is inspect it for clear and safe.

 

Everything on a movie set is a prop - it was obviously a REAL gun that is capable of firing REAL bullets - but lets not let facts get in the way of hot air.

 

And saying goes like this...If you want to understand a person then you have to walk a mile in that person's shoes. That is what context is. understanding someone's circumstances. Did you have a career as an actor on a movie set where gun props were used?

 

And to be rude I read your answer as NO. You have nothing to prove Baldwin knew there was live ammo on the set.

 

I'm shocked, shocked that there may be nepotism in Hollywood!

 

It would be nepotism if her father got her the job, but that does not seem to be the case.

 

This is all bull feces. I've heard of other accidents like this and no one was ever charged criminally. Making movies can be very hazardous and movie sets are dangerous places almost by definition. The ONLY reason this is getting so much attention here is that Alec Baldwin was involved and Baldwin made very effective fun of Trump

Some Trumpers like to emulate the Bronze God's worst parts, they cultivate his petty vindictiveness in particular making everything about him and forgetting utterly the people this tragedy effects now and will affect forever.

Some people disgust me

 

I have my concerns with the armorer.

 

Who hires the armorer is the responsibility of the producer, Baldwin.

 

I believe the HR department is responsible for hiring personnel.

 

So basically the producer and trigger puller has zero responsibility? Fascinating.

 

So all roads lead back to Baldwin right?

 

The producer sets the safety rules and standards for the film crew. Which in this case was Baldwin, right? If that's the case then he should have at least some kind of responsibility for creating a hazardous situation from substandard safety protocols.

 

If a white conservative Christian killed a mother on a movie set - like Alec did - liberals would be demanding that all Law Abiding Genuine American Citizens be rounded up and gassed to death, and then be incinerated.

Oh, the humanity...