Actor Mark Hamill, famed for his roles as Luke Skywalker in the Star Wars franchise and as the Joker in Batman: The Animated Series, incensed gun rights activists when he posted a tweet that reiterated his stance on gun control.

“Don’t get me wrong, as a strong supporter of the 2nd Ammendment [sic]—I believe in every American’s right to own a musket,” he wrote.

The implied meaning of that statement, as many have pointed out, is that Hamill believes gun owners should be restricted to muskets only. The pro-gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety immediately praised the actor for speaking out, quoting a previous statement from Hamill.

“It sickens me to see the horrific gun violence in a country I love perpetrated against even the most innocent of schoolchildren, followed by the politicians doing absolutely nothing,” Hamill was quoted as saying.

Understandably, the response from critics was immediate and frank. Other Twitter users responded to Hamill’s comment, pointing out that there is absolutely no language in the Second Amendment regarding muskets—it simply mentions “arms.”

“He’s pushing the false notion that we are entitled to muskets rather than defense from tyranny,” wrote one user.

Some also noted Hamill’s unconventional—or incorrect—spelling of Amendment.

This is not the first time that Hamill spoke about about his personal opinions regarding guns and gun control. In the wake of the San Bernardino shooting, where 14 people were killed by a married couple with alleged ties to ISIS, Hamill once again took the Twitter to advocate for broader gun control.

“We need to change this. We can do this. We must do this,” he wrote, before referencing the Port Arthur shooting in Tasmania two decades ago.

That shooting, which claimed the lives of 35 people, provoked a number of gun control laws that limited the private ownership of semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and other firearms in Australia. Hamill, and many other gun control advocates, have long pointed to those restrictions as an example for the United States to follow.

Hamill did not respond much to the criticism on Twitter, although he did acknowledge that the only regret he had in his statement was misspelling “Amendment.” Hamill later posted a tweet lambasting hunters.


Image from Mark Hamill on the flickr Creative Commons

What's Your Reaction?

Like Love Haha Wow Sad Angry

68 thoughts on “Mark Hamill: You Have the Right to Bear Muskets, Only Muskets

  1. Unfortunately for Mr Hamill, the Supreme Court spoke on a similar issue as late at this week. Quotes from the Supreme Court opinion related to stun guns in Massachusetts:

    “The Court has held that ‘the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding’”


    “Electronic stun guns are no more exempt from the Second Amendment’s protections, simply because they were unknown to the First Congress, than electronic communications are exempt from the First Amendment, or electronic imaging devices are exempt from the Fourth Amendment.”

    Suck it up Mr. Hamill, you are dead wrong on this issue.

    1. The only note I would add to your post, the decision was 8-0. So much for the idea the court can’t rule with an even number of Justices.

  2. If he wants to limit firearm development to muskets, then, bye all means, modern phones, computers, and oh, my, DVDs Must! be eliminated! Wouldn’t want anyone watching a movie about some scoundrel fighting against the leaders of the galaxy.

      1. Chris, I don’t know if you were speaking out of anger or ignorance, but the Gatling gun was invented in 1861 and copyrighted in 1862, the Second Amendment was written in 1789 and ratified (with the rest of The Bill of Rights) in 1791. Along with 1911, 1947, 1965 and 1992, those are some significant years to most gun owners and historians.

      2. Yes thats true but there was the Puckle Gun in 1718 which was the first machine gun. It is a lot like the Gatling gun.

      3. I would have to say that 1934, 1968, 1986 are the most significant in terms of losing 2A rights. especially 86 because it failed to get the votes to be passed into law, but was enacted anyway.

      4. Puckle Gun 1718 early Gatling style machine gun. Girandoni Air Rifle 1779 .46 caliber, 20 or 21 shot magazine rapid firing rifle capable of killing buffalo.

        However arms at the time meant even privately owned cannons and warships.

      5. Cannons where also around back then…. and kept by private citizens under the 2nd amendment. So much for keeping our rights.

  3. He personifies the Dunning Kruger effect …. where people fail to adequately assess their level of competence — or specifically, their incompetence — at a task and thus consider themselves much more competent than everyone else. This lack of awareness is attributed to their lower level of competence robbing them of the ability to critically analyse their performance, leading to a significant overestimate of themselves.

    In simple words it’s “people who are too stupid to know how stupid they are”.

    The inverse also applies: competent people tend to underestimate their ability compared to others; this is known as impostor syndrome.

    If you have no doubts whatsoever about your competence, you could just be that damn good. On the other hand… (Also explains Obama, Biden, Pelosi and Reid …. and the rest of the establishment politicians).

  4. I guess none of his films are protected under copyright laws …. since copyright laws were written before films existed …. What a MORON!

  5. Gee, another Z rated Hollyt@rd against guns and hunting. Who cares what this uninformed has been has to say… As usual he just spews his liberal ilk.

  6. He needs to go away and shut up. He tinks just because he was in movies it gives him the right to tell everyone else how to live and if him and the anti gun crowd gets there way more innocent Americans will die from gun violence from criminals.

    1. Who cares what Mark Hamill’s opinion is of anything! ! We need to remember that his claim to fame is making you believe that he’s something that he’s not. ….can you say well paid shyster,shuckster or liar?

  7. I respect the man’s right to voice his opinion. I sure wish he respected my right to keep and bear the latest technology in firearms though…

  8. Perhaps he could take the time to actually read the 2nd Amendment. It does not specify muskets. It specifies “right to keep and bear arms”.

  9. Great idea, Hamill. Since the bad guys will also be restricted to carrying muskets, that certainly gives the advantage to us reenactors. Why didn’t we think of this before?

  10. Dear Mark,

    How about these other Assault Rifles that were available to the Founding Fathers? Does the Second cover them, too?

    ► The Ottoman Empire had 9-and-11 barrel cannon as early as the 1300’s.

    ► The Ribauldequin was a late medieval volley gun with many small-caliber iron barrels set up parallel on a platform, in use during the 14th and 15th centuries.

    ► The Drehling 8-shot, matchlock revolver, circa 1580.

    ► An oval-bore .67-caliber rifle crafted by unknown German gunsmith before 1600 that was designed to fire 16 stacked charges of powder and ball in a rapid “Roman candle” fashion. One mid-barrel wheel lock mechanism ignited a fuse to discharge the upper 10 charges, and another rearward wheel lock then fired the remaining six lower charges.

    ► The six-or-twelve shot, 17th century, Kalthoff Repeaters.

    ► The Cookson Repeater (a.k.a. Lorenzoni System), circa 1680. 12 shot, lever-action breech-loading, repeating flintlock.

    ► Lorenzoni and Cookson Flintlock Repeating Pistols, 7-shot and 9-shot versions, circa 1680.

    ► The Puckle gun, circa 1718, a tripod-mounted, single-barreled flintlock weapon fitted with a multishot revolving cylinder, designed for shipboard use to prevent boarding. Could hold 11 pre-loaded rounds in a cylinder, and advertised to “fire 63 shots in 7 minutes.”

    ► Griffin Breechloading Flintlock Musket, 1740

    ► I Pendrill Flintlock Breechloading Rifle, 1760.

    ► The rapid-fire, Ferguson Rifle – a breech-loaded flintlock patented in 1777, which improved upon the breech-loading rifle patented in 1721 by Isaac de la Chaumette.

    [Anecdotal evidence suggests that George Washington was nearly shot in the back by none other than the inventor of the rifle, Patrick Ferguson.]

    ► Girardoni Air Rifle, circa 1780. 22 round magazine, .46 caliber air rifle. (Thomas Jefferson owned two, and gave them to Lewis & Clark for their journey)

    ► The Nock Volley Gun, circa 1780. seven 20-inch .60-caliber barrels, one in the centerline with the other six clustered and brazed around it like a handful of flowers.

    And we probably shouldn’t leave out the 44-barreled mortar designed by A K Nartov and built in the St. Petersburg Arsenal in 1754.

  11. Fortunately, sometimes gun control advocates say things so obviously stupid, logically flawed, and uncompelling that we need not waste time explaining and arguing. Thanks, Mark, for saving us some time today.

  12. No movies during the time of the framing. First Amendment doesn’t cover your movies. Pretty dumb huh? Yea, this is solid logic to the left.

  13. Hamill…???? Neeeeeeeeeeeever heard of him. Wasn’t he in one movie back in the 70’s???

    Muskets were “assault rifles” of their day. The founding fathers were also our first group of “right wing extremists.”

    Hamill, you’re a libtard.

  14. He’s an actor, and not even a very good or successful one.

    Besides that, the SCOTUS ruled this week in a Massachusetts case where a woman was arrested for owning a stun gun because the prosecutor said it wasn’t protected under the 2nd Amendment “because the technology hadn’t existed at the time” that that argument didn’t make any more sense than saying that the 1st Amendment didn’t apply to the Internet or electronic communication because that technology didn’t exist at the time. In other words, Hamill’s a typical Liberal idiot trying to twist things to suit his opinions.

  15. To keep everything in perspective, everyone should only be able to talk or post a hand written sign on a barn. Printing presses would be the equivalent of a machine gun, the internet is a nuke. Mark should stick to acting. Maybe he is acting “Dumb”. ?

  16. Doesn’t he know that hand cranked machine guns where around when the 2nd ammendment was wrote? Well the way I see it, the 2nd ammendment wasn’t written so we could go hunting deer. It was invented to ensure that there isn’t a tyrannical government. You see that they are pretty much teetering on the edge of tyranny today. So I think they where on to something myself.

  17. I guess Mark then getting your latest SW movie as pirated download is ok since copy right law doesn’t apply to new forms of media, since it was made law at the same time as the 2nd Amendment.

  18. Never bring a light saber to gun fight. Those things stop blasters just fine, but don’t work on high velocity lead.

  19. By that argument the government would be within it’s power to ban printing presses that run on electricity,. radio, television and far far more. The intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights lies far beneath technology that could not be imagined by
    our Founders.

    The hypocrisy of the left is that embrace the EXPANSION of rights into all new technologies EXCEPT in the the on case –
    the 2nd amendment. In that case their irrational reactions to limit rights comes to the forefront.

  20. its obvious Skywalker you’ve turned to the dark side. the force is against you now and all the storm troopers in Washington cant save you from public ridicule. from Jedi knight to crazy celebrity living in a fictional world of Hollywood, just take away the guns from law abiding citizens and all the criminals will give theirs up also, RIGHT!!!

  21. I am regularly amazed at the credibility that we give celebrities, especially actors, whose job it is to simply pretend to be someone else.

  22. By this logic, the Government can search all of your digital files without a warrant. You do not have free speech on the internet. I could go on, but the point is pretty simple.

  23. Mmark Hammil has apparently fallen prey to the delusion that the ability to repeat what others write for him to say , the way another tells him to say it , dressed in a costume another chooses for him , edited by another so his flubs don’t show makes all his utterances immmutable pearls of wisdomm .

    P.S. the extra mmms were included just so he feels mmore commfortable about ” ammendment ” .

  24. And the media should be restricted to hand driven printing presses. The unchecked media has done far more damage to our nation than firearms ever could and Hamill being afforded this platform for his sophomoric view is a prime example. When the media goes back to the days of the “Pony Express” and before the telegraph, I

  25. We need to be careful though…that would mean anyone would have a right to a grenade, chemical weapons, etc. Where does it stop?

  26. Irrelevant Hollywood has beens have to do something to get the publicity their sinking careers need. So they make statements proving to the world that in their life they don’t comprehend the real world.

  27. Screw that idiotic bastard, what did he write or broadcast his opinion with? It dadgum sure wasn’t a quill pen.

  28. To be logically consistent, does Hamill think that the first amendment does not apply to TV, Movies, DVD’s and the Internet since they did not exist when the FIRST amendment was written?

  29. Fun fact: A sword is also a “arm”.. a firearm is a type of arm…. you could technically have any weapon and armor, but the whole argument is about guns. Imagine the furor if they realized just how far the term “arms’ really goes! I want my battle-axe… actually I’m more of a longsword type of girl… but you get my point 😀 I am fully in support of people owning guns, just thought I’d point out it goes MUCH farther than just guns! I’m NOT joking, people have been so pacified that seeing any weapon immediately scares them but they could all learn how to use them themselves and carry them. Mark Passio explained this about the 2nd Amendment.

  30. The Founders did not rush to amend or abolish the Second Amendment as the technology of firearms progressed. They were believers in innovation and inquiry. 2A passed in 1791. By 1811, we had the Hall breechloader. In the 1820s percussion replaced flint as an ignition system. Both Jefferson and John Adams were alive to see these changes. James Madison died the same year Samuel Colt brought out his revolving handgun. The reason muskets were common was not that they could not imagine technological and scientific progress, but that they fought the war before modern propellants and loading/ignition systems came about. If the M16 had been available, the Continental Army and the militias would have gladly taken them up and it is disingenuous to think otherwise.

  31. Yes, Luke. The Dark Side and the Empire only want you to bear muskets against it. You truly are the son of Darth Vader now.

  32. who really cares what this washed up stumble bum has to say anyway, he is no constitutional scholar that i can tell you. As far as I’m concerned he car crawl his wrinkled ass back under whatever rock he came out from under

  33. He’s welcome to express his opinion freely. That in no way implies he has the right to impose his beliefs on others. You keep your musket, Mark, and I’ll keep what I have. Leave me alone, and you’ll never even know what I’ve got!

  34. Long rifles were the AR-15’s of their day. The first shots of the civil war were fired when British troops tried to confiscate the 9 lb cannon and powder stored at Concord. The 9lbr was the Gatling of the time. They also used hand grenades and mines. All covered under that which “shall not be infringed”.

  35. Actually I think the latent meaning is that “originalists” (like Scalia) are sort of retarded. If you take seriously the notion that what the framers had in mind or understood the 2nd Amendment to protect, are all it does protect, then there is a very real argument that the Constitution could really only protect the type of arms that existed at the time, since the framers couldn’t really have “had in mind” arms that didn’t exist when they wrote it. There is of course a good rebuttal to this, but it does help elucidate some of the problems with “originalism”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *