We Have No Idea What Jon Gosselin Is Doing With A Gun (PHOTOS)

We're not sure what downward-spiraling tabloid trainwreck and sire of eight, Jon Gosselin, is doing with a deadly weapon, but he was recently photographed firing off a few rounds on a farm somewhere.

Isn't there some kind of federal law requiring a reasonable length of time between hanging out with Michael Lohan and being allowed to handle firearms? Well, there should be.

Click through our gallery to take a gander at Gosselin's gunplay, then tell us in the comments: Should Jon be allowed to own (or even touch) a gun?

 

Discuss

Default avatar
  • jollymom33@gmail.com
    jollymom33@gmail.com

    Police and the Psychiatrist better lock up Jon G. and throw away the key before he does something to Kate and the kids. He has to be involved w/drugs the way he behaves. The courts should take away any and all custody of the kids from him before there are less than Kate plus 8. He is definately out of control and extremely dangerous to himself and others. The law better not wait on this one!!!

  • jollymom33@gmail.com
    jollymom33@gmail.com

    Police and the Psychiatrist better lock up Jon G. and throw away the key before he does something to Kate and the kids. He has to be involved w/drugs the way he behaves. The courts should take away any and all custody of the kids from him before there are less than Kate plus 8. He is definately out of control and extremely dangerous to himself and others. The law better not wait on this one!!!

  • Orygunner
    Orygunner

    You people are all missing the point here. Kate and those eight kids have the RIGHT to feel safe in their own home. The home is now legally Kates home. She may feel that Jon bringing a gun to HER home is a threat and not want it there. He should respect that. I went through a divorce and was threathened with a gun in my OWN home by my ex husband. I know how Kate must be feeling. Jon has no RIGHT to walk into Kates home with a gun PERIOD! He may have the right to own one but Kate has rights as the HOME OWNER. Jon should be spending his time playing with his kids not playing with a gun. I and my family are gun owners, but we respect our fellow Americans rights. We would never infringe on ones right to feel safe in ones own home. I don't think you understand what rights really are. There is no such right to FEEL safe, you're making that up. We DO have the right to take any measures we choose to try and feel safe, as long as our actions do not infringe on the REAL rights of others. If it's Kate's home and she wants to prevent Jon from bringing a gun into it, that's her right as the homeowner, and she has the right to enforce that with physical force if necessary. I'll admit I don't know anything about Jon other than a few minutes watching that show on TV, but at least I'm not pretending to know who he really is and whether he should be "allowed" to have a gun from watching him on television.

  • Dutch
    Dutch

    Gun control laws have NEVER been proven to work anywhere they've been tried, anywhere in the world. I guess it depends on who is interpretting the data. In most countries the number of gun related accidents are not even near to the numbers in the States.. Personally I think this debate is far to complex to properly address in this setting. But I strongly agree with you, that it's ridiculous how people try to decide which people should or should not get certain rights, based on the personality they only know from TV or other media. Rights are for all...

  • Dutch
    Dutch

    Sure... give everybody in the States a gun, but complain when this guy is using one...

  • Bon7
    Bon7

    You people are all missing the point here. Kate and those eight kids have the RIGHT to feel safe in their own home. The home is now legally Kates home. She may feel that Jon bringing a gun to HER home is a threat and not want it there. He should respect that. I went through a divorce and was threathened with a gun in my OWN home by my ex husband. I know how Kate must be feeling. Jon has no RIGHT to walk into Kates home with a gun PERIOD! He may have the right to own one but Kate has rights as the HOME OWNER. Jon should be spending his time playing with his kids not playing with a gun. I and my family are gun owners, but we respect our fellow Americans rights. We would never infringe on ones right to feel safe in ones own home. I totally agree. Jon should never have that gun around Kate's home with the children being present or not. Children have a natural curiosity and Jon is the last person I would want teaching children about gun safety. He is obviously unbalanced, irrational, and not smart. He is a loose cannon waiting to commit another bad choice! Grow up Jon! Your children are the last thing on your mind right now!

  • katehasrightstoo
    katehasrightstoo

    You people are all missing the point here. Kate and those eight kids have the RIGHT to feel safe in their own home. The home is now legally Kates home. She may feel that Jon bringing a gun to HER home is a threat and not want it there. He should respect that. I went through a divorce and was threathened with a gun in my OWN home by my ex husband. I know how Kate must be feeling. Jon has no RIGHT to walk into Kates home with a gun PERIOD! He may have the right to own one but Kate has rights as the HOME OWNER. Jon should be spending his time playing with his kids not playing with a gun. I and my family are gun owners, but we respect our fellow Americans rights. We would never infringe on ones right to feel safe in ones own home.

  • Orygunner
    Orygunner

    Stop preaching to me. The simple question that started this all was whether Jon Gosselin should own a gun. You've turned this into a soapbox for your "cause". It's MY opinion that I gave. I don't care if you agree with me or not, nor do I need you assuming where I get my opinion or facts from. Let it go already. Live your gun-toting life. I simply do not care about you. ME let it go? LOL! You're the one that keeps responding, You have just as much of a right to your opinion as I do, and have made your anti-rights opinions just as evident as I have my opinions for our rights and freedoms. Jon has just as much of a right to own a gun for self defense as you, or I, or Martha Stewart (she's a convicted felon, you know). Because of the spread of anti-gun attitudes like yours, we have let the government get away with restricting those rights for people who really aren't a danger to others, while the really dangerous ones simply break the law and will always get their guns anyway. Maybe you give the biggest clue about your problem right there.. You don't care about me, just your desire to "feel safe." People like ME scare you, why? Because I carry a firearm to protect myself an my family? Does knowing people around you are carrying guns makes you nervous? Perhaps you don't care about others and their desire to protect themselves effectively. If it made YOU feel better and safer, would you happily throw their rights under the bus and vote to deny everyone else's right to keep and bear arms? Me, I care about EVERYONE'S rights, even those I don't like or agree with, which is why I oppose any and all gun control: It doesn't make any society any safer, and denies people their rights. Anyway, hey, Merry Christmas! It's been fun chatting with you. Take care and stay safe, and please reply if you want to continue this conversation ;) ...Orygunner...

  • jeffvond
    jeffvond

    Stop preaching to me. The simple question that started this all was whether Jon Gosselin should own a gun. You've turned this into a soapbox for your "cause". It's MY opinion that I gave. I don't care if you agree with me or not, nor do I need you assuming where I get my opinion or facts from. Let it go already. Live your gun-toting life. I simply do not care about you.

  • Orygunner
    Orygunner

    I don't joke about people LEGALLY buying weapons (guns, knives, etc.) to harm or kill other people. My comprehension skills are fine. Weapons are used to kill people. Plain and simple. I have that RIGHT as an AMERICAN to have my point of view. People like you scare me. It's what's wrong with this world. The right to "bare arms" and shoot first and then ask questions.Your statement:"EVERYONE deserves the right of self defense, even someone with "mental issues" or someone that's committed a crime previously."Is crazy to me. We'll never see eye to eye. So enjoy your weapons safely. It's really very simple. Someone buying a weapon to break the law (to harm or kill another person) is not going to obey a law stating they need to pass a background check or psych evaluation first, either. I can see you must get most of your information about gun owners from the TV news and movies, because you have a grave misunderstanding of your fellow good citizens that own guns. 80 million gun owners don't buy guns to kill people, and don't "shoot first and then ask questions." The overwhelming majority of gun owners that have firearms for sport or self defense are good people that don't want to kill anyone and understand the consequences of shooting first and asking questions later. That's why with hundreds of thousands of times every year people in the US use firearms for self defense, there's only about 150 attackers killed... Unlike violent criminals, we don't WANT to kill anybody. Thankfully, over 90% of the time, the violent attacker turns tail and runs at the sight of the potential victim's firearm. Please don't confuse GOOD people with violent criminals, you're spreading an incorrect bigoted stereotype of gun owners. Your belief that people don't have the right to defend their own life is baffling to me as well... Which do you think is better? A woman raped and strangled to death with her own pantyhose, or the same woman safe, giving a description to the police of the attacker that she scared away with a firearm? Now what if that same woman had a previous felony conviction for some non-violent felony that prohibited her from legally owning a firearm. Would you rather see her dead than able to protect herself and alive? This background check system is broken. The criminal justice system that lets obviously dangerous people out running free is broken. We don't need to prevent people from buying guns because we THINK they may be dangerous, we need to keep the people locked up that ARE dangerous.

  • jeffvond
    jeffvond

    I don't joke about people LEGALLY buying weapons (guns, knives, etc.) to harm or kill other people. My comprehension skills are fine. Weapons are used to kill people. Plain and simple. I have that RIGHT as an AMERICAN to have my point of view. People like you scare me. It's what's wrong with this world. The right to "bare arms" and shoot first and then ask questions. Your statement: "EVERYONE deserves the right of self defense, even someone with "mental issues" or someone that's committed a crime previously." Is crazy to me. We'll never see eye to eye. So enjoy your weapons safely.

  • Orygunner
    Orygunner

    So, how do you know who is "non-dangerous"??Not all people with mental issues have or need a guardian. So how do YOU know who you're selling a gun to?It's very sad that you won't protect your sister's memory by getting stronger knife selling laws. Enjoy your gun. I'm tired of this issue. Shoot 'um up, I guess... You're either joking, or lack the comprehension skills to understand that stronger knife laws wouldn't have prevented her murder, or anyone else's, any more than stronger gun laws will... Gun control laws have NEVER been proven to work anywhere they've been tried, anywhere in the world. How do you know who is dangerous? You won't like the answer - You can't! There's PLENTY of dangerous people out there that would PASS a background check and a psychological evaluation. That's the cost of living in a free society like our founding fathers envisioned for this country. People are free to do what they like, but if what they do infringes on the freedom of others, THEN they need to be charged, tried, and punished. Laws only deter those willing to obey them. Someone simply posessing a firearm harms NOBODY. Someone safely using that firearm for target practice (like Jon was doing) harms NOBODY. NEITHER of these should be illegal for any free person walking the streets, as it is a RIGHT to for the people to keep and bear arms, as (is SUPPOSED to be) protected by our Constitution. If someone ABUSES that right by using a firearm to commit a crime, then THAT behavior should be punished. If a person is deemed too dangerous to be free to roam the streets again with a firearm, we need to change our policies that release those dangerous people back on the street, because if they're free, they'll ALWAYS be able to get a gun. EVERYONE deserves the right of self defense, even someone with "mental issues" or someone that's committed a crime previously.

  • jeffvond
    jeffvond

    So, how do you know who is "non-dangerous"?? Not all people with mental issues have or need a guardian. So how do YOU know who you're selling a gun to? It's very sad that you won't protect your sister's memory by getting stronger knife selling laws. Enjoy your gun. I'm tired of this issue. Shoot 'um up, I guess...

  • Orygunner
    Orygunner

    Hell Yeah!! We should descriminate against who will be owning and shooting a gun. You're ok with mentally unstable people with guns?? Perhaps if we gave potential gun owners a mental exam, we'd have less crime, murders, robberies. Tell me how are YOU going to explain your "gun rights" to a victim of a shooting?? Or a family of a murdered person?? Do you think they want to hear you spout off on your "it's a legal right" campaign?? What if someone shoots you? Kills you or a loved one? Still going to have the same stance?? Jeffvond, if someone is mentally unstable enough to be too dangerous to have a firearm, what are they doing in public without a custodian? Guns will ALWAYS be easy to get "on the street" even if firearms were completely banned. If you don't believe it, look at illicit drugs. Completely illegal, billions spent on the "war on drugs" and drugs are still available damn near everywhere. What makes you think guns are any bit harder to get if someone wants one? How do you propose to get the violent criminals responsible for crime, murders, and robberies to take your proposed mental exam? YOU WON'T. Gun control only effects those who choose to obey the law. Those willing to disobey the law to murder, rape, and mug people, certainly aren't going to bother obeying some law that says they can't have a firearm. My sister was viciously murdered, stabbed 57 times. I'VE got the brains to figure out that the knife wasn't responsible, that millions of other knife owners had nothing to do with it, and that we don't need stronger knife control, because stronger knife laws wouldn't have done a single damn thing to save my sister. So if someone I loved was shot, I won't be blinded by ignorance and emotion and start blaming inanimate objects for the death, I'll put the blame where it belongs: onto the killer, who wasn't stopped by the law. My sister didn't have a gun to protect herself. I do have TWO other relatives whose lives WERE most likely saved by them having a firearm at the right time. That, and studies done on uses of firearms in self defense proves to me that firearms ARE used for good purposes, to protect people. Stricter gun control isn't going to stop any criminals from getting a gun (it never has), but certainly prevents NON-dangerous people from legally having the means of effective self-defense.

  • jeffvond
    jeffvond

    So let me see if I understand, you think it's right to descriminate against people because you disagree with their behavior or their intelligence? That some people have no right to an effective means to protect their life because YOU don't think they are worthy? That's prejudice and bigotry. EVERYONE has the right to self defense. I see nothing in those photos that shows unsafe gun handling. Letting his kids play with his gun(s)? Puh-LEEZE! Hell Yeah!! We should descriminate against who will be owning and shooting a gun. You're ok with mentally unstable people with guns?? Perhaps if we gave potential gun owners a mental exam, we'd have less crime, murders, robberies. Tell me how are YOU going to explain your "gun rights" to a victim of a shooting?? Or a family of a murdered person?? Do you think they want to hear you spout off on your "it's a legal right" campaign?? What if someone shoots you? Kills you or a loved one? Still going to have the same stance??

  • Orygunner
    Orygunner

    Yeah, you're right. The Second Amendment has NOTHING AT ALL to do with citizens serving the government. EXCEPT THE ENTIRE FIRST f*cking HALF OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT. So you think we and our rights exist to serve the government....? Perhaps you should go back to school and re-take your government class. The government exists to serve THE PEOPLE, not the other way around. Massive history and understanding of government FAIL.

  • Orygunner
    Orygunner

    Geez, you really think this arrogant, thoughtless, irrational, child-man should have a weapon? Maybe you'd like to live next door to him. Would YOU feel safe? And I'm sure he wouldn't care if his kids played with his gun or had access to it. So any idiot should have the right to own a gun?? So let me see if I understand, you think it's right to descriminate against people because you disagree with their behavior or their intelligence? That some people have no right to an effective means to protect their life because YOU don't think they are worthy? That's prejudice and bigotry. EVERYONE has the right to self defense. I see nothing in those photos that shows unsafe gun handling. Letting his kids play with his gun(s)? Puh-LEEZE!

  • Alex
    Alex

    I predict that things will get worse for Jon. I believe this will end in some sort of tragedy - maybe he will shoot Kate, then himself. Hopefully he will leave the kids out. He may just kill himself, as he must now try to pay for child support to a woman who is making money while he has no job.

  • me
    me

    For all people who think that the constitution grants or protects the right to bear arms, I suggest you review what the Supreme Court says on the subject. From the mid-1800s to the present, the Supreme Court has continually ruled that people only have the right to bear arms if they are doing so for the protection of the federal government. Besides that, I'm glad the judge ordered Jon to not have a gun in the same house as his 8 kids. That was just a recipe for disaster. You're an idiot. Have you never heard of the Heller decision that happened in 2008? Do some research before spouting off.

  • ME
    ME

    "We Have No Idea What Jon Gosselin Is Doing With A Gun" Might as well have said, "We Have No Idea Why Jon Gosselin Is Practicing Free Speech", or, "We Have No Idea Why Jon Gosselin Is Asserting His Rights Against Illegal Search and Seizure" or any of the other items in the Bill Of Rights. Idiots. If you have no idea why, then I'm happy with that. Because it is NOBODY'S DAMN BUSINESS.

  • Dimensio
    Dimensio

    "No, he should not be allowed to have a gun in a home with 8 yourng childeren. " I do not believe that any extant state or federal law establishes such a restriction.

  • K in OR
    K in OR

    Nope, that's now KATE's Home! No, he should not be allowed to have a gun in a home with 8 yourng childeren. Let him play with that in NY, not PA!

  • sherron
    sherron

    Jon's house is in Pennsylvania not New York City!

  • Dimensio
    Dimensio

    "Yeah, you're right. The Second Amendment has NOTHING AT ALL to do with citizens serving the government. EXCEPT THE ENTIRE FIRST f*cking HALF OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT." Your statement does not constitute a refutation of the fact that the Bill of Rights does not "grant" rights, nor does it alter the fact that the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution explicitly protects a right belonging to "the people". Your willful ignoring of these facts is not unexpected, however, as civilian disarmament advocates are frequently irrational and dishonest.

  • jeffvond
    jeffvond

    Geez, you really think this arrogant, thoughtless, irrational, child-man should have a weapon? Maybe you'd like to live next door to him. Would YOU feel safe? And I'm sure he wouldn't care if his kids played with his gun or had access to it. So any idiot should have the right to own a gun??

  • hispanicatthedisco
    hispanicatthedisco

    Gina, the only thing correct about your comment is that the Constitution doesn't GRANT any rights. The Second Amendment to the US Constitution has NOTHING to do with bearing arms for the protection of the Federal Government. . Yeah, you're right. The Second Amendment has NOTHING AT ALL to do with citizens serving the government. EXCEPT THE ENTIRE FIRST f*cking HALF OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

  • Jeanne
    Jeanne

    The only thing Jonboy uses his head for, is a hatrack. Oh wait, it's probably full of beer. This guy's going to go down in history books as the most stupid man ever born. I wouldn't put it past him to show up at some public event, put a gun in his mouth, and pull the trigger. It would be his last and most dreadful Mantrum. Geeze what a dumb@ss.

  • Marilyn
    Marilyn

    If Jon is in counseling I hope the professional sees these photos. This guy is not stable. He acts out with no thoughts to anything or anyone around him. I hope he would not intentionally harm his kids but accidents can happen. He needs to grow up, stop telling lies and at the very least think of his children first. The world does not revolve around him.

  • regina
    regina

    looks like penn. home, not ny.

  • Privateer
    Privateer

    Gina, from your statements it sounds like you are OK with judges just making up ruIes as they go. You see, there is no requirement or capapbility for Jon to register his weapon in that part of the world. The judge has ordered Jon to do something he physically can not do since the local LEOs dont keep gun registrations (just like most of the country) for no apparent reason (he did not threaten anyone with his weapon to my knowledge) With respect to your assertions regarding Supreme court decisions you have no idea what you are writing about. I assume you are reffering to the Dred Scott deciscion which basically said persons of African descent could not be citizens and therefore were not entitled to Constitutional protections, including the Second Ammendment (cant have armed Negros now can we?) Maybe you are reffering to U.S. v. Cruikshank in which members of the KKK deprived blacks of their basic rights such as freedom of assembly and to bear arms. The court decided that neither the First nor Second Amendments applied to the states, but were limitations on Congress. This case is often misunderstood by claiming Cruikshank held the Second Amendment does not grant a right to keep and bear arms. However, the court also said this about the First Amendment. Do you think that is true too? Because as the court explained that these rights weren't granted or created by the Constitution, they existed prior to the Constitution. Maybe you are reffering to U.S. v. Miller (1939) which too badly misinterpreted and misapplied to be addressed in this forum. Maybe you missed DC v Heller. It is the Supreme Court in which the Court said that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense. You are entitled to and welcome to your opinions, but do not try to assert facts without checking with Google first.

  • Orygunner
    Orygunner

    Gina, the only thing correct about your comment is that the Constitution doesn't GRANT any rights. The Second Amendment to the US Constitution has NOTHING to do with bearing arms for the protection of the Federal Government. Nothing in history, nothing in the writings of the framers of the Constitution or the Founding Fathers, and no Supreme Court cases ever decided have stated any such thing. I challenge you to find the supreme court case and post it here (which you will not be able to do, because it's never happened). As far as someone not having guns in their house - What, you don't think children are worth protecting? GOOD people aren't CRIMINALS, learn not to confuse the two.

  • Hey, this is Tiger....can you do me a favor...???
    Hey, this is Tiger....can you do me a favor...???

    You don't know and neither does he...SMH

  • Gina
    Gina

    For all people who think that the constitution grants or protects the right to bear arms, I suggest you review what the Supreme Court says on the subject. From the mid-1800s to the present, the Supreme Court has continually ruled that people only have the right to bear arms if they are doing so for the protection of the federal government. Besides that, I'm glad the judge ordered Jon to not have a gun in the same house as his 8 kids. That was just a recipe for disaster.

  • Dimensio
    Dimensio

    Orygunner, I believe that you have neglected to consider that advocates of civilian disarmament are frequently irrational, dishonest and fundamentally ignorant of extant firearm regulations. They thus do not understand that until and unless Mr. Gosselin engages in an action that subsequently legally prohibits his possession of a firearm, that he is free to possess a firearm if he chooses to do so. They will also irrationally suggest that Mr. Goselin's right to possess a firearm be suspended with neither due process nor just cause.

  • Lenny B
    Lenny B

    Good for John, I wish I had a front yard that I could LEGALLY shoot in. As long as where he lives allows it then GOOD FOR HIM!!!

  • Orygunner
    Orygunner

    Of COURSE, everyone has the right to keep and bear arms. It's an inalienable right protected (not granted) by the Constitution. Any twits that don't think he should be allowed to have a gun don't understand what rights are or what it means to be an American. You can have any opinion you want, it doesn't change the fact that he has the right to own and use a firearm as long as he's not threatening or harming an innocent person, period.

  • Jeanne
    Jeanne

    One can only hope it's pointed at his head when it accidently discharges. This man's barely able to chew gum and walk at the same time, let alone manage a gun responsibly.

  • Taylor
    Taylor

    That isn't a farm somewhere, it's his front yard, eep! A judge has ruled in court that he can't bring the gun to the family home any more - good plan.

 
celebuzz