As a liberal and a progressive, I'm all for maintaining the sanctity of the Constitution. Therefore, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So keep your guns, provided they are owned specifically for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated militia and used solely in armed support of or revolt against the federal government.

A Dark Evil Omen: I can't help but notice that the more the gun lobby wins, the shriller they get. It's another wedge issue they're losing out on.

I should really start a gun-training group under the Occupy banner. That would cause some rightists to go completely insane.

This needs to happen. For free. Inner-city.

Another Myth: Guns and Ammo readers are inbred redneck gun nuts



//a bayonet? Really?

yusyusyus: I would hope even a lazy journalist could accurately describe the process of defecation.

jaylectricity: [i377.photobucket.com image 520x465]
...
please tell me that's a 'shop job...

please?

max_pooper: For every Rambo wanna be cop out there who used his gun to keep a white woman from getting raped by a negro, there are countless dipshiats who kill themselves or innocent bystanders with heavily armed stupidity.

Can you back this up? What's the chance for example that an individual in the U.S. will be shot either by a gun accident, or a purposeful murder? How does this compare to say, fatal car accidents (which are about 4-5k per year)?

The book Freakonomics for example makes a good argument that a swimming pool is 100 times more likely to kill a child than a gun.

Obviously accidents happen, and some people do murder with a gun that might not have if no gun was available, but too often people misrepresent the danger compared with other dangers we accept in our lives. I'm not anti-gun, but not hugely pro-gun either. I just think people on both sides make unreasonable arguments.

I made it as far as...

"Myth: You're more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder. Find some new facts-that one's been discredited. It counted illegally possessed guns and gang members right along with the legitimate homes. And it only took into account incidents in which shots were fired.

Then my head exploded.



but I got better

LockeOak: In my experience, the ones that proclaim the 2nd amendment loudest are the ones who treat guns like motorcycles: expensive grown-up toys that, if used improperly (or sometimes not) are likely to get you or those around you killed.

To use the modern vernacular, I cannot say more ^^THIS^^

Did any one else read that with a slow red voice???? I certainly did.





"Some libruls in duh media you just caan't reach, which is tha way he wont's it. Weeell he geeets it"

It's like that David Cross redneck voice.


Redneck fight

A Dark Evil Omen: I should really start a gun-training group under the Occupy banner. That would cause some rightists to go completely insane.

Pleasepleasepleaseplease do this! I'll even contribute. Perhaps rational gun owners could then finally liberate the hobby from the right-wing farktards who have co-opted it.


AirForceVet: Gun shows don't require background checks? That doesn't sound good.

That's because it's bullshiat.

What TFA mentions is that there is no requirement for PRIVATE CITIZENS (non-FFL holders) to conduct a background check anywhere. This includes gun shows, the mall, the public park, out in the street in front of your house, etc. Federal Firearms License holders must conduct background checks. Private citizens do not. FFL holders must conduct background checks everywhere they sell a firearm. This includes gun shows, the mall, the public park, out in the street in front of your house, etc.

Every dealer at every gun show- every FFL-holder everywhere- must conduct a background check prior to every sale. Having a FFL essentially allows the ATF to put you under a microscope anytime they want for no reason at all. The slightest irregularity in a gun sale and the FFL-holder doesn't just risk losing his/her license- he/she risks going to Federal PMITA prison (unless the DoJ is trying to pull some super-sneaky "trace the guns to drug dealers" scam over the objections of the gun dealers involved). The continued use of this demonstrably false claim is one of the things the author was pissed off about.


max_pooper: You want to own a gun, it's your right but use if you eff up your dumbass should never be allowed to touch one again.

THIS times eleventy. Rights come with responsibilities.

FTFA: "When we read about an "AK-47" used in a crime that turns out to have been a regular old bolt-action, or when journalists use such terms as ".12-caliber shotgun", "automatic revolver" or "spray fire assault rifle," he reveals his ignorance."

Above: what a couple of automatic revolvers look like. Who's ignorant now? I agree that the media gets their ill-informed panties in a twist about guns far too often, but you aren't helping...

/gun nut

Malcolm Reynolds would, indeed, be the world's only athiest teabagger.

And his utter failure to score with a prostitute speaks volumes about their inability to get things done.

GOB: Another Myth: Guns and Ammo readers are inbred redneck gun nuts
[www.gunsandammo.com image 640x747]
//a bayonet? Really?

Well if you shoot that bird, it won't have that much meat left.

Encryptshun: As a liberal and a progressive, I'm all for maintaining the sanctity of the Constitution. Therefore, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So keep your guns, provided they are owned specifically for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated militia and used solely in armed support of or revolt against the federal government.

Translation: "I don't understand basic English grammar, even the modern version, let alone when that was written."

Hint: check out the difference between a dependent clause and an independent clause.

Also check out the earlier drafts of the Second Amendment, in which the Framers stated exactly what "militia" meant, but removed it in the final only because it was considered redundant − everyone knew what "Militia" meant, and they didn't think that the language would change that much.

GOB: Another Myth: Guns and Ammo readers are inbred redneck gun nuts

[www.gunsandammo.com image 640x747]

//a bayonet? Really?

Jesus, what an epic family portrait.

If his j-curl, porn stache or talking bird don't kill you, by God his tea-shaded old lady will. Hell, with that scope on there she could stab you from a quarter mile away and they'd still get home in time for the seance.

RatMaster999: [www.littlegun.info image 640x351]

[world.guns.ru image 550x368]

FTFA: "When we read about an "AK-47" used in a crime that turns out to have been a regular old bolt-action, or when journalists use such terms as ".12-caliber shotgun", "automatic revolver" or "spray fire assault rifle," he reveals his ignorance."

Above: what a couple of automatic revolvers look like. Who's ignorant now? I agree that the media gets their ill-informed panties in a twist about guns far too often, but you aren't helping...

/gun nut

Is that top one Desert Eagle?

thamike: Wenchmaster: THIS times eleventy. Rights come with responsibilities.

How did you even begin to translate that?

You have achieved discontinuity of meaning. Please elucidate.

GOB: Another Myth: Guns and Ammo readers are inbred redneck gun nuts

[www.gunsandammo.com image 640x747]

//a bayonet? Really?

Put a bird on it!

President Obama has increased gun-rights in the United States. The NRA needs to man-up and admit they were wrong.

This of course won't happen. In fact, the NRA will probably come out in favor of Mitt Romney, who passed a very strict assault-weapons ban.

/gun owner

I'll just leave this here. It's almost an hour long, but it's worth a watch.

Interesting. Possibly the one discrete identity group in the country whose primary right of concern is under the least threat - and the group that shrieks the loudest about imaginary threats to their rights. Come down off the cross, fellas.
Nobody's going to take your guns.
I won't let them - I promise.

thamike: I'm trying to embiggen your cromulent reply to his frenuous statement.

Ah, I seem to have misapprehended your intent. Perhaps my penchant for supererogation is less than provident.

umad: This of course won't happen. In fact, the NRA will probably come out in favor of Mitt Romney, who passed a very strict assault-weapons ban.

Any journalist worth his salt would drill the NRA about this. Why why why don't you support the guy who increased gun rights, and why why why do you support the guy who already sneaked gun bans into legislation that he passed in MA?

With Republicans it's not what you DO, it's what you SAY. They claim to be small-government and fiscally-conservative, but their record over the past decades shows the exact opposite.

DeltaPunch: umad: This of course won't happen. In fact, the NRA will probably come out in favor of Mitt Romney, who passed a very strict assault-weapons ban.

Any journalist worth his salt would drill the NRA about this. Why why why don't you support the guy who increased gun rights, and why why why do you support the guy who already sneaked gun bans into legislation that he passed in MA?

With Republicans it's not what you DO, it's what you SAY. They claim to be small-government and fiscally-conservative, but their record over the past decades shows the exact opposite.

Why doesn't the NRA defend the right to keep and bear knives, or brass knuckles, or other banned arms? Why only guns? Do you $uppo$e there might be a rea$on for this? An industry organ, plain and simple, and far from a citizen's rights organization.

Are swords protected by the 2nd Amendment?.

CygnusDarius: Are swords protected by the 2nd Amendment?.

yes.

CygnusDarius: Are swords protected by the 2nd Amendment?.

They should be. They are arms. But their manufacture is not a billion-dollar industry, so, sadly, they have no Constitutional champions.

Now we know how the next season of Eastbound and Down starts.

Ow! That was my feelings!: CygnusDarius: Are swords protected by the 2nd Amendment?.

yes.

Ok, under that, is a sword cane considered a concealed weapon?.

.