20 thoughts on “Owning A Gun”

  1. Dipping my toes in the cesspool that my Facebook feed has become, I noticed a link to a story from, Mother Jones or some crap, about “how to respond when you encounter open carry people in public.”

    You mark my words: this year or next there will be an ongoing campaign to aggressively troll people who are carrying in public, designed to incite incidents that will cause those of little thought to lose sympathy for open carry.

    The march through the institutions is complete. We lost. Brace for the full assault on the culture and the public square.

    2. The march through the institutions is complete. We lost. Brace for the full assault on the culture and the public square.

      Then I guess we’ll just have to shoot them. Really, they’re leaving us no choice.

  2. Considering the intent of the Founders and the 2nd amendment, prohibiting non-felon Citizens from having access to whole classes of firearms technologies is obviously an act of Treason to any thinking person.

    1. Oh, you’re just begging for it now! Because I’m feeling generous, I’m going to oblige: “Golly, Mr. Puckett, do you really think it is an act of treason if we restrict citizens, non-felon citizens, mind you, from owning nuclear weapons?”

      More seriously, while I think most of you are nuts, this thread did prompt me to wonder about the political aspects of open carry vs concealed carry. I was going to ask here, but instead, I read the following, which I found interesting:
      http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?94730-Open-Carry-VS-Concealed-Carry-Why

      1. I anticipate the objection that we’re only talking about firearms, and for anyone who so objects, I have a question: is the M-28 Davey Crocket recoilless rifle (firing a M388 round) an example of a firearm?

        Note we’re only talking about 0.01 kilotons, and a range of only 2 and half miles, so not a big deal, although I imagine Crockett would have appreciated using his namesake at the Alamo.

        1. Let’s turn it around:

          What to you is a law that violates the 2nd Amendment? Is there such a law in your mind?

          1. I’m very uneducated on the subject, but my take on the matter is that any outright ban on machine guns violates the 2nd amendment.

            But, to put it mildly, the justices of the Supreme Court understand the Constitution better than I do, and they seem to think that an outright ban on machine guns doesn’t violate the 2nd amendment!

            This seems crazy to me, because you’d want to give militia members machine guns. But apparently, this very point was addressed by Justice Scalia.

            And before I say anything else about that, I suppose I’d have to read the Heller decision here:
            http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2739870581644084946&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

            It amuses me, however, to think that Mr Puckett thinks that Justice Scalia is a traitor.

          2. A outright ban on machine guns would violate the Second Amendment. There isn’t one, at the federal level. Special licenses and registrations are required to own them, but a lot of people do. And not just Uzis and Tommy guns — there is a whole subculture of people who collect and fire Gatling guns of every size and description.

            In fact, there are a lot of ranges (The Gun Store in Las Vegas was the first one I saw) which rent a very large variety of fully automatic weapons, an make bank on the ammuntion sales. You have to shoot in their range, and anyone can do it. You should try it some time. It is quite educational.

          3. But, at the Federal level, the ban on machine guns appears to be to quite sweeping, even if it allows “licensed collectors” to have them. Look at the law:
            18 U.S. Code § 922
            http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922
            (and do a text search on the phrase “machine gun”)

            If speech was regulated to that extent, there would be howls of outrage from Americans of all political ideologies (ok, almost all!). If speech was regulated to that extent, it would clearly violate the 1st amendment, so why does 18 U.S. Code § 922 not violate the 2nd amendment?

          4. Also, MfK, don’t you think a ban on machine guns at the state or local levels is just as objectionable as a ban at the federal level? In any case, my very limited understanding leads me to think that McDonald_v._Chicago in 2010 established that the states are bound to uphold the 2nd amendment.
            See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

        2. Let me educate you on the Davy Crockett, it is not a firearm, it is classed as ARTILLERY!

          Recoilless rifles, contrary to the word ‘rifle’ are classed as artillery.

          1. Imagine a weapon that has the destructive potential of a W54 nuclear warhead but could be fired from a portable gun the size of a typical rifle. (Maybe such a thing won’t exist for another century, but I’m confident that the United States will still exist in another century.) How should our laws handle it?

      2. Hey fuckwad! Is a FIREARM a Nuclear Weapon or did your reading comprehension go to shit for today only?

      3. Bob, Justice Scalia has NOWHERE advocated a ban or Machine Guns nor has he said one is constitutional. If you think you are reading that in Heller, you are smoking crack.

        1. Go to the link I provided. Do a text search on the phrase “machine gun” and let me know what you think.

          1. I mean, go to the link which has the text of the Heller decision. The Justices treat 18 U.S. Code § 922 as a ban on machine guns, regardless of the exceptions it provides.

  3. It is surprising to see so many people who think protesting is patriotic. Most Democrat protests are explicitly anti-American and Democrats are not fond of letting non-Democrats protest.

    1. Regardless of the anti-American nature of some protests, the mere fact that they are allowed to happen is about as American as one can get. A person who protests against what they perceive to be an infringement on their rights is fundamentally patriotic, inasmuch as they feel safe enough to protest as well as have the guts to speak out against feeling sleighted.

      Don’t get me wrong, I fully disagree with most of the moonbattery on display at Occupy protests and the like, but the fact that they are allowed to freely assemble and demonstrate (as long as it’s peaceable assembly, of course) is something I agree with whole-heartedly.

      And yes, there’s a certain irony to the fact that a good number of those protesters don’t believe that others have the same right to protest; that isn’t lost on me at all.

  4. I enjoyed the first two descriptions of “What Makes You a Patriot?” the most. The invocation of Hank Hill as the Everyman Patriot was something I hadn’t considered before, but it also makes a lot of sense.

    The real Hank Hill’s of this country, as well as the Mike Rowe’s and others who share their story with the world, are definitely among reasons why I’m proud to be an American.

Comments are closed.