Anti-gun nut beclowns self. Again. Of course.

[Perd Hapley]

[The second amendment] is the only Article in the Bill of Rights that protects only a certain group of individuals: people who decide to own guns. Every other Amendment guarantees protections to everyone, whether it's speech, religion, assembly, due process, trial by jury or payment for private property that is taken for public use.

(I guess he capitalizes certain nouns so that he seems more like the Founders.  )

Of all the ways that Gun Nation tries to disguise the fact that guns are simply a lethal product that do a lot more harm than good, the notion that all those armed citizens are protecting us with their 'tools' has to be the dumbest and most childish justification of all. Anyway, back to Constitutional rights.

Even though I own more than 60 guns and would hate to see the day that I couldn't own any more...

"Guns are simply a lethal product that do a lot more harm than good." Which is why he owns 60 of them, and is so very attached to them.


Maybe I should read more disarmament lit, just for this kind of entertainment value.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-weisser/second-amendment_b_9463028.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=flipboard

[brimic]

Its a recent tactic of the anti-gun left to make claims (some wild) of owning guns to try to give themselves some sort of gun-owner cred.
Even in our local paper, a certain rabid anti-gun columnist claimed that he likes to hunt with his grandfather's 'Colt double barrel shotgun'- I had to look that one up, and nope, I highly doubt that he's ever fired one, let alone hunts with it.

[Ben]

I'm not a Constitutional expert

Ya got that right.

[RoadKingLarry]

Every other Amendment guarantees protections to everyone, whether it's speech, religion,

What about atheists? Since we have no need to have religion as a protected right why should anyone else?
I don't have a newspaper so don't need freedom of the press.

[makattak]

What about atheists? Since we have no need to have religion as a protected right why should anyone else?
I don't have a newspaper so don't need freedom of the press.

Don't forget the curmudgeons who don't like people and have no need to freely assemble. (Honestly, I have no idea how you missed that one.)

[RoadKingLarry]

Don't forget the curmudgeons who don't like people and have no need to freely assemble. (Honestly, I have no idea how you missed that one.)

With me it's just a given.

[Perd Hapley]

Let's not even start comparing the number of Americans who own guns to the number who've been tried by a jury.

[Hawkmoon]

[The second amendment] is the only Article in the Bill of Rights that protects only a certain group of individuals: people who decide to own guns. Every other Amendment guarantees protections to everyone, whether it's speech, religion, assembly, due process, trial by jury or payment for private property that is taken for public use.

What a silly statement.

The first amendment doesn't protect everyone. According to the logic espoused in the article, the first amendment protects only those people who decide to engage in speech, or who decide to engage in the practice of a religion.

And it should be obvious that protections against quartering soldiers in your home don't protect people who live in the streets and who are, by definition, "homeless." Where's the equal protection for them? And how does a guarantee of payment for private property taken for public use provide any protection for people who "decide" not to own private property, but to rent instead?

What a dweeb.

[Perd Hapley]

And what's with this thirteenth amendment thing? And don't even get me started on the twenty-sixth...

[MechAg94]

What a silly statement.

The first amendment doesn't protect everyone. According to the logic espoused in the article, the first amendment protects only those people who decide to engage in speech, or who decide to engage in the practice of a religion.

And it should be obvious that protections against quartering soldiers in your home don't protect people who live in the streets and who are, by definition, "homeless." Where's the equal protection for them? And how does a guarantee of payment for private property taken for public use provide any protection for people who "decide" not to own private property, but to rent instead?

What a dweeb.

What about people who are quiet and don't want to speak publicly.  Or people who have no problem stating their sins in front of groups of people (like a congregation). 

I agree with the "dweeb" comment.  Any bit of rational thought would have shown the foolishness of this idea.

[MechAg94]

Are the comments on that site turned off or is my browser just not pulling it up?  

[KD5NRH]

And what's with this thirteenth amendment thing? And don't even get me started on the twenty-sixth...

And the 16th only lets Congress tax people.  I want to tax people, dammit.

[brimic]

Are the comments on that site turned off or is my browser just not pulling it up?  

Leftist views aren't debatable anymore.
Another tactic of bloomberg and his various anti-gun groups like MAIG- put out youtube videos or op-eds but make sure comments section is disabled.

[lee n. field]

Its a recent tactic of the anti-gun left to make claims (some wild) of owning guns to try to give themselves some sort of gun-owner cred.
Even in our local paper, a certain rabid anti-gun columnist claimed that he likes to hunt with his grandfather's 'Colt double barrel shotgun'- I had to look that one up, and nope, I highly doubt that he's ever fired one, let alone hunts with it.

Ian of Forgotten Weapons did review a couple Colt side by side shotguns, so they did exist.  In the 1870s.

[brimic]

Ian of Forgotten Weapons did review a couple Colt side by side shotguns, so they did exist.  In the 1870s.

Yes, they did exist. However, they all had damascus barrels- I doubt that the author had the knowledge or ability to roll his own BP loads to safely shoot it. 

[AJ Dual]

Just one more data-point in my constant theme that all these "alternative" anti-gun arguments are proof we're winning. Probably the ONE place we're winning in the larger culture war it seems.

All the "I own guns.. (often with incorrect or implausible info.) but..." editorials.

Or the "You can't be XYZ and own guns. (And want to shoot people)

Don't date guys with guns.

There really aren't a bunch of new gun owners, the existing gun owners are just buying more and more guns..

Etc.

The more off the wall and ridiculous the anti-gun arguments get, the better we're doing.

(edited) because I like italics.

[lee n. field]

Yes, they did exist. However, they all had damascus barrels- I doubt that the author had the knowledge or ability to roll his own BP loads to safely shoot it. 

I should have made that point explicitly.  Yes, "double barrel Colt shotguns" exist, but they're oddball antiques that would/should only be shot by someone knowledgeable enough to roll their own black powder shells.