As soon as I got my PTR, I knew that I had to recreate this image:
And so I did!
Besides, it makes a fantastic dating profile pic.
Clearly, you are here. There are things to read, but no one's twisting your arm about it, punk.
Anonymous said: Why do you own a gun? Just out of curiosity. Why do you feel the need or desire to own one?
No further explanation needed.
That explains nothing.
I guess it wouldn’t if you don’t know the Constitution or your history. In which case, I can’t help you.
Your going to use your handgun in a militia to declare independence from from a government that taxes you without representing you? In America? In the 21st century?
HAVE YOU NOT BEEN PAYING ATTENTION TO HOW OUR GOVERNMENT HAS RECENTLY BEEN “RUNNING” THIS COUNTRY!? YEAH! I JUST MIGHT! Article II: "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." The Constitution (whether you like it or not) still applies today. ALL OF IT. If you want to be disarmed and at the mercy of a corrupt government, so be it. Don’t expect me to follow in your footsteps.
Friend, what well regulated militia are you a part of? I know very well the bullshit the US government is getting up to. I am sorry if I’m being too realistic for you, but a government that has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world many times over isn’t scared of Republicans with semi-automatics.
This issue of a “well regulated militia” is well-outlined in District of Columbia v. Heller—a Supreme Court case that upheld the Second Amendment rights for all U.S. citizens, regardless of militia or state/federal affiliation.
From the Cornell Law School syllabus on the decision, which provides a handy summary of the case:
"1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.”
Despite the wall of text, we see here in Justice Scalia’s opinion that, despite the wording of a “well regulated militia,” being present in the Second Amendment, the operative “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” is the actual crux of the Amendment’s command. Meaning, the people’s right to bear arms (not the militia’s,) shall not be infringed.
Furthermore, as the militia that the amendment was referring to was the citizen’s militia, it was (and is) composed of all able-bodied men capable of defending their homeland. Now, I like to think that the definition has broadened over time to include women as well, though you might feel differently. In fact, the insistence with which you skeptically implied that this individual isn’t actually a member of the citizen’s militia suggests that you take issue with the only characteristic that would bar her from entry to such a group—i.e. her sex.
That doesn’t make you wrong, it just makes you a bit sexist.
No, I do not hold my gun this way in normal circumstances. Just thought I would throw that out there before somebody made the comment.
Nice Glock, is it your first gun?
Thank you, and no it is not. I got my first gun when I was 13.I love this girl!No thirteen year old should own a gun. This is repulsive. This is why there has been 76 school shootings in the past year and a half. Children should not have guns. We need a better mental health care system, and stricter gun laws. This is so sad to me.
For your information, my mental health is fine and I have never contributed to a school shooting or any other illegal firearm activity. Screw you for comparing responsible gun owners to criminals! I was raised in proper firearm safety and was probably more responsible then many adults. There was a time when children were taught to respect firearms and firearm safety. Now people like you would rather teach children/teens to fear them and treat them like fish in a barrel for mass shootings. If you want to fear an inanimate object and be a sitting duck because of it, fine. But don’t you dare ever compare me or any other responsible gun owner to a criminal ever again!
AWW HEEEEEEEEELLLL YES.
This is awesome. This lady is awesome. That trigger discipline is awesome.
cerebralzero said: thanks for that great picture submission. I am a huge fan of yuengling myself.
You’re welcome! Thanks for posting it! I need to go back and look through your entries to find it, so I can save the link and show the gun’s owner how popular it is.
Yuengling is delicious. Impossible to find in MI however, unless you go to Ohio to buy it.
Anonymous said: dude, that's just a silverfish not a centipede lol
This is a silverfish:
This is a house centipede:
THE DIFFERENCE COULD SAVE YOUR LIFE.
Realistically, house centipedes are pretty helpful in eating unwanted pests like flies, roaches, and even silverfish (who can be a pretty nasty, destructive pests in their own right.) Still, they’re super fucking creepy and their alien-like speed, stripes, and twitchy post-mortem legs are a bit too much for me.
Despite the relatively low resolution of the image, I assure you that the animal I encountered (and later dispatched with a kleenex,) was in fact a house centipede.