Top products from r/GunsAreCool

Yes, his name is Patrick J. Charles. Read his book called "Armed In America" which just came out in January. It tells you pretty much everything you'd ever want to know about the subject. He's an actual historian too so it's not just another bullshit gun lobby reimagining of The Good Ol' Days back when everybody agreed with them. (Which they didn't.)

Spoiler Alert: the 2A originally had nothing to do with any individual activities like self-defense or hunting or recreation. At the time of the Founding it only had a militia-related intention, and that one quickly faded as our centralized federal Army proved itself far superior to just having a bunch of farmers on stand-by.

But just because the gun lobby refuses to let it go, and the media continues to humor them, don't forget the main thing to keep in mind about the 2A's role today. Which is: It means whatever we want it to mean. We are not obligated to pretend it's 1789 when we apply the constitution today. We aren't obligated to be rigid "Originalists" like Justice Scalia. We can be like his opposite---and intellectual superior 10x over---Oliver Wendell Holmes who scoffed at the Originalist crap and said what we really just need is laws that work. Which means a results-based interpretation of the USC, not some time-traveling telepathy based approach that allows for absurd results that haven't made sense since powdered wigs were in.

So to sum up, it's:

(1) Since we know that the Founders were bitterly divided on the role that militias should play, anybody who claims to know "what the Founders wanted the 2A to mean" is full of crap. At best it was some uneasy half-measure that muted the harping on that particular issue just enough to let people move on and proceed to ratification. If you've ever sat on a committee containing people who genuinely don't like each other this will sound very familiar.

(2) Whatever the Founders understood the final version of the 2A to do, it was limited to militia-connected activities, which pretty much excludes everything the modern gun rights movement wants it to do. Which btw includes the whole Tyranny Insurance™ thing since the modern version of the state militias is the state Nat'l Guards. And complaints about Federal oversight/control of the Nat'l Guards go nowhere here since even at the Founding the compromise was that the states would keep their militias but the militia commanders would be federally assigned.

(3) None of this really matters anyway because whatever the Founders understood the 2A to do doesn't control modern policy choices because OWH and Legal Positivism. And having OWH standing behind you on this is like divebar-hopping with Bruce Lee---you won't lose.

EDIT: If you like this take on things then better cut-n-paste it now before it disappears in a few days. The nutter brigade apparently has a nutterbutter buddy among the Deity admins who's agreed to go around site-banning me whenever I have the temerity to suggest this sort of off-canon blasphemy. (Can't imagine why they wouldn't enjoy hearing about it tho, what with their sincere devotion to unvarnished historical truth and all :)

Few people understand or care about the obsolescence of the 2A, but you get that concept and I see it in your essay. I am guessing you have read the Uviller & Merkel book that runs along a similar vein. In any case, 99% of your readers have bought into the re-framing of "right to bear arms" as being synonymous with "the right to own weapons". Interestingly, this re-framed definition started happening back in the 1820's, see Bliss v. Commonwealth that discusses CCW for the first time only 30 years after the 2A. Of course, since Harlan Carter took over the NRA in 1977 things accelerated and they went on a multi-decade campaign to pack the SCOTUS, and won Heller which made their reframing official.

Radio
Antenna

Have fun.

You can look for a good 1/4 wave for the car if you want some entertainment on your next road trip.

IIRC, the dc law was something like, residents didn't have the right to own anything other than a long barreled rifle and the ruling hinged on the utility of long barreled rifle in home self defense. In other words, an m14 isn't very useful in defending against a home invasion, and the second amendment gives you the right to defend yourself, so the dc law was invalid.

disclaimer, it's been a couple of years since I read gunfight.

I read this book Kill All Normies which examines how toxic online culture was morphed into alt-right extremism. It was almost natural how one flowed into the next.

That gun appears to be an H&K MP5-N (Navy): 9mm Luger with full-auto, and an EOTech Model 517. This configuration is pretty unlikely to be owned by a civilian (the gun alone would cost no less than $15,000)...

Which makes me hope that it is just an airsoft replica, with a $500 ACOG for "tacti-cool" appearance.

I cannot fathom why anyone would think that giving a toddler/child a weapon intended for Navy SEALs is a good idea, even if it were just for a prop for a photo.

I see nothing funny about it, honestly.

https://www.amazon.com/IDENTILOCK-Release-Digital-Trigger-Fingerprint/dp/B0768J7RHM

Bam, hero'd.

Here's a sneak peek of /r/waffledeals using the top posts of all time!

#1: I'm looking for a fully automatic....
#2: [WTB] 80% Waffle Batter
#3: Honey Stinger Organic Waffle, Vanilla, 1.06 Ounce (Pack of 16), $17.79 on Amazon | 0 comments

----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^Contact ^^me ^^| ^^Info ^^| ^^Opt-out

Holy shit, this is a real book. LOL!

They probably need to read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Second-Amendment-A-Biography-ebook/dp/B00GKKTYAG

Hey, everybody does. The whole idea of a Constitutional Right to own firearms is less than a decade old, NRA propaganda.

Not exactly. Nazis and Nazi sympathizers did nothing to stop the holocaust after anyone not a Nazi or that was Jewish or otherwise considered by the Nazis to be undesirable (gypsies, minorities, gays, etc.) was disarmed.

https://www.amazon.com/Gun-Control-Third-Reich-Disarming/dp/1598131621/ref=nodl_

All gun owners in Germany were Nazis? What does that say about gun owners today? Gun owners are Nazis? Wow. Keep digging that hole.

>https://www.amazon.com/Gun-Control-Third-Reich-Disarming/dp/1598131621/ref=nodl_

Did you even read my link? It was a take down of the author and his "research" in this book.

Not only that, an Amazon store link isn't really a source of info.

The pen actually could be useful to keep in the car, if you live near water and you may want the punch for the windows. BUT Amazon sells a glass hammer much cheaper - plus it has a razor blade for seat belts.

edit: Oh, and as for the penis holster? You'd think the cheezy NRA belt would be somone's first warning to avoid that dude.

There was a shift in the marketing practices of gun manufacturers that took place in and around the 1990s. The author Tom Diaz talks about it in his book, "Making a Killing: The Business of Guns in America."

Basically, gun manufacturers collectively realized that the problem with selling guns for presumably economic or utilitarian purposes -- such as for hunting wild game or killing agricultural pests and varmints -- was that a person would buy a gun or two probably in early adulthood and then maybe never buy another gun for the rest of his or her life, since guns, generally speaking, are such durable goods.

Thus, they came up with new marketing techniques and ad campaigns that focused on the need for guns for personal defense against crazed, hyper-aggressive attackers, or that subtly (or not so subtly) linked gun ownership to abstract ideas about masculinity and politics. The manufacturers found that they could sell more guns this way, even if to fewer people overall, and it's the advertising ploy that nearly all of the gun manufacturers have switched to in order to adapt to the reality that fewer and fewer Americans actually have any real use for guns.

Fully automatic, eh? Here's an H&K ad from the 80s. It's a bit hard to read, but it's right there in the first paragraph: The HK 91 Semi-Automatic Assault Rifle. Also, here's a book you can buy on Amazon, Assault Pistols, Rifles And Submachine Guns. Note the lack of distinction between semi and full auto.

1982: Guns & Ammo magazine publishes a guide to semi-automatic assault weapons simply titled, Assault Rifles.

I'm just going to spam some stuff in here and let you guys sort it out, sorry. It's from another post on another thread, so it's easier to cut and paste. Some of this may already be in there, but I'm sure there's a bunch that isn't:


I'm a big fan of John Paul Stevens' Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change The Constitution.

I also recommend Carl Bogus: The Hidden History of the Second Amendment.

This op-ed written by David Hemenway back in 2015: There's scientific consensus on guns -- and the NRA won't like it. Much like climate change, the vast majority of researchers studying gun violence agree that gun control works, but news media insists on presenting the progun side as if it has equal scientific weight. It does not. In fact, Hemenway's book Private Guns, Public Health is another you should pick up.

Next is a blogger calling himself the Propaganda Professor. Their blog has many great posts backed up by links to hard science:

https://propagandaprofessor.net/2013/09/30/the-poorly-armed-assault-on-gun-control-how-the-gun-culture-manipulates-statistics-part-1/

https://propagandaprofessor.net/2013/12/09/the-poorly-armed-assault-on-gun-control-how-the-gun-culture-manipulates-statistics-part-2/

https://propagandaprofessor.net/2014/11/23/the-poorly-armed-assault-on-gun-control-how-the-gun-culture-manipulates-statistics-part-3/

https://propagandaprofessor.net/2015/04/25/the-poorly-armed-assault-on-gun-control-how-the-gun-culture-manipulates-statistics-part-4/

https://propagandaprofessor.net/2014/01/20/home-invasion-defensive-gun-use-or-creative-headline/

https://propagandaprofessor.net/2018/01/19/second-amendment-follies-part-1-an-inconvenient-clause/

https://propagandaprofessor.net/2018/02/19/second-amendment-follies-part-2-a-well-regulated-militia/

And my personal favorites:

https://propagandaprofessor.net/2012/02/18/estimating-defensive-gun-uses-reasonably/

https://propagandaprofessor.net/2013/01/06/more-on-defensive-gun-use/

(The guntrolls really hate those, it cuts the legs out from under their #1 argument.)

Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Assault - Peer reviewed study showing that people with a gun are 4.5x more likely to be shot than those not

The Myth Behind Defensive Gun Ownership

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use - from the Harvard School of Public Health

Strong Regulations on Gun Sales Prevent High-Risk Individuals from Accessing Firearms and Can Reduce Violent Crime - 2015 study from Johns Hopkins University showing that gun control works.

Firearm Violence, 1993-2011 - US Dept. of Justice report showing that firearm homicides are down since 1993 (coincidentally the year the Brady Bill was passed); 60% of criminals get their firearms from legal sources like friends, family members, and gun stores; most victims of firearms violence knew their assailant

Victimization During Household Burglary - another DoJ report, this time showing that only 1 in 4 household burglaries result in violent crime, and most of those are performed by a person known to the victim. It also shows that locking doors and windows, putting lights on timers, and other methods are far more effective at deterring and preventing crimes than firearms.

Weapon Involvement in Home Invasion Crimes - Now, I'm not going to lie to you, Kellerman is controversial. I wouldn't go throwing him around as a trump card, pardon the expression. But his research is interesting and provides some insight, even if it isn't exactly the strongest.

Tracing the Guns: The Impact of Illegal Guns on Violence in Chicago - report from Office of the Mayor of Chicago showing that over 60% of guns used in crimes in Chicago come from out of state, proving that Chicago's gun laws would work, if they were not subverted by weak laws in Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, etc. as well as gun stores located outside city limits in Illinois.

Statistics on the Dangers of Gun Use for Self-Defense

A breakdown of the $229 billion gun violence tab that American taxpayers are paying every year - Yeah, you read that right. $229 BILLION. Think of the tax cuts they could give their cronies if they just outlawed guns...

Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford research shows and here

One of my personal favorites, from the National Bureau of Economic Research:

More Gus, More Crime - they hate this one, because they can't find anything against it that isn't "John Lott."

Speaking of, Armed With Reason is another great resource.

Finally, I'm going to leave you with this piece from the "failing" NY Times: How to Reduce Shootings. That ought to keep you out of trouble for some time, and maybe even give you some hard ammo to fight back with.

EDIT: also, why isn't the academic resource page in the sidebar? That should be stickied or something.