Firearm Memes? Let’s share!

[The Heretic]

View attachment 1852694

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

 

[Flopsweat]

 

[Jim Horn]

View attachment 1853455

Why, yes, I do remember that milk carton. And my childhood was terrific! Still is, for that matter...

(Just a 21 year old here. With half a century of practice. I'm getting pretty good at it.)

 

[64MercurysRule]

I remember when the carton was 8" tall and I believe held 5000 bb's .

 

[64MercurysRule]

Trying to remember past details brought back ole Henrys commercial

:

View: https://youtu.be/xOYZX5404gE?si=dovsgI4qyHOEB-os

 

[AshWilliams]

View attachment 1853455

Pepperidge Faaams remembas!

 

[Flopsweat]

Trying to remember past details brought back ole Henrys commercial

:

View: https://youtu.be/xOYZX5404gE?si=dovsgI4qyHOEB-os

I've seen that one before. Or was it a Heineken commercial? Might have been Coors.

 

[Flopsweat]

Pepperidge Faaams remembas!

"That sweet aroma waaaaftin' through the kitchen."

 

[The Heretic]

 

[lucusloc]

View attachment 1853697

We don't register cars. We register cars for use on the public right of way (aka roads). Lots of people have lots of unregistered cars. Hell, I have one I need to fix up and register myself, because I would like to use it on the roads again. And there are tons of types of "cars" that are basically never registered, from go-carts to racers and sand buggies to golf carts and ranch "mules", not to mention things that are similar to cars (in that they have engines and wheels and drive about) like tractors and combines and who knows what else.

You want to register guns like cars? Great! I do to. Here is how that works; I can own whatever I want from little derringers clean up through howitzers and ship cannon, and I don't have to tell anyone a damn thing about it unless I want to use it in public (like maybe at a public range or something). No, transport does not count (I don't have to register a car to trailer it and tow it from one private venue to another), nor does emergency use (is anyone really going to fine you for driving someone to a hospital on the road using a golf cart, if that is what was needed?). Only using them for some planned or premeditated public event counts for needing registration. Just like cars. I think we can all live with that right?

 

[bradsteen]

We don't register cars. We register cars for use on the public right of way (aka roads). Lots of people have lots of unregistered cars. Hell, I have one I need to fix up and register myself, because I would like to use it on the roads again. And there are tons of types of "cars" that are basically never registered, from go-carts to racers and sand buggies to golf carts and ranch "mules", not to mention things that are similar to cars (in that they have engines and wheels and drive about) like tractors and combines and who knows what else.

You want to register guns like cars? Great! I do to. Here is how that works; I can own whatever I want from little derringers clean up through howitzers and ship cannon, and I don't have to tell anyone a damn thing about it unless I want to use it in public (like maybe at a public range or something). No, transport does not count (I don't have to register a car to trailer it and tow it from one private venue to another), nor does emergency use (is anyone really going to fine you for driving someone to a hospital on the road using a golf cart, if that is what was needed?). Only using them for some planned or premeditated public event counts for needing registration. Just like cars. I think we can all live with that right?

I agree with all of that except the "unless I want to use it in public, i.e. a public range" part. Unlike roads, which are necessary for commerce and used by all citizens, ranges are generally run by private entities and only attended by those involved in the practice of shooting. Therefore the government would have no justification to collect information on guns used at ranges... In fact, even if the government built and ran public shooting ranges it still shouldn't be able to collect info that would enable them to identify who has what, as that information could be misused.

 

[Flopsweat]

We don't register cars. We register cars for use on the public right of way (aka roads). Lots of people have lots of unregistered cars. Hell, I have one I need to fix up and register myself, because I would like to use it on the roads again. And there are tons of types of "cars" that are basically never registered, from go-carts to racers and sand buggies to golf carts and ranch "mules", not to mention things that are similar to cars (in that they have engines and wheels and drive about) like tractors and combines and who knows what else.

You want to register guns like cars? Great! I do to. Here is how that works; I can own whatever I want from little derringers clean up through howitzers and ship cannon, and I don't have to tell anyone a damn thing about it unless I want to use it in public (like maybe at a public range or something). No, transport does not count (I don't have to register a car to trailer it and tow it from one private venue to another), nor does emergency use (is anyone really going to fine you for driving someone to a hospital on the road using a golf cart, if that is what was needed?). Only using them for some planned or premeditated public event counts for needing registration. Just like cars. I think we can all live with that right?

Almost. I don't want to register my gun for use in public. It's a God-given right. "Shall not be infringed" is very clear, and the meaning of the word "infringe" at the time of writing (according to Webster and a couple of colleagues of his at that very time) was to "halt or hinder". Registration of any kind is a hinderance.

 

[lucusloc]

I agree with all of that except the "unless I want to use it in public, i.e. a public range" part. Unlike roads, which are necessary for commerce and used by all citizens, ranges are generally run by private entities and only attended by those involved in the practice of shooting. Therefore the government would have no justification to collect information on guns used at ranges... In fact, even if the government built and ran public shooting ranges it still shouldn't be able to collect info that would enable them to identify who has what, as that information could be misused.

Why would the government have any say on what you do at a private range? Do they register cars for use on private roads? No? Then the analogy still holds. You can shoot on any privately owned ranges sans registration. It is only public ranges that the government would have any say over, as in those owned and operated by the government (presumably for the general public). This is presumably not only constitutional (bringing @Flopsweat in for this part) but arguably serves the public interest as it could be one way to prevent abuse of such public resources (you would want a way to prevent someone using that howitzer on a dedicated pistol range, for example). A registration regime for use at a public range may not be the best way to control usage, but it is a way, and I think that is all it wold need to pass constitutional muster. Remember, you would not be forced to register anything, as you could still carry them for protection and use them recreationally at private facilities sans any kind of oversight. But I do not think it could be construed as an infringement no matter how you slice it; they are not infringing on anything, they are simply dictating how certain publicly held facilities are utilized, and that is absolutely within the government purview.

 

[Flopsweat]

Why would the government have any say on what you do at a private range? Do they register cars for use on private roads? No? Then the analogy still holds. You can shoot on any privately owned ranges sans registration. It is only public ranges that the government would have any say over, as in those owned and operated by the government (presumably for the general public). This is presumably not only constitutional (bringing @Flopsweat in for this part) but arguably serves the public interest as it could be one way to prevent abuse of such public resources (you would want a way to prevent someone using that howitzer on a dedicated pistol range, for example). A registration regime for use at a public range may not be the best way to control usage, but it is a way, and I think that is all it wold need to pass constitutional muster. Remember, you would not be forced to register anything, as you could still carry them for protection and use them recreationally at private facilities sans any kind of oversight. But I do not think it could be construed as an infringement no matter how you slice it; they are not infringing on anything, they are simply dictating how certain publicly held facilities are utilized, and that is absolutely within the government purview.

Since Bruen, the balancing test is no longer valid. Public safety or public good is no longer a valid excuse. The only valid tests are if it is both unusually dangerous and not in common use, and if there is an historical analog to that law prior to, I think its 1791. So no, I don't think tha would fly.

 

[lucusloc]

Since Bruen, the balancing test is no longer valid. Public safety or public good is no longer a valid excuse. The only valid tests are if it is both unusually dangerous and not in common use, and if there is an historical analog to that law prior to, I think its 1791. So no, I don't think tha would fly.

But in this hypothetical we are not actually regulating anything about the weapons, we are only regulating the use of public lands. There is no burden on ownership or acquisition. This is exactly how car regulation works; ownership or possession of the vehicle is not burdened, registration is strictly to manage access to a public resource. This is actually quite common, not just for cars; boats get registered for use on public waterways, off road vehicles get registered for use on public lands, aircraft are registered for use in public airspace, people are registered to use radios on the public airwaves. . . there are tons of examples of registration to manage all kinds of public commons, and this is a necessary function of government least those public commons be abused and become unusable by anyone. It strikes me as only logical that if the government had a need to manage access to a publicly owned range that registration of some kind would be the way to do that. Registering the individual weapons would probably be a very inefficient way to do that, but I do not see how it implicated any kind of constitutional burden. If you do not want to register just go shoot somewhere else, like a private range.

Of course we are way down in the weeds of this analogy now. My initial comment was to point out that the "but we register cars! Why not guns too!" is a stupid argument for them to make. Care registration is 100% optional, and tons of people own unregistered cars for all kinds of reasons. Just because they are not smart enough to see the flaw in their argument is not my problem. If they are unfamiliar with 100% private and unregistered car ownership that is their problem. I was simply expressing my agreement that this arrangement is acceptable to me; we drop all restrictions on ownership (we can own monster trucks that are not legal on public roads? That seem analogous to large cannon to me. We can own weird special utility vehicles like bushwhackers or plows? "weird" guns like machine guns and SBx are in.) and we only register the weapons we intend to take onto public ranges, just like we only register vehicles that we intend to use on public right of way. Everything else is relegated to private ownership and use.

 

[Yarome]

View attachment 1853455

"Remember" them?? Heck! The grandkids are still trying to shoot through the last 5k box.



Their childhoods are going to be bada** too... if I have anything to say about it.

 

[Flopsweat]

But in this hypothetical we are not actually regulating anything about the weapons, we are only regulating the use of public lands. There is no burden on ownership or acquisition. This is exactly how car regulation works; ownership or possession of the vehicle is not burdened, registration is strictly to manage access to a public resource. This is actually quite common, not just for cars; boats get registered for use on public waterways, off road vehicles get registered for use on public lands, aircraft are registered for use in public airspace, people are registered to use radios on the public airwaves. . . there are tons of examples of registration to manage all kinds of public commons, and this is a necessary function of government least those public commons be abused and become unusable by anyone. It strikes me as only logical that if the government had a need to manage access to a publicly owned range that registration of some kind would be the way to do that. Registering the individual weapons would probably be a very inefficient way to do that, but I do not see how it implicated any kind of constitutional burden. If you do not want to register just go shoot somewhere else, like a private range.

Of course we are way down in the weeds of this analogy now. My initial comment was to point out that the "but we register cars! Why not guns too!" is a stupid argument for them to make. Care registration is 100% optional, and tons of people own unregistered cars for all kinds of reasons. Just because they are not smart enough to see the flaw in their argument is not my problem. If they are unfamiliar with 100% private and unregistered car ownership that is their problem. I was simply expressing my agreement that this arrangement is acceptable to me; we drop all restrictions on ownership (we can own monster trucks that are not legal on public roads? That seem analogous to large cannon to me. We can own weird special utility vehicles like bushwhackers or plows? "weird" guns like machine guns and SBx are in.) and we only register the weapons we intend to take onto public ranges, just like we only register vehicles that we intend to use on public right of way. Everything else is relegated to private ownership and use.

So we have a right to keep and bear them, but not to shoot them? I could maye see the practicality of a hunting license, although I'm not great with the way it's applied. But a license to shoot at a public gun range? Absolutely not.

 

[bradsteen]

It's an analogy that's close, but not quite a 1-for-1.

 

[bcp]

Bruce