Man is selling his autographed Jim Carrey photo to buy glock

reply to post by daryllyn

*Disclaimer: that wasn't a stab at foreigners. It was a stab at foreigners who come here and then complain about the constitution.

I think it was clear, but a disclaimer is always nice.

Anyhoo, while complaining about the people complaining about the constitution, do you actually realize it doesn't give you the right to own a weapon?

It ensures that, because a well regulated militia is required, to ensure no laws or restrictions would be set in place to limit that ability.

A single gun owner isn't a well regulated militia.

Carrey is canadian, or was, i dunno if he took citizenship, but it doesn't really matter because he RESIDES in the US, therefore he's an American, he pays taxes, he votes...

He's just as entitled to an opinion as you are. Morgan on the other hand, is a pompous douche who's main goal in life is to rile up people, and wow do some of the people here make it easy.

Don't play into their game, and that's all it is, a game. If a douche bag commentator, or an out of work comedian can influence your government, you have bigger problems to deal with, don't you think?

Anyhoo #2

I hope the guy gets his weapon of choice

It's up to $810

And someone else is selling an Autograph for the same reason now.


Mike Grouchy

I predict it will sell for at least 10k just on principle. I saw a post-it note with a frowny face go for 15k once on Ebay.

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by daryllyn

 

*Disclaimer: that wasn't a stab at foreigners. It was a stab at foreigners who come here and then complain about the constitution.

I think it was clear, but a disclaimer is always nice.

Anyhoo, while complaining about the people complaining about the constitution, do you actually realize it doesn't give you the right to own a weapon?

It ensures that, because a well regulated militia is required, to ensure no laws or restrictions would be set in place to limit that ability.

A single gun owner isn't a well regulated militia.

Carrey is canadian, or was, i dunno if he took citizenship, but it doesn't really matter because he RESIDES in the US, therefore he's an American, he pays taxes, he votes...

He's just as entitled to an opinion as you are. Morgan on the other hand, is a pompous douche who's main goal in life is to rile up people, and wow do some of the people here make it easy.

Don't play into their game, and that's all it is, a game. If a douche bag commentator, or an out of work comedian can influence your government, you have bigger problems to deal with, don't you think?

Anyhoo #2

I hope the guy gets his weapon of choice

Actually, if you read the Federalist Papers, the writings of the founders such as Madison, and the Militia Act of 1791, and title ten US code, you would see that the "militia" is every able bodied citizen. The idea, from the outset, was that all free citizens be armed. "Well regulated" back then ment "well equipped" and every man from 16 to 65 was expected to supply their own rifle as well as equipment contained in "the average soldiers kit."

reply to post by ManFromEurope


Maybe we are approaching things all wrong here....Stop the manufacture of all guns.....make the manufacturing of all weapons illegal...then...if all americans took your shirts off...your constitution would still be a good one....as you would all be baring your arms.

But i do know a way for americans to keep your guns.....

JUST stop shooting each other so damn muchh

I also think it is not the people who wants the guns taken from american people....I think it is your very own government...They are out to make you all their bitches.....I think that time is coming soon so beware....It is not Jim Carey that is the issue here....It is the people who are paying him to do this....It is your own lobbyist's doing this......As they say dont shoot the messenger.....Espaecially if he is a paid messenger....because a paid messenger only has their bank account in mind.....NOT THE CAUSE.

reply to post by eXia7


Its just funny that he is complaining about something that really has nothing to do with him while he is protected by his security, who I am sure have weapons.

You don't see me going to Canada and saying 'Hey dammit! This Canadian bacon looks an awful lot like ham.. and all of you who think this ham passes for bacon? You must be compensating for inadequate manhood!'

Its just a little ridiculous, in my opinion.

And, why's he got to pick on Mr. Heston?

probably because he's dead

Who the Hell cares what anyone in Hollywood thinks?

That said, why does anyone need an assault riffle without a registration?

And I am being serious...I understand a shotgun and handgun and a hunting riffle.

And before you jump on me I live in an Extremely conservative state, I grew up with hunters and hunted as well for a time. And do not assume for one second you know anything about my gun use or ownership as I believe in privacy!

Aside from sport shooting I see no use for them. Look I do not want a complete weapons ban, I think that is just as ridiculous! But I would like some valid claims to owning a non-hunting/self defense weapon.

Anyone who claims an AR-15 as home self defense I do not want living next to me when they accidentally shoot everyone in the neighborhood because they have ZERO experience and bought it out of fear!

I see joining a local militia and promoting a "State" law ensuring your right but seriously we give tests for competency for driving, I see some logic to not just handing a powerful weapon to just anyone...

reply to post by phishyblankwaters


The right keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I believe the constitution affords me the right to protect myself, my family and my property. But, hey, you know what they say about opinions.

Honestly, I think Carey is just trying to get some attention. More controversial=more attention.

There is no such thing as bad publicity.. and I really think this that is all this boils down.

If those bids keep going up, the man might be able to get two glocks.

Originally posted by abeverage
Who the Hell cares what anyone in Hollywood thinks?

That said, why does anyone need an assault riffle without a registration?

And I am being serious...I understand a shotgun and handgun and a hunting riffle.

And before you jump on me I live in an Extremely conservative state, I grew up with hunters and hunted as well for a time. And do not assume for one second you know anything about my gun use or ownership as I believe in privacy!

Aside from sport shooting I see no use for them. Look I do not want a complete weapons ban, I think that is just as ridiculous! But I would like some valid claims to owning a non-hunting/self defense weapon.

Anyone who claims an AR-15 as home self defense I do not want living next to me when they accidentally shoot everyone in the neighborhood because they have ZERO experience and bought it out of fear!

I see joining a local militia and promoting a "State" law ensuring your right but seriously we give tests for competency for driving, I see some logic to not just handing a powerful weapon to just anyone...

edit on 27-3-2013 by abeverage because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-3-2013 by abeverage because: (no reason given)

A lot of impressionable people cares what hollywood thinks, you have to remember, not everybody is as open minded as the members of ATS, so they can be swayed to believe what is trendy.

As far as owning an AR15, my response is that we should have at least a few weapons that could match military standard issue firearms. I'm sorry, but a pistol and a shotgun will not reach out far enough, and a single fire bolt action rifle is begging to be killed. The constitution gives us the right to protect ourselves from tyrannical government, and no matter who spins the words whichever way, the simple fact is that we have a right to own firearms for self defense of whatever threat may arise.

Of course I don't agree we should have RPGs tanks, high caliber fully automatic weapons, but we should be entitled to something that could compete.

Originally posted by daryllyn
reply to post by phishyblankwaters

 

The right keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I believe the constitution affords me the right to protect myself, my family and my property. But, hey, you know what they say about opinions.

Honestly, I think Carey is just trying to get some attention. More controversial=more attention.

There is no such thing as bad publicity.. and I really think this that is all this boils down.

If those bids keep going up, the man might be able to get two glocks.

He has several movies coming out...including one where guess what...he seems to be over compensating with a great deal of Hypocrisy...

reply to post by eXia7


I own a Glock 19 9mm. I endorse his buy; its a really good gun I got mine for 475$ tho :p

Jim Carrey is still funny too. hows that for compromise

Originally posted by abeverage
Who the Hell cares what anyone in Hollywood thinks?

That said, why does anyone need an assault riffle without a registration?

And I am being serious...I understand a shotgun and handgun and a hunting riffle.

And before you jump on me I live in an Extremely conservative state, I grew up with hunters and hunted as well for a time. And do not assume for one second you know anything about my gun use or ownership as I believe in privacy!

Aside from sport shooting I see no use for them. Look I do not want a complete weapons ban, I think that is just as ridiculous! But I would like some valid claims to owning a non-hunting/self defense weapon.

Anyone who claims an AR-15 as home self defense I do not want living next to me when they accidentally shoot everyone in the neighborhood because they have ZERO experience and bought it out of fear!

I see joining a local militia and promoting a "State" law ensuring your right but seriously we give tests for competency for driving, I see some logic to not just handing a powerful weapon to just anyone...

edit on 27-3-2013 by abeverage because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-3-2013 by abeverage because: (no reason given)

Registration precedes confiscation. Always has, always will.

AR-15s are used by hunters. It is the most versitile platform out there. You can hunt anything from prarie dogs to elk and bear with simple upper changes.

Would you give compentency tests to vote? Own a typewriter? Because those are the level of hte civil right we are talking about.

reply to post by JDmOKI


I just recently bought a Glock 22 .40 caliber at a gun show, 529.00 + tax. Good shooting gun but im not used to the light lower plastic part, even loaded, the balance doesnt feel right.

reply to post by TriForce




I would have to agree that this is how most try to paint gun owners....interesting about the last 5 shooters.....

reply to post by luciddream


As you can see we are having a hard time controlling anything our Officials do....much like the rest of the world....

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
A single gun owner isn't a well regulated militia.

duuuuuuuuuuuude ...
A group of 'single gun owners' is what makes up a militia.
So yes .. each individual gun owner is needed to make the militia.

The SPIRIT of the law was that people had a right to own guns for self defense
AND to make sure that the government didn't screw them over. A well armed
population keeps a government in control.

reply to post by TriForce


I'm just now getting used to shooting my glock 19. I think it might be easier to shoot since it only a 9 mm, but i dunno. I'm getting new sights and possibly a new trigger to help. I really like it so far and I can sell it for almost exactly the same as I bought it for, which was a major selling point for me.

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Registration precedes confiscation. Always has, always will.

AR-15s are used by hunters. It is the most versitile platform out there. You can hunt anything from prarie dogs to elk and bear with simple upper changes.

Would you give compentency tests to vote? Own a typewriter? Because those are the level of hte civil right we are talking about.

Actually yeah I would! LOL because only abstractly can voting kill anyone but I have heard of a few murders by typewriter...

To me the real question of these shootings is not the choice of weapon but the mentality of the shooter. That is the elephant in the room and how to deal with that is the underlying problem.

I loved shooting an AR-15 it was possibly the sweetest gun I have ever had the chance to shoot (next to a Sig .45). I just don't see it being practical owning one.

Do you honestly think if there was a Civil war or an insurrection that some military would be on the side of people? That if we had to we would buy back all those guns from Mexico (LOL)?

reply to post by phishyblankwaters

You are wrong and thankfully the SCOTUS understands it correctly. "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 first part "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is the pretext of the need for the second part " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", basic English here.

"The decision extended the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." That decision applied only to federal laws and federal enclaves such as Washington; it was the first time the court had said there was an individual right to gun ownership rather than one related to military service. " Source