|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
A.J. Somerset on How Gun Tech Changed American Culture
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A.J. Somerset loves guns, but he’s not a fan of gun culture. As the former soldier puts it in his new book, Arms: The Culture and Credo of the Gun, pistols come with a “bonus ideological Family Pack, a ready-made identity.” That’s not something Somerset, who took a 15-year hiatus from bearing arms after leaving the army, ever wanted.
In Arms, Somerset investigates the evolution of the gun as technology and as totem, exploring how a simple tool transformed into the symbol of a nation and a nation divided. He talked to Inverse about gun culture’s beginnings, how the popularity of Westerns led to radicalization, and the laws that lead to shooting deaths. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(9/19/2015)
|
A lefty who is ex-military is still a lefty.
Appropriately, the website is named "INVERSE".
"Liberals are people who stand on their heads and insist that the world is upside-down." - El Rushbo
'Twill ever be so.... |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
