Previous Post
Next Post

“We keep hearing about more tragedies involving guns, yet there seems to be a fundamental unwillingness to regulate them. Whether it’s pressure from lobbyists or belief in the right to bear arms, it seems only one avenue is left to us as ordinary citizens. And that is to start saying that guns should be allowed to marry. We know how divisive it can be to suggest that anything besides a man and a woman would be permitted to engage in the sacred sacrament of marriage, so this last-ditch strategy is worth a try.”- James Napoli

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. He may be on to something. If I could marry an M4 carbine to an AK-47, would I get a very reliable weapon that I wouldn’t have to clean often and which is virtually indestructible? I hear wedding bells. . . . . .

    • Dude looks like a nerd who is envious of the real men out shooting guns. Include him by inviting him to the range along with the boys and he would be a gun convert for life.

      • (different Don that above!)

        I am definitely more nerd than this guy AND a shooter. In between my nerd activities I do a combat shoot on thursday nights, trap on wednesday nights, archery on tuesday nights, and either steel plates or bullseye on monday nights. On the weekends I like rifle.


  2. it’s funny how he seems to be going after the quintessential, gun-loving republican- hard christian, traditional values- by making an allusion to gay marriage, which is the bane of the stereotypical republican. jokes’ on you Napoli, I think america was created in the intent of freedom, AKA marry who you want, shoot what you want, and smoke what you want.

  3. So, we need to talk about regulating guns because gay marriage? Seriously, what the actual fvck did I just read?

  4. How clever. I bet he was really proud of himself to have come up with that zinger.

    Turn about being fair play, how about this: Everyone gets to marry whatever they want, from persons of the same sex to lamp shades, so long as a requirement of doing so is purchasing a firearm.

    Sound fair, cupcake?

  5. Once again, glad to know THIS sort of thinking is what we’re up against. That’s not even rational. But hey, if one of my guns tells me it wants to get married, then Ill know Ive turned into a liberal, and can seek help immediately.

  6. I think he starts off great, “We keep hearing about more tragedies involving guns”, but he needs to ask the critical question. Why are we not hearing about the happy endings involving guns? Where are all the stories about defensive gun uses that happen all over our country. The media outlets are all too happy to report the bad things that happen where guns happen to be present. They are ashamed that anything good ever happens when guns are present.

    We need to start taking the talking heads to task on this.

  7. last ditch tactic. yes. about damn time. now in november we move in for the kill. on a lighter note it would save me a lot of money if my guns could marry. if i could get them to reproduce i’d never have to buy another one, and what about tax deductions? my mind boggles at the possibilities. course i’ve been told i have an easily boggled mind.

  8. You know what? I agree, guns should be allowed to marry.. I once cracked open my safe at night, and my AR and FAL were getting all nasty.. I mean, both of their bolts were locked back, safteys of, the FALs gas regulator was turned up to max, and the ARs stock was fully extended… I don’t want them to have a child out of wedlock, if the almighty doesn’t approve, it could end up being a hi-point 🙁

  9. Sad thing is, my .22 would have prolly gotten in on the action too, but its shoulder thing won’t go up.

    • tell your 22 to mash half a viagra in a teaspoon of clp and rub it on his shoulder thingy. i hate to see a gun miss out on the action.

    • damn, tried to post a witty remark about your 22’s shoulder thingy and a little blue pill but the filter wouldn’t let it through. now i know ralph’s frustration.

  10. Uh, not picking nits here but read somewhere the argument, an argument bein’ the meeting of two or more fools, wasn’t so much over like kinds and civil unions but over changing the definition of marriage. You know, 1 man and 1 woman to I whatever and 1 whatever, maybe more than 1 whatever to more than 1 whatevers and even a group of whatevers after that. A woman’s got the right to marry her Great Dane if that’s what she wants, doesn’t change my rights one bit.
    Normal marriage is kinda like the unaffordable health-care tax. That’s when the guy lets the gal write an open-ended contract on him and he doesn’t find out what’s in it till she votes on it and decides they ain’t really soul mates afterall. She divorces him in court and he ends up livin’ in a cardboard box payin’ all the bills while the bartender she dumped him for moves into his house. A tragedy happenin’ almost every day.
    Those thousands of gun laws on the books aren’t regulations and really aren’t about gun control, just a bunch of words scrawled out in codes and what have you and more about power and people control.
    Keepin’ and baring arms was all about a promise from government they wouldn’t make wearin’ short sleeve shirts illegal and hack off you limbs if you bared em.
    Oh, yea, and this guy’s a normal citizen? What planet?
    God save the King.

  11. He’s sure filled with feelings of anger, hate, bitterness, sarcasm, failure, and impotence towards the laws governing guns and I suspect even more so gay marriage. I suggest that he blame Obama and vote for Romney. I guess if this type of satire is what the HP is publishing then for now we are winning the gun-control helpless-victim vs. the pro-gun freedom & safety war.

    Seriously, I’m not getting too smug. Twelve to twenty-four months from now gun owners can have the political tables turned on us. Anything can happen.

  12. FWIW, like many with a Libertarian bent, I’m not in favor of the Government regulating what two consent adults get up to, or what sort of relationship they have. If they’re old enough to sign a contract they’re old enough to contract to each other.

    • Exactly. I ask opponents of gay marriage, just how would a gay couple harm you? No answer. Just how will gay couples destroy marriage? No answer. When the people can accept that what other people do is many times none of my business, we’ll have a much better country.

      • They won’t harm me by getting hitched. That said, I’ll give a good gosh darn about marriage equality when hate crime laws are abolished.

      • i agree with you about gay marriege. unfortunately the leftist liberal groups who support causes like gay marriege are also the groups that oppose my gun rights. so i fight back by opposing their other agenda’s like gay marriege. it’s not fair, i know, but neither is their trying to restrict my rights. if they want my support they’re going to have to support me in return.

        • I’m for gun rights and gay marriage. But I also know I’m in a very small minority that’s guaranteed to lose on something I care about a lot come election day.

  13. I couldn’t care less about whether or not gay people marry, which I assume is the point of what he was trying to make? I think the only involvement the state has with marriage is to ensure that the parties involved are of consenting age and file a Divorce Contract with the local courthouse that is agreed upon and signed in front of a witness, that simply has to cover predetermined topics plus any extras they’d like it to cover.

    • And honestly, if people were really worried about “the sanctity of marriage,” they’d be clamoring to outlaw divorce.

  14. On a personal level, I cannot relate to the gay marriage concept. Each to their own. On a political freedom level I do not think that government should involve itself in the marriage or divorce business of anyone.

  15. So he’s using a condemnation of stereotypical conservative oppression that he opposes…to make a case for oppression that he supports.

    Yup, sounds like leftist mentality go me.

    • Would you invest money into a company or index fund where that was a greater than 50% of failure with the full loss of all your investment to date? What if a further penalty of failure was lifetime monthly payments after the failure of from 25-75% of your income?

      If the answer is no you would not make such a foolish investment then why should any man risk marriage?

Comments are closed.