« First « Previous Comments 583 - 622 of 1,449 Next » Last » Search these comments
Zuby: "The USA's second amendment could be the one thing standing between the world's population and complete global tyranny." 🇺🇸
Are you thinking about buying a gun? Ew. What's wrong with you? Gross! Just... ew. Guns are very problematic, and so are the people who use them. You don't need one. Here's why.
#1) You can always count on the police to protect you: That's just a fact. Police are proven 100% effective at protecting innocent people!
#2) There's no evidence to suggest the government would ever overstep and try to take away your rights: A government has literally never done this. Don't be so paranoid!
#3) Guns make journalists wet their pants: If you live near a journalist and he hears you own a gun, he may wet his pants. You don't want something like that on your conscience.
#4) Guns are NOT cool and awesome and fun to shoot and useful for protection: Just trust us on this. We're journalists.
#5) Criminals have guns and use them to do bad things: You don't want to be like a criminal, do you?
#6) Nobody's going to break into your house when there's plenty of free stuff to loot at Target: Relax. Seriously.
#7) Your much manlier neighbor already has a gun: You can just borrow his if you really need it!
#8) Gun handling is best left to the professionals: Like Alec Baldwin.
So do the world a favor and DON'T buy a gun. Don't visit an online store for a fantastic deal on a firearm. Just don't.
KYLE TRIAL PUTS LEFT IN DENIAL
Nothing short of vilification and guilt would have sufficed
Outrageous fabrications, disproven by evidence, is all that supports the left
Truth at last—the left is against that, self-defense, firearms, individual rights ...
Don’t forget: The Rittenhouse shooting came after the city of Kenosha erupted in violent racist protests, called “demonstrations” by reporters standing in front of active arson sites, following release of a video showing Jacob Blake, a Black man, getting shot in the back by white police officer Rusten Sheskey. Blake, armed with a knife plainly visible in photos, refused police commands to stop, at the house of his ex-girlfriend who had an order of protection against him for domestic violence, and was not stopped by a Taser or initial police gunshots, and instead got into a car to escape.
muzzle is possibly threaded on the inside
PeopleUnited saysmuzzle is possibly threaded on the inside
That's just some SERIOUS rifling to make the bullet spin to the right.
Ya don't want left spinning bullets, do you?
Seems like cartridge is wrong size for that barrel and the muzzle is possibly threaded on the inside which means it likely is not even a functional barrel.
On Sunday, December 12, at 1 p.m. on Sycamore Lane in Garden Grove, California, a man with a history of domestic violence and the subject of an active restraining order broke into the home of his ex-girlfriend and stabbed her current boyfriend several times in the chest. The boyfriend survived, but his assailant escaped and, for whatever reason, was never put behind bars.
Five days later, the man returned, kicking in the door and chasing the couple into a room upstairs. This time, though, they were armed with a handgun. The boyfriend fired several shots, more than one of which found home, and the assailant died at the scene.
If ever a man had it coming to him, it was this guy. And if ever a gun-grabbing Democrat should’ve been made to explain to a law-abiding couple why they had no right to possess the handgun that ultimately saved their lives, this would’ve been the time.
This story didn’t make national news — stories like this never do — but the American people would be better off if encounters like these were widely publicized. Were it so, would-be victims would likely be emboldened by the prospect of vigorous self-defense, and would-be assailants would likely think twice before preying upon another person. ..
To be sure, this story out of Garden Grove wasn’t a one-off. Each month, The Daily Signal publishes an article highlighting some of the previous month’s many news stories on defensive gun use nationwide — stories that the mainstream media has no interest in publishing. Stories like the one out of Bolivar, Tennessee, where an armed Domino’s Pizza employee drew his own gun and fatally shot a would-be armed robber. Or this one out of North Philly, where a merchant put a stop to a spate of armed robberies targeting Latino-owned businesses by shooting and wounding a 20-year-old man who’d tried to rob his corner store. Or this one out of Cairo, Georgia, where an elderly woman was awakened in the middle of the night to find several armed intruders. When she confronted them, she was shot, but she returned fire with her own weapon, causing them to flee. Seven suspects were later arrested.
Are they going to create tens of thousands of felons for having a 3c stamped piece of sheet metal?
Imagine if American Indians had guns to defend their land. They carried bows n arrows n got outmatched.. There is a great lesson to be learned from natives.
One thing I find interesting about the whole argument of "non-military weapons" that 2a restriction people try to say should be excluded:
The amendment states :
"A well regulated militia, being necessary"
then says:
"the right of the people to bear arms"
it doesn't say
"the right of the militia to bear arms"
I don't understand how this isn't interpreted directly as: the people need weapons of war to bring to the fight.
This would seem to blow all these safety restrictions on automatic weapons, destructive devices, etc away. The right to fight wars with deadly weapons was reserved to the people, not to the militia or to the military.. I never see anyone making this argument via saying the amendment doesn't reserve the right to war weapons to the militia...
« First « Previous Comments 583 - 622 of 1,449 Next » Last » Search these comments
"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."
Couple things to note in there:
1. The specific mention of a militia being the reason for the need to bear arms.
2. The 2nd Amendment never mentions the word gun at all.
So, what exactly is the definition of "arms"?
In 1755 Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”
Weapons of offence would seem to include pretty much anything and everything, from knives to nuclear weapons. The US has already seen fit to ban some weapons of offence so the 2nd Amendment clearly has not been interpreted strictly as meaning that the US cannot ban all "arms". Therefore, the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee citizens the right to own whatever weapons they choose.
So it then becomes a question of which weapons should be banned, which should be strictly regulated, and which should be lightly regulated or not at all. Like anything else, we should weigh an individual's right with society's right. When looked at in that manner, it becomes very difficult to justify why fully automatic or semi automatic rifles should be allowed. What purpose do they serve an individual? And why would that purpose outweigh the extreme damage those weapons have cased society??
Patrick thinks the Chamber of Commerce is the worst organization, and he may be correct, but the NRA is not far behind.