patrick.net

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 says

muzzle 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.

That one has my name on it.

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...

I guess you would also call me hypocrite when I tell my wife in summertime to turn off the heat and then in wintertime to turn it back on?

https://gunsandgadgetsdaily.com/breaking-half-of-america-now-allows-constitutional-carry/?source=patrick.net

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.