« First « Previous Comments 734 - 773 of 1,448 Next » Last » Search these comments
The Post Millennial
@TPostMillennial
Jun 14
Tucker Carlson: "If you can take their guns, why can't you take their homes? Why can't you empty their bank accounts? Ooh sound paranoid, Alex Jones stuff? That just happened in Canada."
RWSGFY says
https://mobile.twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1536301391106408453
FUCKING NAZI!!!
Eric Holder says
RWSGFY says
https://mobile.twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1536301391106408453
FUCKING NAZI!!!
should explain why these news aren't main stream in US. faggots here want to disarm all of us here. every day I check news sites (not to read, but to see what the faggots are selling)... they are still pushing gun control, some shit about standing with Ukraine, and now January 6 comedy show.
More Legal Guns Reduced Crime in Brazil
Homicide fell 34% after Bolsonaro made firearms permits easier and cheaper.
“Lives are on the line,” President Biden said after the Supreme Court held New York state’s restrictive gun-permit regime unconstitutional last week. Gov. Kathy Hochul warned: “This could place millions of New Yorkers in harm’s way.” Brazil’s experience suggests otherwise.
Answer, at least in last few school shootings, is that they would have been prevented if EXISTING laws would have been enforced, and that they would have been much less deadly if heroes in BLUE! would have done their damned job.
New York Times opinion editor wants a gun
By Tom Knighton | Jun 30
Personal Information of Every California Concealed-Carry Permit Holder Leaked
@_evelynrae
Jul 3
This could have ended very differently had it not have been the 2nd amendment…
This could have ended very differently had it not have been the 2nd amendment…
The mainstream media has picked up on a story of a heroic armed citizen being heralded as “a good Samaritan” for shooting and killing a gunman who opened fire inside a Greenwood, Indiana mall. It’s been a long time coming, but it’s better late than never for such left-leaning media outlets as ABC, NBC, People magazine, the Today Show, the Washington Post and others reporting what gun owners have known forever: the best — and ofttimes only — way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with another gun.
Yesterday, a man with a rifle managed to kill three people inside the Greenwood Park Mall. But then, a 22-year-old man used a firearm he was legally carrying concealed to shoot the gunman and end his killing spree. Greenwood Police Chief Jim Ison told reporters following the incident:
The real hero of the day is the citizen that was lawfully carrying a firearm in that food court and was able to stop that shooter almost as soon as he began.
Defensive gun use not rare; concealed carry laws do not cause gun crime
Shannon Watts, a gun control activist and the founder of Moms Demand Action, claims that defensive gun use in the United States is “rare” and that laws allowing people to carry guns increase gun crime. Both of her claims are dubious at best.
When the Second Amendment was written as a part of the Bill of Rights, it was uncontroversial. The new American republic had just transited through a grueling revolutionary war to throw off rule of the British crown. The British government had been violating the rights of Englishmen, including the right to keep and bear arms. The first battle of the war started as the British army marched through Lexington to Concorde, Mass., to confiscate arms and ammunition the colonists had stockpiled. After several instances where arms and ammunition were confiscated from individuals, General Gage acted to disarm the entire town of Boston.
« First « Previous Comments 734 - 773 of 1,448 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.