« First « Previous Comments 789 - 828 of 1,448 Next » Last » Search these comments
https://notthebee.com/article/baltimore-authorities-arrest-marine-vet-hero-who-stopped-crazy-gunman-for-having-a-concealed-weapon-of-his-own
Muldrow told the officer that his firearm, a .22 caliber Beretta M9, was holstered on his hip.
A Jewish firearms organization is preparing to sue New York state over its new gun-control law, which prohibits most congregants from carrying a concealed weapon into a house of worship.
The New York State Jewish Gun Club has “retained a civil rights attorney to challenge the law and is asking others to join the fight,” reports the Bronx’s News 12. “[Founder Tzvi Waldman] says synagogues should be able to let licensed civilians carry guns in case of an attack.”
The law, known as the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA), was introduced and passed on July 1, just eight days after the Supreme Court invalidated the Empire State’s prior, highly restrictive concealed-carry law. The CCIA, which took effect September 1, makes it a felony for anyone to carry a concealed weapon in a “sensitive” location unless he is an active or retired police officer, an active-duty member of the military, or a private security guard. As one might expect from a law specifically designed to circumvent the Supreme Court’s decision, that list of “sensitive” locations is quite lengthy and includes most public buildings, private businesses, schools, and houses of worship.
Houses of worship, especially synagogues, have good reason to oppose the new law. ...
“Almost every orthodox synagogue in Baltimore has an armed congregant,” Rabbi Yaakov Menken, the managing director for the Coalition of Jewish Values, told the Daily Caller. “People do not feel like calling the police or having an armed security guard who may be five blocks away is enough.”
.22LR will still do a lot of damage and are easier to shoot.
“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The Communist Party must command all the guns; that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”
The quote was from Mao Zedong, founder of Communist China. Mao’s first act after gaining complete control of China in 1949 was to take away all guns from the population. It was a policy he began in 1935 as he took over each rural province. Anyone found with a gun post-confiscation was executed.
An estimated 65 million Chinese died as a result of Mao’s repeated, merciless attempts to create a new “socialist” China. Anyone who got in his way was done away with—by execution, imprisonment, or forced famine.
Mao killed more people than either Stalin or Hitler during World War II. And it all began after he took away the guns.
Dictators throughout much of history have disarmed their populations before they began their mass killings. Examples abound beyond Mao: Hitler took guns from the Jews in November of 1938, and Kristallnacht and the Holocaust followed; and then there was Fidel Castro in Cuba and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, to name but a few.
The only people who should have any restrictions placed on their Constitutional freedom to buy a gun are:
1. children
2. the mentally ill
3. convicted felons
They burned their clothing along with them, but not their shoes
.22LR will still do a lot of damage and are easier to shoot.
just_passing_through says
.22LR will still do a lot of damage and are easier to shoot.
Deadliest round in the USA. You can put an awful lot of rounds downrange, with the smallest handgun.
AmericanKulak says
Government workers at their best: even if these people decided to keep couple (or ten) full-auto AR's for themselves they sure as shit would've moved them elsewhere before contacting ATF.
Looks like a stupidity test that the couple failed...
Weird choice of a weapon to say the least: if you carry a big effin pistol, why have it in .22?
richwicks says
They burned their clothing along with them, but not their shoes
I think they went into their zyklon shower naked.
I'd rather have a .22 hand gun than a .44 magnum. Fire one of those in the dark, and your only senses that still work are your eyes, once it recovers from the muzzle flash in a few seconds...
richwicks says
I'd rather have a .22 hand gun than a .44 magnum. Fire one of those in the dark, and your only senses that still work are your eyes, once it recovers from the muzzle flash in a few seconds...
Fact check: true
https://patrick.net/post/1314395/2018-03-13-trying-out-a-44-magnum
(Reuters) - A federal judge in West Virginia has ruled that a federal ban on possessing a gun with its serial number removed is unconstitutional, the first such ruling since the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically expanded gun rights in June.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in Charleston found Wednesday that the law was not consistent with the United States' "historical tradition of firearm regulation," the new standard laid out by the Supreme Court in its landmark ruling.
The decision came in a criminal case charging a man, Randy Price, with illegally possessing a gun with the serial number removed that was found in his car. The judge dismissed that charge, though Price is still charged with illegally possessing the gun after being convicted of previous felonies.
A lawyer for Price and a spokesperson for the office of U.S. Attorney William Thompson in Charleston, which is prosecuting the case, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The federal law in question prohibits anyone from transporting a gun with the serial number removed across state lines, or from possessing such a gun if it has ever been transported across state lines.
Serial numbers, first required by the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, are intended to prevent illegal gun sales and make it easier to solve crimes by allowing individual guns to be traced.
Price argued that the law is unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court's June 24 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc v. Bruen. That ruling held that under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the government cannot restrict the right to possess firearms unless the restriction is consistent with historical tradition.
Bruen said serial numbers were not required when the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, and were not widely used until 1968, putting them outside that tradition.
(Reporting By Brendan Pierson in New York, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Nick Zieminski)
RWSGFY says
Weird choice of a weapon to say the least: if you carry a big effin pistol, why have it in .22?
So you don't go temporarily deaf once you fire it. A .22 is not BB gun. Unless you hit a lucky spot, it's not going to kill a person right away, but it's a serious disabler.
I'd rather have a .22 hand gun than a .44 magnum.
RWSGFY says
Weird choice of a weapon to say the least: if you carry a big effin pistol, why have it in .22?
So you don't go temporarily deaf once you fire it. A .22 is not BB gun. Unless you hit a lucky spot, it's not going to kill a person right away, but it's a serious disabler.
I'd rather have a .22 hand gun than a .44 magnum. Fire one of those in the dark, and your only senses that still work are your eyes, once it recovers from the muzzle flash in a few seconds...
after a day of training with carbine, i lose hearing for good 5 to 6 hours.
FortwayeAsFuckJoeBiden says
after a day of training with carbine, i lose hearing for good 5 to 6 hours.
Your ear protection equipment is inadequate then.
« First « Previous Comments 789 - 828 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.