« First « Previous Comments 871 - 910 of 1,448 Next » Last » Search these comments
By John Petrolino. Nov 6, 2022
The other week the NYS Jewish Gun Club approached a Federal court in Manhattan for a stay on New York's draconian carry law. The NYS Jewish Gun Club is one of many that have lined up to challenge the unconstitutional provisions in New York's law, which were signed by unelected Governor Hochul. The case Goldstein v. Hochul challenges what "sensitive places" are under the new law.
One of the attorneys representing the NYS Jewish Gun Club, Ameer Benno, previously stated, "By designating all houses of worship as 'sensitive places' where exercising the fundamental right to self defense will now be punishable by prison time, the government has not only violated the Second Amendment but also the First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion." Different cases have yielded different results, but according to the NYS Jewish Gun Club, the court they've filed in are slow rolling the process.
I built this AR last week, standard chassis, self-milled lower receiver, .300 Blackout, holographic red dot sight, 30 round mag and silencer.
Shoots like a dream.
Hopefully soon Texas will win their lawsuit against the ATF regarding Texas made suppressors.
thenuttyneutron says
Hopefully soon Texas will win their lawsuit against the ATF regarding Texas made suppressors.
How loud is that silencer?
I had the media BS about silencers. In films, they make it appear that it's nearly silent, and you wouldn't hear it one room away. All they do is make it so that the person with the weapon isn't as likely to have ringing ears.
I thought as much. The only silent gun I know of is a British military weapon that has a barrel that is the size of a small muffler and shoots a subsonic round. I do not see how a silencer on a normal supersonic round weapon can stop the sonic crack when the bullet leaves the gun.
Unless that bottom gun is fully auto (illegal), that gun and the gun above have the same rate of fire.
And standard capacity in 9mm is 17 or 18 rounds, iirc. I still don't get his choice of caliber.
I was shocked when I first found out that for centuries, Catholic laypeople were not allowed to read the bible. Only priests were allowed to read it.
Patrick says
I was shocked when I first found out that for centuries, Catholic laypeople were not allowed to read the bible. Only priests were allowed to read it.
The lay people were illiterates in their own language, let alone being able to read Latin.
I was shocked when I first found out that for centuries, Catholic laypeople were not allowed to read the bible. Only priests were allowed to read it.
Having a religion where members are all but required to be literate to read the Book is a big advantage.
Some of Oregon's trans and queer gun supporters are worried that a new state law will prevent them from buying firearms.
The law, Measure 114, grants county sheriffs and police chiefs discretion to determine who qualifies to purchase a firearm under a new permit-to-purchase program.
But Measure 114 lacks criteria clearly defining what disqualifies applicants, details on what makes someone a threat and what data can be used by law enforcement in making that decision. That's a problem for activists who have critiqued law enforcement....
https://notthebee.com/article/great-news-it-is-now-legal-to-carry-a-gun-without-a-permit-in-fully-half-of-the-united-states
« First « Previous Comments 871 - 910 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.