patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,250,020 comments by 14,908 users - AmericanKulak, Misc online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 1,361 - 1,400 of 1,408 Next » Last » Search these comments
1362
HeadSet
2024 Aug 21, 7:01am
HeadSet
2024 Aug 21, 7:01am
DemocratsAreTotallyFucked says
Really? And technically, you can 3d print that home as well. Even so, homemade zip guns have been around forever.
Really? And technically, you can 3d print that home as well. Even so, homemade zip guns have been around forever.
1366
Ceffer
2024 Aug 24, 3:47pm
Ceffer
2024 Aug 24, 3:47pm
Sounds like a good way to transport a woman you don't want in the cab.
1369
Patrick
2024 Aug 25, 4:50pm
Patrick
2024 Aug 25, 4:50pm
The 2nd Amendment is about defending ourselves from bad government, but bears also sometimes want to kill you, so 2A is useful in that case as well:
https://notthebee.com/article/man-hiking-in-alaska-forced-to-shoot-a-brown-bear-accidentally-shoots-himself-in-the-leg-while-deleting-the-bear
https://notthebee.com/article/man-hiking-in-alaska-forced-to-shoot-a-brown-bear-accidentally-shoots-himself-in-the-leg-while-deleting-the-bear
@CollinRugg
NEW: Man gives films an incredibly calm video after he shot himself in the leg after getting attacked by a bear in Alaska.
Tyler Johnson is lucky to be alive after he was charged by a bear in south-central Alaska.
Johnson was bit in the leg, but thanks to his quick thinking, he pulled out his pistol and emptied his clip into the bear.
One of the shots hit him in the leg with the bullet exiting out the back.
Johnson's father, who is an Alaskan State Trooper, was with him and also shot at the bear.
Johnson was transported by helicopter to Anchorage, Alaska where he recovered without undergoing any surgical procedures.
1377
RWSGFY
2024 Sep 19, 3:52pm
RWSGFY
2024 Sep 19, 3:52pm
Patrick says
... and SKS is not considered an AW neither under expired Ferderal AW ban nor under current CA one.
... and SKS is not considered an AW neither under expired Ferderal AW ban nor under current CA one.
1383
Patrick
2024 Sep 27, 12:51pm
Patrick
2024 Sep 27, 12:51pm
DemocratsAreTotallyFucked says
@DemocratsAreTotallyFucked Damn, where is that? Looks like Mexico or Central America.
Bouncer should not have turned his back, and the restaurant should definitely have armed people to deal with thugs.
Gun control working....
@DemocratsAreTotallyFucked Damn, where is that? Looks like Mexico or Central America.
Bouncer should not have turned his back, and the restaurant should definitely have armed people to deal with thugs.
1391
Patrick
2024 Oct 15, 7:25pm
Patrick
2024 Oct 15, 7:25pm
https://nitter.poast.org/SteveLovesAmmo/status/1845204211362828790
This chick in a dress has better shotgun skills than Tim Walz.
1400
Patrick
2024 Nov 4, 8:04pm
Patrick
2024 Nov 4, 8:04pm
https://jpfo.org/articles-2024/us-firearms-per-capita-and.htm
U.S. Firearms per Capita and Homicide Rates. No Correlation
A linchpin of the argument of those who favor a disarmed population is the assumption of "More Guns = More Crime". It was succinctly stated as an assumption in a recent paper. (one source is referenced) Psychopathy, Gun Carrying, and Firearm Violence:
Carrying guns increases the risk of injury and death...
This is a hotly disputed assumption. There are several papers which dispute the premise. If carrying guns does not increase the risk of injury and death, the pragmatic argument for strict restrictions on gun ownership and use collapses. There is some evidence, if guns are restricted in a draconian manner, homicides with guns may be reduced. Overall homicides are not reduced.
If the substitution of other methods results in the same or more homicides, or if firearms are used to prevent homicides as well as facilitate them, the argument to restrict gun ownership is not viable.
« First « Previous Comments 1,361 - 1,400 of 1,408 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.