patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,265,789 comments by 15,134 users - brazil66, WookieMan online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 268 - 307 of 1,448 Next » Last » Search these comments
268
Goran_K
2018 Mar 1, 10:12am
Goran_K
2018 Mar 1, 10:12am
bob2356 says
This is a myth.
Gun fights are not "chaotic" to the point where everyone is running around directionless, and no one knows what's going on and where the shooting is originating from.
If you watch video of the Columbine, or the Charlie Hedbo shooting, etc, people clear our VERY QUICKLY as soon as the shooting starts which leaves the shooter pretty much in the clear, making them easily identifiable, especially if they are dressed in "black tactical gear" like the Newtown or Florida shooter.
Why isn't anyone explaining how the swat team will tell the shooter from the teachers in the middle of total chaos?
This is a myth.
Gun fights are not "chaotic" to the point where everyone is running around directionless, and no one knows what's going on and where the shooting is originating from.
If you watch video of the Columbine, or the Charlie Hedbo shooting, etc, people clear our VERY QUICKLY as soon as the shooting starts which leaves the shooter pretty much in the clear, making them easily identifiable, especially if they are dressed in "black tactical gear" like the Newtown or Florida shooter.
271
MrMagic
2018 Mar 3, 10:01pm
MrMagic
2018 Mar 3, 10:01pm
Fla. Senate rejects assault weapons ban.
The bill to ban assault weapons, including the AR-15 used in the school shooting, failed by a 20-to-17 vote.
The body then moved to other legislation on guns. A measure to allow parents to opt students out of a classroom where a teacher is armed failed.
State Sen. Linda Stewart, a Democrat who introduced the amendment to ban assault weapons, said on the Senate floor that ammunition from assault weapons can blow up inside the victim’s body and that there is no reason for anyone to have them.
(Liberal Ignorance at it's best, what's an "assault weapon"? Ammunition "blows up"? When will these legislators actually learn correct terminology and facts?)
State Sen. Kelli Stargel (R) argued that banning assault weapons could be a slippery slope. Would fertilizer, used in the 1995 bombing of an Oklahoma City federal building, be banned? Or pressure cookers, used in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/fla-senate-rejects-assault-weapons-ban-holds-moment-of-silence-for-shooting-victims/2018/03/03/698a68cc-1f23-11e8-9de1-147dd2df3829_story.html?utm_term=.eaf3249b522e
The bill to ban assault weapons, including the AR-15 used in the school shooting, failed by a 20-to-17 vote.
The body then moved to other legislation on guns. A measure to allow parents to opt students out of a classroom where a teacher is armed failed.
State Sen. Linda Stewart, a Democrat who introduced the amendment to ban assault weapons, said on the Senate floor that ammunition from assault weapons can blow up inside the victim’s body and that there is no reason for anyone to have them.
(Liberal Ignorance at it's best, what's an "assault weapon"? Ammunition "blows up"? When will these legislators actually learn correct terminology and facts?)
State Sen. Kelli Stargel (R) argued that banning assault weapons could be a slippery slope. Would fertilizer, used in the 1995 bombing of an Oklahoma City federal building, be banned? Or pressure cookers, used in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/fla-senate-rejects-assault-weapons-ban-holds-moment-of-silence-for-shooting-victims/2018/03/03/698a68cc-1f23-11e8-9de1-147dd2df3829_story.html?utm_term=.eaf3249b522e
272
MrMagic
2018 Mar 3, 10:02pm
MrMagic
2018 Mar 3, 10:02pm
Confusion in the Florida Senate as AR-15 ban fails to pass.
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- It appeared Florida's upper chamber had approved a ban on AR-15-style rifles Saturday, but a later roll call vote clarified that it did not have the votes to pass. After it appeared the two-year moratorium on the sale, delivery and transfer of AR-15-style rifles had passed by a voice vote, minutes later, that motion was reconsidered, and ultimately reversed by a roll call vote, with 17 votes in favor of the amendment and 21 against it.
"Every constitutional right that we hold dear has a limitation," said Democratic Sen. Gary Farmer. "These are just military-style killing machines and the right of self-defense and the ability to hunt will go on."
Republicans argued that banning such weapons would violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
"Our founding fathers weren't talking about hunting, and they weren't talking about protecting themselves from the thief down the street who might break in," said Republican Sen. David Simmons. Simmons said people need guns to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.
"Adolf Hitler confiscated all the weapons -- took all the weapons, had a registry of everybody -- and then on the night of June 30th, 1934, sent out his secret police and murdered all of his political opponents," Simmons said. "You think it doesn't happen in a free society? It does."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-senate-passes-immediately-reverses-ar-15-ban-2018-03-03/
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- It appeared Florida's upper chamber had approved a ban on AR-15-style rifles Saturday, but a later roll call vote clarified that it did not have the votes to pass. After it appeared the two-year moratorium on the sale, delivery and transfer of AR-15-style rifles had passed by a voice vote, minutes later, that motion was reconsidered, and ultimately reversed by a roll call vote, with 17 votes in favor of the amendment and 21 against it.
"Every constitutional right that we hold dear has a limitation," said Democratic Sen. Gary Farmer. "These are just military-style killing machines and the right of self-defense and the ability to hunt will go on."
Republicans argued that banning such weapons would violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
"Our founding fathers weren't talking about hunting, and they weren't talking about protecting themselves from the thief down the street who might break in," said Republican Sen. David Simmons. Simmons said people need guns to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.
"Adolf Hitler confiscated all the weapons -- took all the weapons, had a registry of everybody -- and then on the night of June 30th, 1934, sent out his secret police and murdered all of his political opponents," Simmons said. "You think it doesn't happen in a free society? It does."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-senate-passes-immediately-reverses-ar-15-ban-2018-03-03/
274
FortWayne
2018 Mar 4, 8:56pm
FortWayne
2018 Mar 4, 8:56pm
Booger says
As funny as this is. Considering how stupid the left is, if this was real, I wouldn't be surprised at all.
As funny as this is. Considering how stupid the left is, if this was real, I wouldn't be surprised at all.
277
LeonDurham
2018 May 3, 6:23am
WarrenTheApe says
Nope. Wrong again Warren. Look up the definition of arms. If it means guns, why not say guns. Or firearms.
The Fathers kept it general on purpose.
Arms are guns. Learn historical context.
Nope. Wrong again Warren. Look up the definition of arms. If it means guns, why not say guns. Or firearms.
The Fathers kept it general on purpose.
278
FortWayne
2018 May 3, 6:44am
FortWayne
2018 May 3, 6:44am
Democrats seem to hate freedoms people get. Gets in a way of government running our lives.
279
RWSGFY
2018 May 3, 8:51am
RWSGFY
2018 May 3, 8:51am
The most funny bunch is the people who argue with a straight face that all the 2nd means is that a state is allowed to have an army.
281
HeadSet
2018 Dec 12, 2:21pm
HeadSet
2018 Dec 12, 2:21pm
the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee citizens the right to own whatever weapons they choose.
Interesting. I do not know, but in 1820, a time when the writers and original interpreters of the Constitution were still around, was a common person allowed to own a cannon? They were allowed to be Privateers, owning fully equipped warships.
Interesting. I do not know, but in 1820, a time when the writers and original interpreters of the Constitution were still around, was a common person allowed to own a cannon? They were allowed to be Privateers, owning fully equipped warships.
282
MrMagic
2018 Dec 16, 6:17pm
MrMagic
2018 Dec 16, 6:17pm
HeadSet says
They were able to own the same equipment the government owned back then.
Today, not so much....
the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee citizens the right to own whatever weapons they choose.
Interesting. I do not know, but in 1820, a time when the writers and original interpreters of the Constitution were still around, was a common person allowed to own a cannon? They were allowed to be Privateers, owning fully equipped warships.
They were able to own the same equipment the government owned back then.
Today, not so much....
284
Patrick
2019 Jan 1, 12:07pm
Patrick
2019 Jan 1, 12:07pm
Booger says
Oh man, that is so wrong somehow, but I loved it. Especially how they jiggle a bit after each shot.
www.youtube.com/embed/BUIebrUgJTI
Oh man, that is so wrong somehow, but I loved it. Especially how they jiggle a bit after each shot.
286
Ceffer
2019 Jan 1, 1:50pm
They need stabilization with a rear insert. Not enough recoil ballast.
Ceffer
2019 Jan 1, 1:50pm
Oh man, that is so wrong somehow, but I loved it. Especially how they jiggle a bit after each shot.
They need stabilization with a rear insert. Not enough recoil ballast.
292
clambo
2019 Feb 4, 2:57pm
I was talking about this subject with a friend of mine just the other day.
Firstly, any student of history knows that the right to bear arms is an individual right and has always been.
When Connecticut was a colony, there were laws which required gun ownership and fines if you were caught not having one.
However, I think some new restrictions are OK but others will argue.
I think if you are too young to rent a car, you are too young to own a gun over 22 calibre.
That is, I think gun ownership from 18-25 should be severely restricted by calibre.
If you look at the cases recently of mass shootings, lots of them seem to be 1. kids on psych medication 2. acted nuts and people reported them 3. usually under 25 years of age.
That maniac in Las Vegas is an exception and was completely under the radar so I don't know how to prevent guys like him "going postal."
I don't mind discriminating against the "slack jawed punks" under 25; I am older so fuck em.
Firstly, any student of history knows that the right to bear arms is an individual right and has always been.
When Connecticut was a colony, there were laws which required gun ownership and fines if you were caught not having one.
However, I think some new restrictions are OK but others will argue.
I think if you are too young to rent a car, you are too young to own a gun over 22 calibre.
That is, I think gun ownership from 18-25 should be severely restricted by calibre.
If you look at the cases recently of mass shootings, lots of them seem to be 1. kids on psych medication 2. acted nuts and people reported them 3. usually under 25 years of age.
That maniac in Las Vegas is an exception and was completely under the radar so I don't know how to prevent guys like him "going postal."
I don't mind discriminating against the "slack jawed punks" under 25; I am older so fuck em.
293
MrMagic
2019 Feb 4, 3:38pm
MrMagic
2019 Feb 4, 3:38pm
clambo says
Couple of issues with that, it's doesn't matter what caliber it is. I can kill you with a 22LR or a 50 caliber. Doesn't matter. It's the intent that matters, not the caliber or age.
Second, how can you allow a 18 year old to join the military, and have access to all types of firearms, and after he gets out a few years later, tell him sorry, 22LR only for you?
clambo says
Anyone can be a maniac and evil. At 12, 25, 50 or whatever age, and it doesn't take a gun, you can kill with anything. A knife, a hammer, a 2x4 or even my DeWalt cordless drill.
Regulating age for firearms ownership is the talk of clueless Liberals.
However, I think some new restrictions are OK but others will argue.
I think if you are too young to rent a car, you are too young to own a gun over 22 calibre.
That is, I think gun ownership from 18-25 should be severely restricted by calibre.
Couple of issues with that, it's doesn't matter what caliber it is. I can kill you with a 22LR or a 50 caliber. Doesn't matter. It's the intent that matters, not the caliber or age.
Second, how can you allow a 18 year old to join the military, and have access to all types of firearms, and after he gets out a few years later, tell him sorry, 22LR only for you?
clambo says
That maniac in Las Vegas is an exception a
Anyone can be a maniac and evil. At 12, 25, 50 or whatever age, and it doesn't take a gun, you can kill with anything. A knife, a hammer, a 2x4 or even my DeWalt cordless drill.
Regulating age for firearms ownership is the talk of clueless Liberals.
294
clambo
2019 Feb 4, 4:17pm
mrmagic, you can of course kill someone with a 22 but it's a lot more difficult than with a real damaging round.
I would not like to be shot with anything, but if I must, I prefer the .22 to 50 which would destroy me.
Of course, with the correct shot placement, a 22 is deadly with one round.
My proposal will make it harder for punks to go nuts.
I'm sick of kids going wacko using guns; I like the 25 year old limitation.
Shit, while I'm at it, how about 25 to vote? I'm not overly impressed with most teenagers I meet.
I would not like to be shot with anything, but if I must, I prefer the .22 to 50 which would destroy me.
Of course, with the correct shot placement, a 22 is deadly with one round.
My proposal will make it harder for punks to go nuts.
I'm sick of kids going wacko using guns; I like the 25 year old limitation.
Shit, while I'm at it, how about 25 to vote? I'm not overly impressed with most teenagers I meet.
295
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Feb 4, 4:23pm
MisdemeanorRebel
2019 Feb 4, 4:23pm
clambo says
I would rather ban pistols, period, until age 30. Not that I think it would be very effective, but it would eliminate some of the incel crime.
I think if you are too young to rent a car, you are too young to own a gun over 22 calibre.
That is, I think gun ownership from 18-25 should be severely restricted by calibre.
I would rather ban pistols, period, until age 30. Not that I think it would be very effective, but it would eliminate some of the incel crime.
296
clambo
2019 Feb 5, 5:14pm
It would help when a guy who is paid by the public to protect public safety wasn't a complete incompetent.
This is the Palm Beach County Sheriff who was just fired by the new governor. He may fight to keep his job.
This is the Palm Beach County Sheriff who was just fired by the new governor. He may fight to keep his job.
« First « Previous Comments 268 - 307 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.