patrick.net

Ad, owing a working firearm was required by law in some places before the constitution was written.
In Connecticut for example, you could be fined for not having one in working order.
Having a gun was considered important for public safety, not for purposes of revolution.

clambo says

Having a gun was considered important for public safety, not for purposes of revolution.

Yes, I think Switzerland had or had similar gun laws. It may have been a factor as far as World War Two.

But that applies today as far as public safety for the individual. It takes at least 5 minutes for the police to show up. What do you do then if you need to protect your home awaiting for the police ?

Personally I’m not waiting for the police to arrive so I’m going to use a gun.

I can be killed or injured severely before the cops arrive.

.

clambo says

Personally I’m not waiting for the police to arrive so I’m going to use a gun.

I can be killed or injured severely before the cops arrive.

Yep. Also, set up motion sensor alarms like those sold by Doberman on Amazon, if you don't have a home security system with ADT, Cove, SimpliSafe, etc. Set your IPhone to allow you to reach 911 by just pressing the power button 5 times. Get pepper spray as well, the ones that shoot 20 feet and can be shot at least 7 times.

That is in addition to exercising your individual right to protect yourself under the 2nd Amendment.

.

For what it's worth, pepper spray really works. I saw it in action in Florida once.

I was asked by a female for a ride. She told me where and I drove down there somewhere in West Palm Beach I think.

She was having an argument with the "boyfriend" or whatever and the cops were going to arrest her but let her go and get her shit out of his place.

The cops left and she went back to his place, grabbed his car license plate and started walking to my car. "Give that back! Don't steal that plate!"

She threw it back and got in my car. Then the angry young male started video recording me and my car then moved to the passenger side.

He tried to open her door; she calmly lowered the window and gave him a blast in the face with her pepper spray.

He want down like a bowling pin; I was amazed at the effect it had on a young aggressive male. He went on his back like he was hit in the face with a cricket bat.

Later the cops talked to her but because the guy was trying to open my car door I guess he was a reasonable target for the pepper spray.

A cop who ran our concealed carry class recommended pepper spray too; he said you can't be sued for spraying someone because the effect is usually temporary.

www.youtube.com/embed/uBC66xGe9UI

zzyzzx says

www.youtube.com/embed/uBC66xGe9UI

Donkeys might want to ban it in CA.

Eric Holder says

Donkeys might want to ban it in CA.

That's why you need to get one before it's regulated.

zzyzzx says

Eric Holder says

Donkeys might want to ban it in CA.

That's why you need to get one before it's regulated.

That's why you need to move to a different state

Eric Holder says

zzyzzx says

www.youtube.com/embed/uBC66xGe9UI

Donkeys might want to ban it in CA.

On the second thought it's not really that powerful: about 1/3 energy of .32 ACP which is weak sauce in itself. So the donkey will probably leave it alone for now.

Booger says

Those look like cast iron wastewater pipes. Do you plan to blast sewage on the attackers? If those were real cannons, imagine the kickback they would produce. One shot, and the cannon would blast itself back through the house and into the back yard. But if you do use them, use grape shot.

HeadSet says

If those were real cannons, imagine the kickback they would produce. One shot, and the cannon would blast itself back through the house and into the back yard.

Not if recoil ramps are built behind them.

The Second Amendment is not just for republicans. It's for liberals, too.

B.A.C.A.H. says

The Second Amendment is not just for republicans. It's for liberals, too.

???? Conservatives are not trying to take guns away from liberals.

It is just a power grab by government.
Legal guns in hands of people have made America super power and beacon of freedom.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/28/sikh-in-california-uses-religion-to-challenge-fire/
Sikh in California uses religion to challenge firearms ban

election2020 says

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/28/sikh-in-california-uses-religion-to-challenge-fire/
Sikh in California uses religion to challenge firearms ban

wow, hopefully he wins.

HunterTits says

FortWayneAsNancyPelosiHaircut says

election2020 says

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/28/sikh-in-california-uses-religion-to-challenge-fire/
Sikh in California uses religion to challenge firearms ban

wow, hopefully he wins.

Doubtful. The dagger is one thing, but to extend that to firearms is a metaphorical argument that probably won't pass muster.

The article is from 2013. He hasn't won yet, it seems.

I like my guns and I want more guns and more ammo. What cuts into the fun a bit is the juggernaut on my AR's to be CA compliant and 10 round mags.
Getting 9mm ammo is getting harder and harder as well. Being a gun lover isnt that easy these days.

FuckCCP89 says

HunterTits says

FortWayneAsNancyPelosiHaircut says

election2020 says

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/28/sikh-in-california-uses-religion-to-challenge-fire/
Sikh in California uses religion to challenge firearms ban

wow, hopefully he wins.

Doubtful. The dagger is one thing, but to extend that to firearms is a metaphorical argument that probably won't pass muster.

The article is from 2013. He hasn't won yet, it seems.

Will try to find, But it seems he has bigger fish to fry.
https://www.thejuggernaut.com/kundalini-yoga?s=ckd574jfm01ih0718mf5ozyqa&fbclid=IwAR3FsIQdf8628y548q5ZZ_5Cww8V0SDHpYPA9znyLoOWh8eG3l7DGWKVXMA

It appears their next step is to prevent gun purchases by delaying background checks "indefinitely", with Feinstein then looking to ban "assault" weapons altogether. Their future plan is obvious, and now with stolen majorities, they'll fast-track it, Constitutionality and other legalities be damned.

Those citizens who do not understand the 2nd Amendment will do so in time. Unfortunately, it will be too late by then.

zzyzzx says

Wow, it was easy to prove this story indeed was "planted" all over by just doing a search on DDG for "mass shootings surge":

They have to get that one guy wearing coke bottle glasses in the basement at Langley doing all the Mockingbird press releases for the MSM a little more help.

RAPPER ICE-T GETS IT: GUNS PREVENT TYRANNY

Anti-2A folks and many Pro-2A folks don't understand the reason behind it. You have to read the supporting documents from the time when it was drafted to begin to understand. Here is something below to get you started:

Both James Madison and the Anti-Federalists Were Right About Standing Armies
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/07/29/both-james-madison-and-the-anti-federalists-were-right-about-standing-armies/?sh=5f03c84775a0

Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace.
― James Madison

~
The Anti-Federalists on Standing Armies
By Laurence M. Vance
May 21, 2007
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2007/05/laurence-m-vance/standing-armies/

~

The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people”
~
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
— Tench Coxe (1755–1824), writing as "A Pennsylvanian," in "Remarks On The First Part Of The Amendments To The Federal Constitution," in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, p. 2 col. 1

ForcedTQ says

Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace.
― James Madison

2/3 there.

Boys and their toys.



https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/20/us/nerf-gun-drug-bust/index.html

Small scale toy Factories. 2nd amendment on steroids.(I think some checks and balances needed)
Not sure if the tradition started during Sikh Empire as Sikh religion wants 2nd amendment on steroids but crushed by Hindoo/British.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darra_Adam_Khel