patrick.net

original link


Sheriff: If Congress Passes Gun Confiscation I’ll Swear In Tens of Thousands of Citizens As Deputies To Keep Their Guns

Consumer grade flamethrower on sale:
https://www.smkw.com/exothermic-technologies-pulsefire-lrt-flamethrower

Plan on finally getting an XCR once my stock gets bought out.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/06/16/after-the-guns-were-removed-the-killing-fields-began/

“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.

Armenians were also disarmed by the Turks before the Turks tried to kill them all.

Patrick says

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

Government says, "you are all felons for wanting a gun."

richwicks says

They burned their clothing along with them, but not their shoes

I think they went into their zyklon shower naked.

just_passing_through says

.22LR will still do a lot of damage and are easier to shoot.

Is not like 9mm in that gun would be considered "hard to shoot", especially by a grown man with some training. The fucking thing is a brick. And standard capacity in 9mm is 17 or 18 rounds, iirc. I still don't get his choice of caliber.

AmericanKulak says

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.

Except the gun in question is a full-size army pistol.

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.

Statistically, a gun is much less likely to be used in a crime than a US Congressman is.

Eric Holder says

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...

ForcedTQ says

Looks like a stupidity test that the couple failed...

I don't know. If those were supposed to be shipped to a gun runner, you don't want to get mixed up with those people when they coming looking for their product. On the other hand this is the US government, so they probably would never have noticed.

https://notthebee.com/article/report-leaked-fbi-email-shows-government-now-requiring-firearm-retailers-to-provide-home-addresses-of-some-customers

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...

Onvacation says

richwicks says

They burned their clothing along with them, but not their shoes

I think they went into their zyklon shower naked.

Here, I'll give you something to listen to:


original link

But when you listen to this, you better clear your mind particularly of any preconceptions of David Irving. He's not a holocaust denier, he's not an anti-Semite. Basically, we live today with a lot of propaganda accepted as absolute truth. NAZIs DID murder Jewish people en masse at times. The old and feeble were killed when brought to SLAVE labor camps. It was war, and slaves had no purpose if they couldn't work, and it was desperate and methodical times.

There's exaggerations about WWII everywhere. Russia, for example, probably didn't lose 20 million people in WWII. They probably didn't lose even 5, but it's still in the millions. 6 million Jews weren't killed in WWII either, really 2 million is a stretch, but it was over a million, and that's an ASTOUNDING number. Stalin is right, after a point it just becomes statistics, and WWII was terribly violent with massive losses of life, but it's vastly exaggerated on all sides.

This is all in the past though. I'm not so concerned with the lies of 70 years ago, I'm more interested in the lies of today.

Anyhow, if there were gas chambers, we don't have any direct evidence of them today. It's quite possible the NAZI regime destroyed them. Auschwitz is, unquestionably, a fraud. To really go down THIS rabbit hole requires you to be very open minded. Undoubtedly the Jewish people were persecuted during WWII in the NAZI regime, and that suited the Zionists just fine, because if they were persecuted, they had more people to build their state. There's no clear "good guys" and "bad guys", and there's mountainous lies about both of them and it's really difficult to sort out the truth, perhaps impossible.

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

Patrick says

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

Absolutely true. A .22 will make your ears ring, a 0.44 will make you temporarily deaf. As a (stupid) kid I'd fire weapons without ear protection, and think it was funny my ears would ring afterward, then I hit 15 and started to realize it could have long term consequences.

Really, I think the best protection against a home intruder is a shotgun with bird shot. It probably won't kill them, but it sure as hell will hurt them. You don't have to be accurate either, and you CAN'T be accurate. A slug will blow a hole in them. If you hit them, it doesn't much matter where, they're going to bleed out. With a home intruder, I almost would prefer a lead or steel pipe over a gun, as long as the intruder is not armed. I'm kind of afraid of guns, because I've handled them and shot them. A slug, even if you hit the person, might go right through them and then god knows where.

My brother used a 0.44 shotgun to strike a telephone pole, because, he was my stupider older brother. It blew a hole clean through it. Fortunately the pole didn't collapse, but he covered it up by fitting back the wood chips he blew out of it. I wonder if it still stands? He was always a reckless asshole. He was probably a vandal as well. I hate vandals.

(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)

richwicks says

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.

False dichotomy: the Beretta is not even avalable in .44 magnum (which is a revolver caliber anyway). It was originally created as a "wonder nine" and is perfectly manageable, mild-shooting even, and has a very respectable 17-round capacity in it's original chambering. And no, .22 is not considered as a "serious disabler" by anyone. That's why no police department would have it as a duty caliber. Being a rimfire cartridge it's also relatively unreliable which is not a good trait in a defense caliber.

richwicks says

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.

Eric Holder says

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.

i don’t wear any. in real combat no time to get comfortable. i train for combat

FortwayeAsFuckJoeBiden says

Eric Holder says

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.

i don’t wear any. in real combat no time to get comfortable

Real military guys in real combat wear ear and eye protection all the time. And what if you don't ever get to go into real battle but still go deaf? Would it be worth it?

Eric Holder says

FortwayeAsFuckJoeBiden says

Eric Holder says

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.

i don’t wear any. in real combat no time to get comfortable

Real military guys in real combat wear ear and eye protection all the time. And what if you don't ever get to go into real battle but still go deaf? Would it be worth it?

you probably right, i should mix it up just to not stress ears too much. our militia group isn’t too sophisticated, we communicate by shouting still, so got to figure out how to make communication work with ear protection.

Eric Holder says

False dichotomy: the Beretta is not even avalable in .44 magnum (which is a revolver caliber anyway). It was originally created as a "wonder nine" and is perfectly manageable, mild-shooting even, and has a very respectable 17-round capacity in it's original chambering. And no, .22 is not considered as a "serious disabler" by anyone. That's why no police department would have it as a duty caliber. Being a rimfire cartridge it's also relatively unreliable which is not a good trait in a defense caliber.

I've shot a lot of weapons, but I'm no expert in them. You may be correct.

My main concern about defending a property in the dark is not being temporarily blinded, and not being temporarily deaf. Generally you don't want to kill, and making an audible sound of cocking a gun will dissuade most assholes but if you're in the country and you have to kill, I've heard of SSS.

Shoot. Shovel. Silence.

FortwayeAsFuckJoeBiden says

after a day of training with carbine, i lose hearing for good 5 to 6 hours.

This is foolish for you to do. You're going to go deaf.

richwicks says

I think the best protection against a home intruder is a shotgun with bird shot. It probably won't kill them, but it sure as hell will hurt them.

That's my main defense at the moment. I think it probably will kill them at the close range of within a house, but part of the idea is also not to kill any neighbors by accident.

It's pretty deafening as well, but I don't know what to do about that.

I just saw this: https://atlanticfirearms.com/ar15-rifles

$400 for an American made AR 15

Prices for guns and especially ammo have gone down a lot. Cheaper than Dirt website shows more sales now.

.

do any of you guys know which tracer rounds good for carbine? pricing on them is all over the place.

2nd amendment should apply to drone guns IMO.

Patrick says

richwicks says

I think the best protection against a home intruder is a shotgun with bird shot. It probably won't kill them, but it sure as hell will hurt them.

That's my main defense at the moment. I think it probably will kill them at the close range of within a house, but part of the idea is also not to kill any neighbors by accident.

It's pretty deafening as well, but I don't know what to do about that.

What shotgun did you go with?

richwicks says

FortwayeAsFuckJoeBiden says

after a day of training with carbine, i lose hearing for good 5 to 6 hours.

This is foolish for you to do. You're going to go deaf.

100%

I have a family member that’s been losing his hearing over the last decade (gradually) and it’s been particularly difficult on him. Don’t take hearing for granted. Life get significantly harder if you can’t hear what’s around you.