patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,364,150 comments by 15,737 users - Ceffer, Misc online now
« First « Previous Comments 416 - 418 of 418 Search these comments
416
RWSGFY
@
2026 Jan 26, 6:51am
RWSGFY
@
2026 Jan 26, 6:51am
"Carrying a firearm is not a death sentence, it's a constitutionally protected God-given right, and if you don't understand this you have no business in law enforcement or government." -- Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY)
417
mell
@
2026 Jan 26, 7:37am
"
This has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. You have every right to keep and bear arms but the decision to bear arms in public means if you commit a crime while in possession of said firearm the penalty is elevated and your conduct becomes subject to a second set of standards in that by going armed you publicly demonstrate your capacity to use deadly force. This is a serious personal decision -- it is one you have every right to make but you are responsible for the consequences. Further and in all cases intent matters; Minnesota State Law requires a CWP holder to carry identification while in possession of said weapon in public and this individual deliberately did not do so. That speaks directly to his intent to commit an unlawful act while armed.
The standard for getting shot by law enforcement is that you present to them a reasonable belief (on their part, in the instant of the circumstances, not on a frame-by-frame slowed video analysis afterward) that you will inflict upon any of them or any other person in the area great bodily harm or death. If that standard is met they are authorized to terminate said threat by whatever means are available and necessary. Whether that standard has been met is the only issue on the table here and it is not entirely clear from what I've seen thus far which way that decision does or should fall. But what is very clear and in fact unquestioned is that the individual who was shot decided of his own free will to interfere with an arrest as a deliberate act while carrying a firearm in public and that act of interference is clearly shown and without reasonable question as to whether it was committed.
In every case actively interfering with an arrest by law enforcement is a felony and makes you an accessory to the original crime the person sought committed originally. If you go to a protest and exercise your First Amendment right to speak while armed there is not only no problem you are entirely within your rights. After all some random thug might****ault you unprovoked and you have the right to exercise self-defense in that instance.
"
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=254835
This has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. You have every right to keep and bear arms but the decision to bear arms in public means if you commit a crime while in possession of said firearm the penalty is elevated and your conduct becomes subject to a second set of standards in that by going armed you publicly demonstrate your capacity to use deadly force. This is a serious personal decision -- it is one you have every right to make but you are responsible for the consequences. Further and in all cases intent matters; Minnesota State Law requires a CWP holder to carry identification while in possession of said weapon in public and this individual deliberately did not do so. That speaks directly to his intent to commit an unlawful act while armed.
The standard for getting shot by law enforcement is that you present to them a reasonable belief (on their part, in the instant of the circumstances, not on a frame-by-frame slowed video analysis afterward) that you will inflict upon any of them or any other person in the area great bodily harm or death. If that standard is met they are authorized to terminate said threat by whatever means are available and necessary. Whether that standard has been met is the only issue on the table here and it is not entirely clear from what I've seen thus far which way that decision does or should fall. But what is very clear and in fact unquestioned is that the individual who was shot decided of his own free will to interfere with an arrest as a deliberate act while carrying a firearm in public and that act of interference is clearly shown and without reasonable question as to whether it was committed.
In every case actively interfering with an arrest by law enforcement is a felony and makes you an accessory to the original crime the person sought committed originally. If you go to a protest and exercise your First Amendment right to speak while armed there is not only no problem you are entirely within your rights. After all some random thug might****ault you unprovoked and you have the right to exercise self-defense in that instance.
"
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=254835
« First « Previous Comments 416 - 418 of 418 Search these comments
_congressman
https://x.com/RepThomasMassie/