Tommy Callahan Posted February 26 Posted February 26 So the cops were called by his family that stated he was trying to break in with a gun. Then ***** at cops when they arrived. And the media runs with no details and spins it.. 2
Doc Posted February 26 Posted February 26 47 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: So the cops were called by his family that stated he was trying to break in with a gun. Then ***** at cops when they arrived. And the media runs with no details and spins it.. Body cam footage will likely exonerate the POs. But you probably won't hear a retraction from the media. 3
B-Man Posted February 26 Posted February 26 We CAN defend ourselves. Imagine that. Federal Judge Clobbers California's Silly Ban on Billy Clubs in Devastating Ruling by Jeff Charles A federal court has made a critical ruling related to the Second Amendment and the concept of self-defense. The decision strikes at the heart of California laws intended to limit one’s ability to protect themselves against violent criminals. Judge Roger Benitez handed down a ruling in the case of Fouts v. Bonta on Friday, striking down a ban on citizens possessing or carrying billy clubs and other forms of less lethal weaponry. In his decision, Benitez questioned the legality of the statute, which criminalized Californians simply for owning a billy club, a tool that is commonly used by members of law enforcement, but is also used by civilians for personal defense. "Americans have an individual right to keep and bear arms, whether firearms or less lethal arms,” the judge wrote, also arguing that “The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution ‘guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.'” The ruling underscores a fundamental tenet of American liberty: The right to keep and bear arms. It is commonly assumed that this only refers to carrying firearms, but the reality is that it protects one’s right to possess the means by which someone can protect life and property. In this case, it allows people to use alternatives to guns to safeguard themselves and others. {snip} The fact that this legislation ever existed in the first place further demonstrates California’s dedication to shielding criminal elements by making it harder for their victims to defend themselves. Let’s hope we see more rulings like this one. https://redstate.com/jeffc/2024/02/25/federal-judge-clobbers-californias-silly-ban-on-billy-clubs-in-devastating-ruling-n2170556 . 1
Tommy Callahan Posted February 27 Posted February 27 In ny, the state tries to make it illegal to legally carry in places like churches. And a terrorist like this would have been so much worse. And using it's child as a shield? 1
B-Man Posted February 29 Posted February 29 Justice Jackson's Comment About Bump Stocks Just May Be the Most Ignorant Thing You've Ever Heard By Nick Arama It never ceases to amaze me how so many people on the left are so ignorant about guns. Yet, many of those same people endlessly expound on guns, despite their complete ignorance on the subject. We constantly hear them describing ordinary AR-15s as automatics or machine guns, or some other such nonsense. It never occurs to them that the problem, if there is one, isn't the gun, but the person behind it. Somehow, it's always the evil gun's fault and that's why they must be banned. However, when you're on the Supreme Court, you would think that they would have a little more knowledge, particularly if they're going to be considering a case involving guns, that they wouldn't be making idiotic comments. But I guess that might be asking too much. Some of the justices and the government attorneys exhibited some real ignorance about guns on Wednesday during the oral arguments in the Garland v. Cargill bump stock ban case. I wrote in January about when Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked some very intelligent questions in regard to the Colorado Trump ballot case and whether the officer provision of the 14th Amendment even applied to former President Donald Trump. I wondered if maybe I had been wrong in my assessment of her on some level. Unfortunately, on Wednesday, that momentary sense she seemed to have displayed in the ballot case was definitely lacking, and the woman who refused to answer what a woman was because she was "not a biologist" was back in full force. You can hear her say it twice, including a "whatever," showing she doesn't even care about the accuracy of what she's saying. https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2024/02/28/justice-jacksons-comment-about-guns-n2170723 1 1
LeviF Posted February 29 Posted February 29 In case you didn’t already know, dressing her up and letting her play act as a jurist is part of your humiliation. 1 1
K D Posted February 29 Posted February 29 800 rounds per second! Lol. Just when you think they can't get any dumber. Even if they figured out how to do that (impossible) nobody could afford that. 5.56 or .223 is like .50 cents per round times 800 is like $400 per second. You will have to take out a loan to shoot for 10 seconds. Then how are you going to pick up all of that brass? What a mess! 1 1
Orlando Buffalo Posted March 2 Posted March 2 On 2/25/2024 at 12:58 PM, BillStime said: Sick bastards Since half the Dems agree with the bill why are you against it? 1
Thurmal34 Posted March 2 Posted March 2 we have the most guns< and the most gun deaths do we need more guns to prevent gun deaths? 1
LeviF Posted March 2 Posted March 2 4 hours ago, Thurmal34 said: we have the most guns< and the most gun deaths do we need more guns to prevent gun deaths? Who’s shooting the guns? 1
Orlando Buffalo Posted March 2 Posted March 2 5 hours ago, Thurmal34 said: we have the most guns< and the most gun deaths do we need more guns to prevent gun deaths? We have far more guns then the 1980s and far less murders with guns than the 1980s, but somehow you think the issue is the guns themselves. In my neighborhood I know for a fact that there are more guns than people but the worst crime in 20 years is teens stealing from unlocked cars. I also find it shocking how often liberals only care about gun deaths but don't worry about any other version of murder. My goal is to lower all murder rates but that clearly is not your goal 1
aristocrat Posted March 2 Posted March 2 5 hours ago, Thurmal34 said: we have the most guns< and the most gun deaths do we need more guns to prevent gun deaths? look at New Hampshire. One of the highest gun ownership states and one of the lowest rate of gun violence. Why? 1
B-Man Posted March 6 Posted March 6 And Then There Were 28: Louisiana Becomes Most Recent State to Pass Constitutional-Carry Law by Ward Clark On Tuesday, Louisiana became the 28th state to pass legislation allowing the carry of handguns without a permit, often referred to as "constitutional carry." The law, originally Louisiana Senate Bill 1, was signed into law by Governor Jeff Landry."Today, we join 27 other states in passing Constitutional Carry. I promised the folks of Louisiana that I would champion Constitutional Carry into law, and within two months, I have honored that commitment," Republican Gov. Jeff Landry told Fox News Digital. "It's fundamentally clear — law-abiding citizens should never have to seek government permission to safeguard themselves https://redstate.com/wardclark/2024/03/05/and-then-there-were-28-louisiana-becomes-most-recent-state-to-pass-constitutional-carry-law-n2170969#google_vignette . 2
Pokebball Posted March 7 Posted March 7 On 3/2/2024 at 5:12 AM, LeviF said: Who’s shooting the guns? what is better? more murderers or less murderers?
Recommended Posts