Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, June 24, 2014

As many as 10 people were shot at 2 a.m. Tuesday morning outside a housing complex in Miami's Liberty City neighborhood. Two men showed up across from the Liberty Square housing complex, stopped on the street and then started firing assault weapons, police said. Dozens of bullets were sprayed into the area.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

In before someone claims there is no such thing as assault weapons.

#1 | Posted by sully at 2014-06-24 09:48 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Cause, to gunlusters, the definition of 'assault weapons' is of greater concern than the number of corpses.

#2 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2014-06-24 10:17 AM | Reply | Flag:

Assult weapons do exist in the military. It takes a special stamp for a private citizen to own one.

The definition is in continual change. At one time the knight's lance was an assult weapon. Later, a short recurved bow was. That was replaced by the musket and later by a lever action rifle. Today it is a relativity short, full automatic rifle.

Ya gotta keep up sul. Just because some unknowing reporter calls it an assult rifle doesn't make it so. I could call you a DS but does that make it true? You tell me.

#3 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-24 10:43 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Gun laws are only effective on law abiding citizens. Why do progressives and the government fear the law abiding?

#4 | Posted by visitor_ at 2014-06-24 11:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

You know the answer to that one visitor. As long as the general public are armed they can't be made to submit.

#5 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-24 11:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

From Websters:
assault rifle noun
: a gun that can shoot many bullets quickly and that is designed for use by the military

: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use

So the weapons in question a) were virtual copies of rifles designed for use by the military as far a look and feel and fuction (except for full auto capability); b) can shoot many bullets quickly; c) have large capacity magazines. Sounds like they meet the Webster definition of Assault Rifles. Obviously they meet the man-on-the-street definition. Shut up, snipe. We are tired of hearing it.

#6 | Posted by mad_as_hell at 2014-06-24 11:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

They were not assault rifles.. they were just rifles used to assault people.

#7 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2014-06-24 11:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

I have to agree with Sniper.

Because poor and inaccurate reporting is taking place does not make it so. There is a definition and people choose to ignore it for sensationalization purposes. It is called reporting with an agenda and belongs in editorial pieces. Report the facts.

Reporters are trying to change the facts and effect change. Illegal immigrant is another good example. Undocumented? No, illegal is a better description as they are breaking the law of this country.

That said, I am not against creating change - but unless you like the way Fox is trying to do it as well then you need to rethink letting the media do it for you.

#8 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2014-06-24 11:22 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Obviously the shooters felt threatened and are protected by the "Stand Your Ground" Law. What else can one do when one "feels" threatened? After all feelings are very important, more important than facts.

#9 | Posted by nutcase at 2014-06-24 11:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

Love the deflection about what type of gun was used, nice distraction.

Gun violence causes much more damage and harm than we know, we can't even get proper statistics due to the NRA's stranglehold over our elected officials.

Doctors know, hospitals know.

I'm totally in favor of the right to bear arms, but we need sane regulation, not the insane rhetoric.

#10 | Posted by drewl at 2014-06-24 11:41 AM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

There are already plenty of gun laws. Laws are just words on a piece of paper, some fine citizens chose to follow them and others do not. Exactly what words on paper do you propose as the magical ones to protect society from criminals and the insane?

#11 | Posted by visitor_ at 2014-06-24 11:46 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

New gun laws?

Those who follow the law will follow the new ones and those that don't won't.

So long as the military makes bigger and badder guns, then the black market will exist to sell them and those who want them will get them, period.

Educate, not restrict.

#12 | Posted by kanrei at 2014-06-24 11:50 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 4

Gun nuts want fewer gun laws. Okay. Honestly, just imagine how many fewer gun laws we would need if the 2nd Amendment were repealed.

#13 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-06-24 11:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

The residents of the housing complex clearly WERE NOT protecting their rights by not standing their ground and firing back. The NRA needs to issue more free shotguns to these folks, so random shooters will think twice about lighting up the neighborhood.

#14 | Posted by catdog at 2014-06-24 11:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

Laws are just words on a piece of paper ...

Why does a mass shooting always get this response? The fact that laws aren't followed by everyone is why we have prisons. It's not a reason to stop passing laws.

#15 | Posted by rcade at 2014-06-24 12:00 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say what you think it does.

www.drudge.com

#16 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-24 12:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Gun violence causes much more damage and harm than we know,

#10 | Posted by drewl

You got me there dre, I didn't know guns could become violent. I am surprised that the guns in a gun store don't decide to take over the city. People arn't violent, it's them damn baseball bats and car antennas.

#17 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-24 12:11 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 3

If you are willing to do stuff like this then there is no gun law they wouldn't break too. I will say the way they wrote the article claiming the crowd was "milling around at 2:30a.m" is odd. I had to read it twice when it said they were across from the "Pork N Beans". This is why the anti gun nutters will lose this issue. People realize that these guys didn't give two _____ about your background checks etc... They would have broken any law if you are willing to shoot into crowds like this. It's not like today they are saying "my god how many gun laws did we break!" Clearly they weren't the typical mentally ill shooters. Those guys tend to work alone.

#18 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-24 12:13 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The fact that laws aren't followed by everyone is why we have prisons. It's not a reason to stop passing laws.

#15 | Posted by rcade

There are many laws against killing people already. What good will one more do?

There is a law against unattenative driving........... lets pass another law against unattenative driving while texting. Really?

#19 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-24 12:14 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Prisons are for after the words on paper (laws) have been ignored. The fine citizens shooting the housing project engaged in a violent criminal act. I don't doubt they would similarly ignore laws regarding mere acquisition and possession.

#20 | Posted by visitor_ at 2014-06-24 12:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say what you think it does.

www.drudge.com

#16 | Posted by Corky

That's one man's opinion. Herfe are some other opinions.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America" - (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.)

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

#21 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-24 12:18 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

-That's one man's opinion.

No, it was the majority opinion of courts in this country up until the NRA bought Scalia et al, as is detailed in the link.

#22 | Posted by Corky at 2014-06-24 12:21 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 2

I borrowed this line:

Laws are like Jello, there's always room for more.

#23 | Posted by visitor_ at 2014-06-24 12:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ya gotta keep up sul. Just because some unknowing reporter calls it an assult rifle doesn't make it so. I could call you a DS but does that make it true? You tell me.

#3 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-24 10:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

Pretty much anything that isn't a pistol or a hunting rifle is called an "assault weapon" by reporters. Technically isn't correct but my point was really that it doesn't matter.

#24 | Posted by sully at 2014-06-24 12:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

-That's one man's opinion.

No, it was the majority opinion of courts in this country up until the NRA bought Scalia et al, as is detailed in the link.

#22 | Posted by Corky

cor, the court opinion was on STRAW PURCHASE of firearms, nothing else.

#25 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-24 01:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Pretty much anything that isn't a pistol or a hunting rifle is called an "assault weapon" by reporters. Technically isn't correct but my point was really that it doesn't matter.

#24 | Posted by sully

Then why bring it up?

#26 | Posted by Sniper at 2014-06-24 02:00 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The election manipulators at the National Riffle Assoc. recently agreed to pay a $63,000 fine to the Rhode Island Board of Elections. On behalf of the folks in RI, I would like to thank the dues paying members of the NRA for their very generous "donation" ...LOL

Fools are easily parted from their money

#27 | Posted by SammyAZ_RI at 2014-06-24 02:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

As long as the general public are armed they can't be made to submit.
#5 | Posted by Sniper

In that case we just murder them.
Waco, Ruby Ridge, MOVE HQ.
Stop lying.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-24 02:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

in before someone claims there is no such thing as assault weapons.
#1 | POSTED BY SULLY

In befoe anyone defends ONE criminal.

#29 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2014-06-24 02:40 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Educate, not restrict.

#12 | POSTED BY KANREI

Really?

You mean like highway safety? Lets get rid of those pesky speed limits and those other nuisances and "educate" the public on driving safely. Get rid of airport security, zoning laws and hate crime restrictions. Education will solve it all magically.

#30 | Posted by CrisisStills at 2014-06-24 03:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

First off none of those are constitutional rights. Second these criminals aren't going to follow your gun laws. Do you think these guys cared after shooting into a crowd if they broke any gun laws. Even if you had a gun law for this situation would the punishment be worse than killing people? You guys keep making these fake gun law arguments and you will continue to get nothing.

#31 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-24 03:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Odd the murderer didn't use a bomb, it's much cheaper than bullets not to mention the expense of the rifle alone. A bomb is also more effective in a mindless terrorist attack. The perps probably didn't opt for the bomb because it's banned and illegal for the public to have them.

#32 | Posted by lel2007 at 2014-06-24 03:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

You guys keep making these fake gun law arguments and you will continue to get nothing.
#31 | Posted by Dalton

Is "none of those are constitutional rights" a fake gun law argument or a real one?

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-06-24 03:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Lel is murder illegal? That didn't seem to bother these two "law abiding citizens" did it?

Snoofy it's a real one b/c fortunately the SCOTUS said so. Plus it's written in the constitution.

#34 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-24 03:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

There are many misconceptions represented in these pages daily.

This is one of the all time pieces of stoopid, and we see it over and over.

"As long as the general public are armed they can't be made to submit."

I'm taking the simple minded statement to task here, not the poster, but if the shoo fits, Lace it up and wear it.

#35 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2014-06-24 03:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

No, it was the majority opinion of courts in this country up until the NRA bought Scalia et al, as is detailed in the link.

Head on over to that link. The opinion ain't doing too well. Unless you ignore contrary opinions or the 35 other SC cases discussing the Second Amendment. Or judicially determined facts. Do all that and the argument is doing great.

#36 | Posted by et_al at 2014-06-24 03:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why doesn't any one say a thing about who was involved and where this happened? Hint: The perps and the victims were black. Liberty city is a gang infested area. And with this knowledge, the lib/progressives only notice that there was a gun involved. If you outlawed every firearm, there would be hundreds of machine shops clandestinely manufacturing them. Criminals will always have guns if they are willing to steal or buy them.

#37 | Posted by docnjo at 2014-06-24 04:05 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Doc, I did up thread. That's why I mentioned that I've never been milling around at 2:30am.

#38 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-06-24 04:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

"People arn't violent, it's them damn baseball bats and car antennas."

....and knives and pipes and cars and Molotov cocktails and ropes and blunt instruments and......

#39 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2014-06-24 04:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

It was....Scarface - Say Hello To My Little Friend!

#40 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-06-24 04:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

The 2nd Amendment doesn't say what you think it does.

www.drudge.com

#16 | Posted by Corky

I can't believe you linked to that thread. You're getting your ass handed to you.

#41 | Posted by jpw at 2014-06-24 04:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Pretty much anything that isn't a pistol or a hunting rifle is called an "assault weapon" by reporters. Technically isn't correct but my point was really that it doesn't matter.

Doesn't matter? You don't have an issue with the blatant sensationalism being used?

#42 | Posted by jpw at 2014-06-24 04:51 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

These threads always bring out the fantasty-world dreamers...

But in real world... "That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property shall not be questioned."

-MO Constitution

#43 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2014-06-24 04:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

-MO Constitution

Which means what outside of MO?

#44 | Posted by jpw at 2014-06-24 05:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

A well balanced breakfast being to the start of a healty day, the right of the people to keep and eat food should not be infringed.

Who has the right to food? The people or a well balanced breakfast?

Aint no way around it. But if gungrabbers were serious about taking guns, which I doubt they are (just yellowdog journalism and loony politicians trying to garner votes), they could attack the definition of "militia" and restrict the rights of women to own weapons. Of course thats political suicide. Of course Hillary "Women are the primary victims of war" Clinton and Nancy "take everyones guns but mine" Pelosi wont come out on that platform.

#45 | Posted by aescal at 2014-06-24 05:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

#42 | Posted by jpw
"You don't have an issue with the blatant sensationalism being used?"

Well, this is America. Blatant sensationalism is a basic food group here.

#46 | Posted by TheTom at 2014-06-24 08:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

Guns are here to stay. The solution is universal arming.
No more easy meat for the predator/scavenger constituent.

#47 | Posted by FlyUntied at 2014-06-24 08:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

I saw a lot of Uzis slung in Israel.
Never heard one go off.
No octogenarians being sucker punched either.

#48 | Posted by FlyUntied at 2014-06-24 08:47 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Well, this is America. Blatant sensationalism is a basic food group here.

Touche.

I actually had to stop reading this article, though, as it was disturbingly sensational and emotional. Apparently the Miami Herald has relaxed it's standards regarding bias in its reporting. (maybe they never had any? I can't remember ever reading something in it before...)

#49 | Posted by jpw at 2014-06-24 09:29 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

The men climbed out lugging high-powered automatic weapons...

If these weapons were indeed automatic as the author indicates, then they were not legal guns.... They were either illegally obtained or illegally modified in some way.

#50 | Posted by mariosanchez at 2014-06-24 10:58 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

If these weapons were indeed automatic as the author indicates, then they were not legal guns.... They were either illegally obtained or illegally modified in some way.

Anti-gun folks get pissed by the expectation that they be aware of and use proper terminology.

Expecting logic might be a tall order.

#51 | Posted by jpw at 2014-06-25 12:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

These threads always bring out the fantasty-world dreamers...
great american

which explains why you're on every one of them

#52 | Posted by cjk85 at 2014-06-25 02:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort