Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, December 05, 2018

The measure would ban persons residing or entering the state from possessing military-style firearms. The measure would define military-style firearms as "any gun with a magazine capacity of more than seven rounds of ammunition or any weapon capable of firing in fully automatic mode, any weapon capable of being modified in any manner to fire in a fully automatic mode or any weapon classified as a sniper rifle." The measure would also prohibit persons from possessing any firearm if the person had (a) been convicted of a felony; (b) been convicted of three or more misdemeanors; (c) his or her driver's license revoked for driving under the influence, reckless driving, or excessive speeding; (d) been subject to two or more domestic abuse emergency calls or investigations; (e) been diagnosed by a medical professional as psychologically disturbed; or (f) made any substantiated threat of violence against another person.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

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

Quick: Define "sniper rifle"

#1 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2018-12-05 11:22 AM | Reply

Oh that's easy. It's every rifle.

#2 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-12-05 11:27 AM | Reply

We can't fix gun laws until we fix the SC.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2018-12-05 11:32 AM | Reply

#2 Give the man a ceegar. This initiative proposes to ban all "long guns". Good example of bad ideas.

#4 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2018-12-05 11:35 AM | Reply

We can't fix gun laws until we fix the SC.

#3 | Posted by danni

"Fix"?

you going to "fix" the 2nd Amendment too?

And you wonder why the country is divided.

#5 | Posted by boaz at 2018-12-05 11:55 AM | Reply

you going to "fix" the 2nd Amendment too?

No need to fix it, just read its plain text and give every word effect.

#6 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-05 11:58 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

#6

That's the way it was read until the 1980's when the NRA became the marketing arm for gun makers.

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2018-12-05 12:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

No need to fix it, just read its plain text and give every word effect.

We never had a problem reading it. It isnt until liberals came along and wanted different interpretation that benefited them.

The words, "the right of the People to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is pretty clear. Except to liberals.

#8 | Posted by boaz at 2018-12-05 12:43 PM | Reply

The words, "the right of the People to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is pretty clear.

The words "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," are equally clear. You don't get to pick the words you like and discard the rest.

#9 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-05 01:21 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

"You don't get to pick the words you like and discard the rest."

Only nine people get to do that.
One of them likes to get blackout drunk.
Another one likes Long Dong Silver movies.
Not that there's anything wrong with that!

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-12-05 01:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

I didnt discard the rest. How liberals read it doesnt even make sense.

If you were right, then a fringe group, who wants to over throw the government, could gather an army of millions and force the government to give them arms to wage their war. It's so obvious it was meant to apply to individual Americans having weapons on their own.

#11 | Posted by boaz at 2018-12-05 02:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

If you were right, then a fringe group, who wants to over throw the government

They wouldn't be "well-regulated," would they.

My reading of the Amendment was the widely accepted reading, including by the Supreme Court, until recently.

"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon."
US v. Miller, 307 US 174.

#12 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-05 03:00 PM | Reply

The military use shotguns, why wouldn't a well regulated militia?

#13 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2018-12-05 03:09 PM | Reply

You can disagree with what the court at that time thought reasonably necessary for a well-regulated militia, but the point is that they always interpreted the 2nd Amendment with a militia in mind and did not disregard its opening clause until recently.

#14 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-05 03:15 PM | Reply

They wouldn't be "well-regulated," would they.

depends on who is doing the regulating. Our system is designed so that we can overthrow a government that we feel is wrong. To say that the regulated part can only come from the federal government misinterprets why it's in the constitution.

#15 | Posted by boaz at 2018-12-05 07:49 PM | Reply

but the point is that they always interpreted the 2nd Amendment with a militia in mind

You are wrong. Period. No they didnt.

And no amount of you repeating it is going to make it right.

#16 | Posted by boaz at 2018-12-05 07:50 PM | Reply

"To say that the regulated part can only come from the federal government misinterprets..."

Who, exactly, would have that power? The NRA?!?

#17 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-12-05 07:50 PM | Reply

Who, exactly, would have that power?

The people.

#18 | Posted by boaz at 2018-12-05 08:01 PM | Reply

The people.

#18 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2018-12-05 08:01 PM | REPLY

A supermajority of those support increased gun control.

#19 | Posted by Dirkstruan at 2018-12-05 08:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Who, exactly, would have that power?

"The people." - #18 | Posted by boaz at 2018-12-05 08:01 PM

Hey, boaz, did you hear that "the people" gave Hillary Clinton 3,000,000 more votes than Trump?

So much for the people having that "power."

#20 | Posted by Hans at 2018-12-05 08:44 PM | Reply

#15 regulated in the second amendment doesn't mean our regulated, ie government oversight.

#21 | Posted by jpw at 2018-12-05 08:54 PM | Reply

Hey, boaz, did you hear that "the people" gave Hillary Clinton 3,000,000 more votes than Trump?

They were disqualified due to lack of cow proximity.

#22 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-12-05 08:55 PM | Reply

You are wrong. Period. No they didnt

No, i'm not, and i can tell you've read nothing on the subject if you'd disagree in that manner.

#23 | Posted by JOE at 2018-12-06 08:48 AM | Reply

Yes you are. I am read on the subject. I know what I'm talking about. You in the other hand are just looking for an explaination to fit your narrative.

If your interpretation were true, that citizens could only hold weapons issues by the state and only in war, the Supreme Court would have ruled that way, but they didn't, they ruled how I and the rest if the sane citizens who know it's an individual right, not a collective one.

#24 | Posted by boaz at 2018-12-06 12:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"...the Supreme Court would have ruled that way..." - #24 | Posted by boaz at 2018-12-06 12:28 PM

Because everyone just knows the SCOTUS has never overturned a previous decision.

That would explain why Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) is still law of the land.

Right boaz?

#25 | Posted by Hans at 2018-12-06 12:58 PM | Reply

You know, instead of just trotting out the same old discussions of the 2nd Amendment, maybe you clowns would care to discuss the actual subject initiative.

Do you agree with language in the initiative?

Do you agree that any firearm that can hold more than 7 rounds is "military style"?

What would you classify as "a sniper rifle", which the initiative likewise classifies a "military weapon"?

#26 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2018-12-06 01:46 PM | Reply

Yeah, I thought not.

#27 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2018-12-07 09:05 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#24 does your deference for the Supreme Court mean you support a woman's right to privacy to have an abortion?

#28 | Posted by jpw at 2018-12-07 09:58 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort