Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, January 14, 2019

[A] Pew Research Center report reveals that there are areas where bipartisan support for aspects of gun control is strong. For example, 89 percent of both Republican and Democratic voters say people with mental illness should not be allowed to buy guns. Almost the same number also agree that people on federal watch lists should have restricted gun access. And 91 percent of Democratic voters and 79 percent of Republican voters say gun sales made in private and at gun shows should have background checks.

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.

And yet, the first thing trump and repubs did was to make it easier for mentally ill people to get guns.
Because trump and repubs dont care about americans, they care about the NRA, which we now learn is the bribery arm of the kremlin.

#1 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-01-14 01:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 3

The VERY VERY first thing trump and repubs did was to make it easier for mentally ill people to get guns.

--FTFY

#2 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-01-14 02:10 PM | Reply

as for me? Well, I am so glad that the mentally ill can get still guns.

After all, how will I be able to "Negotiate" with the Banks and make "Adjustments" where necessary?

#3 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-01-14 02:12 PM | Reply


@#1 ... they care about the NRA, which we now learn is the bribery arm of the kremlin. ...

That aspect is a significant concern of mine.

It may also help to explain why the NRA goes against the will of its members regarding certain aspects of gun control (e.g., people with mental illness should not be allowed to buy guns).

#4 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-01-14 02:39 PM | Reply

While both sides my agree on a few common sense gun restriction measures, the fact of the matter is that for republicans, curbing gun violence in this country simply is not a high priority.

#5 | Posted by Angrydad at 2019-01-14 04:32 PM | Reply

And yet, the first thing trump and repubs did was to make it easier for mentally ill people to get guns.

#1 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Of course. Trump was elected to piss off liberals. Republicans are so mired in learned helplessness that they will support anything that makes them feel that they "won" against the liberals, even if it is a policy that they don't actually approve of.

You want to know why Republicans are so bad at governing? Because they don't care about governing. They know that if they actually push a real policy initiative then they will lose out to the liberal position (Obamacare, wall, etc) so all they have to assuage their helplessness is knowing that they are making liberals unhappy.

#6 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-01-14 04:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

And yet, the first thing trump and repubs did was to make it easier for mentally ill people to get guns.

No, they did not.

They nullified a Social Security Administration rule that required NICS reporting for a subset of recipients determined incapable of managing their financial affairs. By statute, enacted years ago and still in effect, the mentally ill are prohibited to possess guns. www.congress.gov

#7 | Posted by et_al at 2019-01-14 06:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"By statute, enacted years ago and still in effect, the mentally ill are prohibited to possess guns. www.congress.gov"

Without an enforcement mechanism those are just meaningless words.
And there is no enforcement mechanism.
There is merely a sale denial mechanism that only works in retail settings.
Nobody goes and checks if the mentally ill actually have guns.

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-14 06:44 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

No, they did not.

They nullified a Social Security Administration rule that required NICS reporting for a subset of recipients determined incapable of managing their financial affairs. By statute, enacted years ago and still in effect, the mentally ill are prohibited to possess guns. www.congress.gov

#7 | Posted by et_al

Yes, they did.

fortune.com

President Donald Trump's tweet Thursday highlighting the mental illness of the man charged in the deadly mass shooting at a Florida high school has angered gun control advocates who point to an Obama-era gun checks regulation he repealed last year.
The Obama-era regulation, which was enacted after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, would have required the Social Security Administration to send records of beneficiaries with severe mental disabilities to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

#9 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-01-14 06:44 PM | Reply

"would have required the Social Security Administration to send records of beneficiaries with severe mental disabilities to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System."

Et_Al, what specifically about that regulation did your Russian financiers find onerous?

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-14 06:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

Et_Al, don't you feel like Putin's Useful Idiot when you recite Russian pro-gun propaganda designed to divide Americans, when the Russians themselves have far stricter gun control than anything you've ever supported for us Americans?

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-14 07:03 PM | Reply

#9

No, they did not, read further in the article. It says what I said.

The rule would have had zero effect on the FL shooter or the general public. It only affected SS disability recipients determined to be incapable of managing their financial affairs, a category so broad it includes someone who can't balance a checkbook.

#12 | Posted by et_al at 2019-01-14 07:32 PM | Reply

It only affected SS disability recipients determined to be incapable of managing their financial affairs, a category so broad it includes someone who can't balance a checkbook.

#12 | Posted by et_al

Exactly. It affected people too mentally disabled to run their own lives. Do you think a person who can't manage their own life should be given access to lethal force?

#13 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-01-14 08:07 PM | Reply

#13

Got it, inability to balance a checkbook is a disqualifier, for you. For me it takes more.

#14 | Posted by et_al at 2019-01-14 08:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Still not a fan of government watch lists being used to limit Constitutional rights.

A perfect example of selling rights for a sense of security.

#15 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-14 09:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Got it, inability to balance a checkbook is a disqualifier, for you. For me it takes more.

#14 | Posted by et_al

yeah. Until it's your kid that gets shot. Til them, screw em.

#16 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-01-14 09:11 PM | Reply

#8

Attention mentally ill, we brown shirt leftists will be inspecting your premises for weapons. We're so scared of firearms, we need to ignore your 4th amendment protections.

Signed snoofy

#17 | Posted by willowby at 2019-01-15 02:12 AM | Reply

You're saying judges shouldn't issue warrants to remove weapons from people who aren't supposed to have them.

Why do you want people who shouldn't have weapons to have weapons?

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-15 02:32 AM | Reply

Still not a fan of government watch lists being used to limit Constitutional rights.

A perfect example of selling rights for a sense of security.

#15 | Posted by jpw at 2019-01-14 09:07 PMFlag: ReceivedFunnyNewsworthy

That's how we ended up with the Patriot Act.

#19 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2019-01-15 07:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

We're so scared of firearms, we need to ignore your 4th amendment protections.
#17 | POSTED BY WILLOWBY

We're so scared of Islamic racical terrorists, we need to ignore your 1st, 4th and 5th amendment protections (also, possibly, the 8th).

FTFY

According to a September 2016 study by Alex Nowrasteh at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, some 3,024 Americans died from 1975 through 2015 due to foreign-born terrorism. That number includes the 9/11 terrorist attacks (2,983 people) and averages nearly 74 Americans per year.

Since 9/11, however, foreign-born terrorists have killed roughly one American per year. Six Americans have died per year at the hands, guns, and bombs of Islamic terrorists (foreign and domestic). www.businessinsider.com

While:

The CDC's Wonder database shows that in 2017, 39,773 people in the US lost their lives at the point of a gun, marking the onward march of firearm fatalities in a country renowned for its lax approach to gun controls. When adjusted for age fluctuations, that represents a total of 12 deaths per 100,000 people – up from 10.1 in 2010 and the highest rate since 1996. www.theguardian.com

Which of these is the greater threat?

#20 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-01-15 09:43 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

For example, 89 percent of both Republican and Democratic voters say people with mental illness should not be allowed to buy guns.

They are not under current law. Bitch to the doctors that do not put them on the watch list.

#21 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-01-15 11:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And 91 percent of Democratic voters and 79 percent of Republican voters say gun sales made in private and at gun shows

Anyone with an FFL has to do a background check under current law.

#22 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-01-15 11:42 AM | Reply

The VERY VERY first thing trump and repubs did was to make it easier for mentally ill people to get guns.

--FTFY

#2 | Posted by donnerboy

What law did that donnie? Post the Trump law or admit you made that up.

#23 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-01-15 11:44 AM | Reply

people with mental illness should not be allowed to buy guns).

#4 | Posted by LampLighter

Ypou know nothing about existing laws.

#24 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-01-15 11:45 AM | Reply

Et_Al, what specifically about that regulation did your Russian financiers find onerous?

#10 | Posted by snoofy

What part of you are a dip**** don't you understand? That is an edxtreemly stoopid post with no facts at all.

#25 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-01-15 11:49 AM | Reply

What part of you are a dip**** don't you understand? That is an edxtreemly stoopid post with no facts at all.

#25 | POSTED BY SNIPER AT 2019-01-15 11:49 AM | FLAG:

Sorry, Snippy. Your NRA pals got coopted by the Russians. You are Putin's little stooge.

#26 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2019-01-15 11:50 AM | Reply | Funny: 4

You're saying judges shouldn't issue warrants to remove weapons from people who aren't supposed to have them.

Why do you want people who shouldn't have weapons to have weapons?

#18 | Posted by snoofy

They should have never passed the background check. I guess you slipped by.

#27 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-01-15 11:51 AM | Reply

"They should have never passed the background check."

Coulda, shoulda, woulda.
For whatever reason they did pass the background check.
Why don't you think that mistake should be corrected?

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-15 01:28 PM | Reply

#25, Snipper is Russian/NRA ------ stooge! Keep up the great work, Lil Snippy.

#29 | Posted by john47 at 2019-01-15 05:54 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Attention mentally ill, we brown shirt leftists will be inspecting your premises for weapons. We're so scared of firearms, we need to ignore your 4th amendment protections."

Obvioouly a post by someone who is mentally ill. What a dumb ass post.

#30 | Posted by danni at 2019-01-16 09:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"We're so scared of firearms, we need to ignore your 4th amendment protections."

Meanwhile, this poster supports the guy who said--""Take the guns first, go through due process second"

#31 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-01-16 09:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Attention mentally ill, we brown shirt leftists will be inspecting your premises for weapons." - #17 | Posted by willowby at 2019-01-15 02:12 AM

Based on the comments in this thread, we'll be starting with non-Gillette razors, not weapons.

#32 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-16 10:01 AM | Reply

A Department of Justice report shows that only seven percent of nearly 300,000 state and federal prisoners who possessed a firearm during their crime purchased the gun from a licensed firearm dealer.

#33 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-01-16 10:44 AM | Reply

Why don't you think that mistake should be corrected?

#28 | Posted by snoofy

Why should the mistake have been made in the first place?

#34 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-01-16 10:46 AM | Reply

Well, we have the Constitution to protect the rights of the minorities from the mob rule of the majority - whether that be gays getting married or rednecks buying guns. I don't understand what is so hard about this for Liberals to understand.

#35 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-16 10:56 AM | Reply

#33 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-01-16 10:44 AM

What Justice Department report?

#36 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-16 10:59 AM | Reply

Well, we have the Constitution to protect the rights of the minorities from the mob rule of the majority - whether that be gays getting married or rednecks buying guns. I don't understand what is so hard about this for Liberals to understand.

#35 | Posted by nobiasposter101

The constitution was meant to change with the times. The people who wrote it could not have predicted the lethal power that would be available to psychpaths 200 years in the future.

I don't understand what is so hard about this for morons to understand.

#37 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-01-16 11:32 AM | Reply

The constitution was meant to change with the times.

Yes, it was. And that is why the founders clearly stated the process to do that. As a such, consensus is meaningless. I don't understand what is so hard about this for morons to understand.

#38 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-16 11:36 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The Constitution doesn't need to change. We just need a Supreme Court to actually give effect to every word that's already there.

#39 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-16 11:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The Constitution doesn't need to change. We just need a Supreme Court to actually give effect to every word that's already there.
#39 | POSTED BY JOE

Yes, and over rule the activist judges that keep inserting words that aren't actually there to justify more government overreach.

#40 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-16 11:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Yes, and over rule the activist judges that keep inserting words that aren't actually there to justify more government overreach.

#40 | Posted by nobiasposter101

You mean IGNORING words, like "well trained militia".

#41 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-01-16 11:51 AM | Reply

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Are you in a well-regulated militia? No? No gun for you.

No extra words needed. Just a brain.

#42 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-16 11:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

89 percent of both Republican and Democratic voters say people with mental illness should not be allowed to buy guns.

This means 11% of people believe someone who is mentally ill should be able to buy a gun.

This is why there will never be compromise with gun freaks. The loudest and most well-financed segment of them is a cult that literally doesn't care if their hobby causes death.

#43 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-16 11:53 AM | Reply

Are you in a well-regulated militia? No? No gun for you.
No extra words needed. Just a brain.
#42 | POSTED BY JOE

Yes, I am an army of one. The again, here is the definition of militia "all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service"

#44 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-16 11:57 AM | Reply

This means 11% of people believe someone who is mentally ill should be able to buy a gun.
#43 | POSTED BY JOE

Great, now let's discuss who gets to decide if someone has a mental illness. If it is me, all Liberals would need to turn in their guns because that is a mental illness.

#45 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-16 11:59 AM | Reply

I am an army of one

In what way, with respect to your militia status, are you well-regulated?

#46 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-16 11:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

now let's discuss who gets to decide if someone has a mental illness.

Let's start with mental health professionals. I can tell you're an 11 percenter.

#47 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-16 12:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"If it is me, all Liberals would need to turn in their guns because that is a mental illness." - #45 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-16 11:59 AM

Actually, according to science:

🍅 Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand?

Lower cognitive abilities predict greater prejudice through right-wing ideology.

🍅 Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice

There's no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy."

🍅 Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.
🍅 Conservatism as a Mental Illness

Republican pols have recently exhibited 10 telltale signs of mental illness.

🍅 Researchers help define what makes a political conservative
🍅 Is Political Conservatism a Mild Form of Insanity?

Death Fear (among other unsavory attributes) Predicts Republicanism

🍅 Your Brain on Politics: The Cognitive Neuroscience of Liberals and Conservatives

Can neuroscience provide evidence for a liberal and conservative thinking style?

...

#48 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-16 12:02 PM | Reply

🍅 Conservatives Big on Fear, Brain Study Finds

Peering inside the brain with MRI scans, researchers at University College London found that self-described conservative students had a larger amygdala than liberals. The amygdala is an almond-shaped structure deep in the brain that is active during states of fear and anxiety. Liberals had more gray matter at least in the anterior cingulate cortex, a region of the brain that helps people cope with complexity.

🍅 Why Liberals Are More Intelligent Than Conservatives

Liberals think they're more intelligent than conservatives because they are

🍅 The Surprising Brain Differences Between Democrats and Republicans

Two new studies further support the theory that our political decision making could have a neurological basis.

🍅 Fear as a Disposition and an Emotional State: A Genetic and Environmental Approach to Out-Group Political Preferences
🍅 Are Trump Supporters Too Dumb To Know They're Dumb? Science Says "Probably"

[snip] So basically, yes, it's possible to be too dumb to realize you're dumb. ... Trump is completely inept, and his supporters are way too poorly-informed to know that he's inept, and too dumb themselves to know how dumb they are. That's why Trump's supporters are so sure they're smart and their candidate is smart that they won't listen to reason. The effect is strong in these people.

Science.

#49 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-16 12:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Science.
#49 | POSTED BY HANS

Not science, this is social science. That is the brand of science that can't be replicated and is an insult to the scientific method.

#50 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-16 12:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Not science, this is social science." - #50 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-16 12:08 PM

Nope.

But you're too mentally ill to know that.

You're welcome.

#51 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-16 12:11 PM | Reply

"Not science..." - #50 | Posted by nobiasposter101 at 2019-01-16 12:08 PM

🍅 Your Brain on Politics: The Cognitive Neuroscience of Liberals and Conservatives

[snip] This is science -- we'll just be discussing the data. Ready?

Oops.

#52 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-16 12:15 PM | Reply

What Justice Department report?

#36 | Posted by Hans

Sober up and read this one.

www.bjs.gov

#53 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-01-16 12:24 PM | Reply

The constitution was meant to change with the times. The people who wrote it could not have predicted the lethal power that would be available to psychpaths 200 years in the future.

I don't understand what is so hard about this for morons to understand.

#37 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

And you have a link to something the founding fathers said to back that up? You are funny spe

#54 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-01-16 12:25 PM | Reply

#53 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-01-16 12:24 PM

Already read it.

It doesn't say what you think it says.

Try reading it sober sometime.

You're welcome.

#55 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-16 12:26 PM | Reply

Sniper telling someone to read is like Donald Trump teling someone to....read, i guess.

#56 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-16 12:27 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

You mean IGNORING words, like "well trained militia".

#41 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

Yoiu do have a reading comphrension problem. Read the entire sentence not just the part you like.

How about what they said about it? Jefferson and Madison authority enough for you?

"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])

#57 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-01-16 12:30 PM | Reply

Are you in a well-regulated militia? No? No gun for you.

No extra words needed. Just a brain.

#42 | Posted by JOE

Not what it says joey.

#58 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-01-16 12:31 PM | Reply

In what way, with respect to your militia status, are you well-regulated?

#46 | Posted by JOE

WTF does that mean?

#59 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-01-16 12:33 PM | Reply

So, in other words, both sides hypocritically use logic for one issue and then forget that logic exists with another issue.

Here are some quotes we've heard from Liberals:
"Protesting is as American as apple pie"
"We should not stop people from entering out country because that is what our country was founded on and we are all immigrants"

Then, when it comes to a subject that is not only protected by our Constitution and is a very big contributor of why early invasions didn't beat us:
"Guns are bad, they should be illegal".

Reps are the same, just reverse those quotes. So anyone who uses the Constitution as a reason for changing anything needs to first understand that that reasoning applies to ALL legal documentation in our country.

#60 | Posted by humtake at 2019-01-16 12:34 PM | Reply

No, that literally is what it says. I quoted it word for word. And #46 makes perfect sense if you know how to read, which might be why it's giving you so much trouble.

#61 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-16 12:34 PM | Reply

Already read it.

It doesn't say what you think it says.

Try reading it sober sometime.

You're welcome.

#55 | Posted by Hans

What does it say hands? Tell me.

#62 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-01-16 12:35 PM | Reply

#1 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

This isn't true, in fact its a lie, Obama era legislation removed DueProcess from the system and relied upon inference. Trump just stripped the government from interfering with rights without due process, restoring the rule of law. Even the liberal ACLU was against it, for obvious reasons.

Just because because you have a "representative payee" doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to vote does it?

It appears Liberals are willing to throw due process out the window in a large number of cases and instances when it suits their sacred cows.

But whine like stuck pigs when Trump supposedly doesn't follow due process.

#63 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-01-16 12:37 PM | Reply

#62 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-01-16 12:35 PM

You're challenged by the written word?

(Rhetorical question, no response necessary or expected.)

#64 | Posted by Hans at 2019-01-16 12:41 PM | Reply

Yes, I am an army of one. The again, here is the definition of militia "all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service"

#44 | Posted by nobiasposter101

No that's YOUR definition, which is incorrect.

Here's the real one: "A militia /mɪˈlɪʃə/[1] is generally an army or some other fighting organization of non-professional soldiers, citizens of a nation, or subjects of a state, who can be called upon for military service during a time of need, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel, or historically, members of a warrior nobility class (e.g., knights or samurai). Generally unable to hold ground against regular forces, it is common for militias to be used for aiding regular troops by skirmishing, holding fortifications, or irregular warfare, instead of being used in offensive campaigns by themselves. Militia are often limited by local civilian laws to serve only in their home region, and to serve only for a limited time; this further reduces their use in long military campaigns."

So what ARMY or FIGHTING ORGANIZATION are you in?

#65 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-01-16 12:55 PM | Reply

How about what they said about it? Jefferson and Madison authority enough for you?

"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])

#57 | Posted by Sniper

Jefferson and Madison's opinions are not the consitution dum dum.

Furthermore neither of them knew what guns would become in 200 years. WHich is why they gave us constitution that was meant to change over time. Otherwise we'd still have slaves.
Should we still have slaves?

#66 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-01-16 12:58 PM | Reply

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,(First part, separated by the comma meaning read it then STOP or pause) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,(Again, another STOP and separate sentence separated by commas nothing to do with the first one shall not be infringed.

No extra words needed. Just a brain.

#67 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-16 01:22 PM | Reply

No extra words needed. Just a brain.

#67 | Posted by boaz

Then why did they even include the militia part if it doesn't affect the rest of the sentence?

Why didn't they just say "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?"

#68 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-01-16 01:24 PM | Reply

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,(First part, separated by the comma meaning read it then STOP or pause AND CONSIDER ITS EXPLICIT AFFECT ON THE REMAINDER OF THE AMENDMENT) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,(Again, another STOP and separate sentence separated by commas, FURTHER EMPHASIZING THE QUALIFICATIONS BY WHICH THAT RIGHT) shall not be infringed.

FTFY Bozo

#69 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-16 01:29 PM | Reply

A militia /mɪˈlɪʃə/[1] is generally ..." So what ARMY or FIGHTING ORGANIZATION are you in? - #65 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-01-16 12:55 PM

From the same page you stole that quote, but chose not to paste this part?:

Militias thus can be military or paramilitary, depending on the instance. Some of the contexts in which the term "militia" is used include:
The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.

You're welcome

#70 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-01-16 02:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#67 Since when does a comma mean "delete all words prior to this point and accord them no meaning whatsoever?"

#71 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-16 02:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#44 | Posted by nobiasposter101
Wow. Able-bodied? To do what? I am thinking of the 300-plus pound "patriots" who open-carry prominently at alt-right rallies. LOL!

#72 | Posted by john47 at 2019-01-16 02:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Then why did they even include the militia part if it doesn't affect the rest of the sentence?

I read them as another "thing" that should not be violated, not a run on congested sentence. I see it as two things that should not be violated. The right of the people to form their own well regulated militia's and their rights to own weapons.

#73 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-16 02:48 PM | Reply

Since when does a comma mean "delete all words prior to this point and accord them no meaning whatsoever?"

I never said "delete all words".

#74 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-16 02:52 PM | Reply

But that is the effect of your "argument."

#75 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-16 02:53 PM | Reply

No, it's not. I said each was separate. And they are.

#76 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-16 02:58 PM | Reply

It's one sentence, idiot. It needs to be read together. The preamble identifies the Amendment's purpose, and it recognizes that any such militia must be "well-regulated." You cannot treat any word in the Constitution as mere surplusage. And you cannot claim that the only thing the framers were doing was saying militias can't be made illegal without turning the english language on its head. Not even the majority in Heller took that position, because they aren't as stupid as you.

"It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect."

#77 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-16 03:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Whatever Joe,

Those of us who can read know what it means.

And no, you cannot ban guns, no matter how much wordsmithing you try to do...

Deal with it.

#78 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-16 03:56 PM | Reply

Boaz exemplifies the reason why
"Nothing can be done."
"Thoughts and prayers."

#79 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-16 04:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

- Those of us who can read know what it means.

"For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The courts had found that the first part, the "militia clause," trumped the second part, the "bear arms" clause.

In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms -- but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.

Enter the modern National Rifle Association. Before the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. had been devoted mostly to non-political issues, like gun safety.

But a coup d'état at the group's annual convention in 1977 brought a group of committed political conservatives to power -- as part of the leading edge of the new, more rightward-leaning Republican Party. (Jill Lepore recounted this history in a recent piece for The New Yorker.)

The new group pushed for a novel interpretation of the Second Amendment, one that gave individuals, not just militias, the right to bear arms.

It was an uphill struggle. At first, their views were widely scorned.

Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, who was no liberal, mocked the individual-rights theory of the amendment as "a fraud."

more from

So You Think You Know the Second Amendment?

www.newyorker.com

#80 | Posted by Corky at 2019-01-16 04:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

dont act like we changed it Corky.

It's idiot liberals like YOU who have been trying to change the interpretation so you can ban weapons.

#81 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-16 04:11 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Boaz exemplifies the reason why
"Nothing can be done."
"Thoughts and prayers."

#79 | Posted by snoofy

Oh, something can be done. But it's alot harder and you cant blame the "gun", you have to blame the person pulling the trigger, which you liberals never address.

#82 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-16 04:13 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

-dont act like we changed it Corky.

No acting involved; it's called history. What changed is the interpretation by judges like Scalia who were supposedly "Originalists", but became willing to change their tune when the NRA flashed a lot of dollars in front of rwing politicians.... and judges.

#83 | Posted by Corky at 2019-01-16 04:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Too often we overlook that the rationale behind the Second Amendment isn't true.

A well regulated militia is simply not necessary for the security of a Free State.

Nobody on either side ever talks about this, but it's kind of the 800lb gorilla in the room if you ask me.

I'd like to ask Et_Al: If the Second Amendment read "Two plus two being five, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" would we still have the right to keep and bear arms?

If the answer is yes, then the foundation of the legal system is built on a lie. Or at least on the acceptance of a lie as the truth. Which is an injustice to the truth.

For me, this is the crux of the issue.

If the prefatory words have no impact, then any word can have any meaning, just so long as enough lawyers agree on it. Which is a recipe for injustice.

"The whole damn system is out of order."

#84 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-16 04:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

you have to blame the person pulling the trigger, which you liberals never address.
#82 | POSTED BY BOAZ

That post is dripping in hyperbole.

#85 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-01-16 04:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Oh, something can be done."
Not really. Nothing substantial.

"you have to blame the person pulling the trigger"
Blame that person all you want. Soon enough another person pulls another trigger, which you gun fondlers never address.
Your insistence on blaming the individual who pulled the trigger is why you'll never see the forest for the trees, Boaz.

#86 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-16 04:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

If the prefatory words have no impact, then any word can have any meaning, just so long as enough lawyers agree on it. Which is a recipe for injustice.

I call it sophistry, a device I identified that et_al has used whenever challenged that legal language and the english dictionary often part ways when jurists meet to codify what is is. And when you move the focus out further, just who have the majority of these jurists been making decisions over what simple words actually mean in the context of laws been? Mainly men of elevated station who often view themselves as intellectual betters of those they rule upon and the vast majority WASPs in the broad connotation of the term (meaning the last P is more for People than Protestant since the Judeo-Christian ethos is firmly embedded in most US jurisprudence).

Bottom line, I agree with your premise and have made your argument many times while never getting a satisfactory answer that fairly addresses the question's stark truth. The obvious intent of law is secondary to what a small group of folks decide they interpret it as, and they use their own system to justify their conclusions while admitting that future equals might decide something completely different.

#87 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-16 04:36 PM | Reply

dont act like we changed it Corky.
#81 | POSTED BY BOAZ

You're ------- trying.

#88 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-01-16 04:36 PM | Reply

I don't understand why lefties are so against guns.

About 30,000 gun owners die from gun shots in the US each year. Only a few thousand non gun owners die from gun shots.

The math is in your favor.

I am in favor of gun laws that require guns to be loaded at all times, including during cleaning, quick draw practice, face timing and other assorted gun foreplay.

There should be gun libraries for those that can't afford guns.

You should be able to use food stamps to buy bullets.

In home shooting ranges should be encouraged.

Over 70,000 are wounded by guns. More target practice should help convert those to kills.

#89 | Posted by bored at 2019-01-16 04:40 PM | Reply | Funny: 4

#87 Well I'm glad someone's reading. Thanks for that TonyRoma.

It's shocking how they've been able to simply wave off those words.

They must think the Founders wrote those dozen words with the intent that it shouldn't matter one whit whether they are ironclad truth or lies straight from the pit of hell. Like James Madison was getting paid by the word or something.

I honestly think the only way to get to the bottom of the magical thinking these guys are engaged in is through waterboarding, or preferably a massive dose of LSD. There's clearly a manufactured defensive psyche which is inhibiting deeper cognition about the English language.

Not that I wouldn't be defensive if my world-view were prefaced in a demonstrably false claim!

#90 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-16 04:43 PM | Reply

"I don't understand why lefties are so against guns."

It's not the guns, per se, so much as what the guns do.
But you can't ban people, so, what's left?

#91 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-16 04:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

dont act like we changed it

You did though.

In 1886 the Supreme Court held that a state law concerning firearms and military drills could not have violated the 2nd Amendment because the 2nd Amendment only forbade Congress from regulating guns, meaning states and cities could regulate guns however they want.

In 1939 the Supreme Court ruled (8-0) that a firearm must have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" for the Second Amendment to guarantee the right to own it. The Supreme Court affirmed this principle again in 1980.

Literally every court of appeals to consider the question prior to 2001 understood the case law to mean that the Second Amendment does not protect the right to possess and use guns for purely private, civilian purposes.

So you did "change it." The least you could do is fess up to that.

#92 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-16 04:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

- preferably a massive dose of LSD

www.youtube.com

#93 | Posted by Corky at 2019-01-16 04:53 PM | Reply

In 1939 the Supreme Court ruled (8-0) that a firearm must have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" for the Second Amendment to guarantee the right to own it. The Supreme Court affirmed this principle again in 1980.

This is exactly what I was talking about in 87. At the time the 2nd Amendment was codified was there a single weapon available for warfare that wasn't covered by its language? Couldn't citizens own cannons if they wanted to? What about longbows, and early rockets/bombs? How could the Founders have foreseen advances in military arms that the future would bring? They couldn't, but a few men in 1939 re-interpreted those simple words into meaning that the right to personal arms had to be tied what a militia person could be expected to use. That isn't what the definition of arms is. Arms are arms and include everything found in a modern nation's arsenal to project lethal or intentional force.

Under the Founder's intent people have the right to missiles, tanks, rockets and nukes. Of course this is absurd, but that's the point. The 2nd Amendment had a limited shelf life and this nation should have long ago modified its language to fit a wholly different world and reality that the Founders could never have envisioned. This isn't an anti=2nd Amendment argument, just a "the 2nd Amendment is archaic and wasn't written nor designed to fit into today's world and today's arms. That what the court ruled in 1939 but that interpretation is nowhere to be found in the Federalist Papers nor the recorded arguments surrounding the amendment's genesis. The 2nd Amendment only means what jurists say that it means regardless of what grammar, sentence structure and the dictionary says.

#94 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-16 05:11 PM | Reply

"I don't understand why lefties are so against guns."

Yes. We do need to re-evaluate our position on this.

Especially Federal Employees.

Federal Employees have been so much as ordered to make to "Make Adjustments".

"Negotiate".

Everyone knows you can Negotiate much better if you have a weapon.

That could just be me tho.

I really do suggest you do not give Angry, possibly Hungry Marines a gun and then order them to Negotiate.

Seriously folks. Think of the Children!!

Semper fi

#95 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-01-16 05:47 PM | Reply

That what the court ruled in 1939 but that interpretation is nowhere to be found in the Federalist Papers nor the recorded arguments surrounding the amendment's genesis.

I agree with most of your post, but this is not accurate. There is a tremendous amount of historical evidence cited in Stevens' dissent in Heller that cuts against a finding that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to privage firearm ownership.

Finally, as Judge Posner has noted:

The judge sends his law clerks scurrying to the library and to the Web for bits and pieces of historical documentation. When the clerks are the numerous and able clerks of Supreme Court justices, enjoying the assistance of the capable staffs of the Supreme Court library and the Library of Congress, and when dozens and sometimes hundreds of amicus curiae briefs have been filed, many bulked out with the fruits of their authors' own law-office historiography, it is a simple matter, especially for a skillful rhetorician such as Scalia, to write a plausible historical defense of his position.

But it was not so simple in Heller, and Scalia and his staff labored mightily to produce a long opinion (the majority opinion is almost 25,000 words long) that would convince, or perhaps just overwhelm, the doubters. The range of historical references in the majority opinion is breathtaking, but it is not evidence of disinterested historical inquiry. It is evidence of the ability of well-staffed courts to produce snow jobs.

#96 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-16 06:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

There is a tremendous amount of historical evidence cited in Stevens' dissent in Heller that cuts against a finding that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to privage firearm ownership.

That is precisely why I referenced the 1939 case and not Heller. Did clerks back in 1939 support the Court's interpretations with a depth of research prior to their own time as described in your quotation from Judge Posner? Asking because I don't know the answer.

#97 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-16 06:10 PM | Reply

I don't know for sure either, but i would wager they didn't have nearly the resources at their disposal (both in terms of personnel and research services) that they do today.

#98 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-16 06:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#98

Ie. they made ish up to fit what they interpreted as the Founder's intentions over weapons that did not exist when the Founders were alive, and that no one can prove the Founders ever considered. The amendment was written to give citizens who may be called into duty to fight for the state the right to have the weapons of that day which the militia would field - ie. the arms of war at that time.

That court effectively rewrote the 2nd Amendment (by interpretation) from the bench and beyond the understanding of said written language in the late 18th century. Hand grenades, personal rocket launchers and RPGs would easily be expected to be utilized by a Guard soldier today, the closest comparison to a state militia person today. While the government buys and distributes these weapons today, by 1939's ruling, shouldn't those arms be constitutionally allowed to individuals under that interpretation?

#99 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-16 06:46 PM | Reply

The 1939 case was about a short-barreled shotgun which, even then, had no military relevance. The notion that a handgun, 70 years later, would be of any more use to a militia is laughable. But no, i dont read the 1939 case as requiring government to provide arms to militiamen.

#100 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-16 06:55 PM | Reply

But no, i dont read the 1939 case as requiring government to provide arms to militiamen.

That wasn't what I meant although I did forget about the underlying weapon at issue in 1939. I only alluded to the government providing weapons to the Guard because there is no longer any reason for a member of said Guard to provide their own arms in defense of the state which was the expressed language, intent, (and law) back in the 1700s.

My point is that most modern war "arms" are not legally obtainable for citizens to hold privately. No one seems to find that against the 2nd Amendment's language, which is what I find incredible. How did we get from the 1780s to the 1930s up to Heller when the words of the 2nd Amendment have never changed?

The court continues to alter their meaning from the bench instead of telling Congress to rewrite the amendment to fit the changing security needs of both individuals and the state as the amendment is tacitly interpreted as having been written to do, imo.

#101 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-16 07:08 PM | Reply

THE PECULIAR STORY OF UNITED STATES V. MILLER

In short, a test case teed up by a pro gun control "New Deal" trial judge. The case was direct appealed to the SC where the defendant's case was neither briefed nor argued in his behalf. The opinion is an "impenetrable mess."

#102 | Posted by et_al at 2019-01-16 07:25 PM | Reply

"My point is that most modern war "arms" are not legally obtainable for citizens to hold privately."

Someone will be along shortly to say that fully automatic firearms can be obtained with the right Federal license, when clearly what you mean is their ownership is heavily regulated and not at all widespread.

Why it would be so onerous to impose those heavy regulations on all weapons... lays bare how made-up it all is.

If there is a Constitutional reason why a M-249, which is a crew-served automatic machine gun, should not be available for purchase as readily as any handgun in a pawn shop, please let me know.

#103 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-01-16 07:26 PM | Reply

but a few men in 1939 re-interpreted those simple words

See? You liberals are always trying to re-interpret something that doesnt agree with you or your worldview.

We wont let you. And you arent going to do it on my watch. If you try to take the 2nd amendment, that WILL be the trigger for Civil War II.

#104 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-16 07:34 PM | Reply

In short, a test case teed up by a pro gun control "New Deal" trial judge. The case was direct appealed to the SC where the defendant's case was neither briefed nor argued in his behalf. The opinion is an "impenetrable mess."

If it were merely a "test case," why was it a unanimous decision?

#105 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-16 07:40 PM | Reply

And why did the Supreme Court repeat, in 1980's US v Lewis, that "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

Some "test case."

#106 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-16 07:43 PM | Reply

The opinion is an "impenetrable mess."

Which seems to confirm my assessment that the court basically "made ish up."

Someone will be along shortly to say that fully automatic firearms can be obtained with the right Federal license....

Damn, I'd forgotten the central plank of my contentions: Everyone wants to talk exclusively about guns when the 2nd Amendment's language is about arms. Even the mentioned ruling of 1939 spoke of weapons a militia person would be expected to field which are certainly far more diverse than just guns. Et_al before said that historically that law interpreters used the term arms as wholly synonymous with firearms, but again, those are two different words with expressly different meanings. The Founders were nothing if not loquacious so I doubt that they'd be so lazy as to cut off 4 letters from a 7 letter word.

Most arms are federally regulated (read - banned from individual procurement) today and no one but me - it seems - wants to ask how the hell this happened through the centuries when the wording of the amendment never changed.

#107 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-16 07:44 PM | Reply

Odd, too, that every Appellate Court to address the issue in the 20th century and even beyond never criticized the Miller holding:

"In United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1977), we rejected a Second Amendment challenge to the federal law criminalizing possession of an unregistered machinegun, 26 U.S.C. 5861(d). We found no evidence that the firearm in question was connected with a militia, even though the defendant was nominally a member of the Kansas militia and the "Posse Comitatus," a militia-type organization registered with the state:

The purpose of the second amendment as stated by the Supreme Court in United States v. Miller was to preserve the effectiveness and assure the continuation of the state militia. The Court stated that the amendment must be interpreted and applied with that purpose in view. To apply the amendment so as to guarantee appellant's right to keep an unregistered firearm which has not been shown to have any connection to the militia, merely because he is technically a member of the Kansas militia, would be unjustifiable in terms of either logic or policy. This lack of justification is even more apparent when applied to appellant's membership in "Posse Comitatus," an apparently nongovernmental organization. We conclude, therefore, that this prosecution did not violate the second amendment."

US v. Haney (10th Cir. 2001).

#108 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-16 07:46 PM | Reply

#104

You're a moron. My argument is that the 2nd Amendment has been neutered through time and that the right to bear "arms" (not just guns) has already been federally regulated even though the wording has never changed.

Learn some reading comprehension or stay the hell out of my discussions.

#109 | Posted by tonyroma at 2019-01-16 07:48 PM | Reply

Since the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear Arms" applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm.
United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Harvey Lloyd Napier, Defendant-appellant, 233 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 2000)

#110 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-16 07:48 PM | Reply

"The link that the amendment draws between the ability "to keep and bear Arms" and "[a] well regulated Militia" suggests that the right protected is limited, one that inures not to the individual but to the people collectively, its reach extending so far as is necessary to protect their common interest in protection by a militia."
Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 1999).

#111 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-16 07:51 PM | Reply

At the time of ratification, and as remains the case today, the militia was defined broadly and was understood to include "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." Miller, 307 U.S. at 177, 59 S.Ct. at 818. But because the Constitution protects only the possession or use of guns reasonably related to a "well regulated militia," membership in this broad segment of the population is constitutionally insignificant. In determining the scope of Second Amendment protection, the Miller Court did not rely on the commonly understood and wide-reaching definition of the militia, but rather turned to early militia laws of New York, Massachusetts, and Virginia, which provided for the training, maintenance, and equipping of these states' respective militias. Id. at 177-78, 59 S.Ct. at 818-19. We find the Miller Court's reliance on these statutory provisions regulating "the organization and government of the Militia," id. at 181, 59 S.Ct. at 819, to be significant. In our view, it indicates that the Miller Court understood the Second Amendment to protect only the possession or use of weapons that is reasonably related to a militia actively maintained and trained by the states.

Moreover, after examining the text and history of the Second Amendment, we conclude that this reading of Miller is consistent with the motivating purposes of the drafters of the Second Amendment. The amendment describes a "well regulated militia" as "being necessary to the security of a free State." The fact that the drafters qualified "well regulated militia" by reference to state security suggests to us that they intended this term to refer only to governmental militias that are actively maintained and used for the common defense. We find substantial support for this textual reading in the history of the drafting and ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

U.S. v. Wright, 117 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 1997).

#112 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-16 07:55 PM | Reply

"The Court's understanding follows a plain reading of the Amendment's text. The Amendment's second clause declares that the goal is to preserve the security of "a free state;" its first clause establishes the premise that a "well-regulated militia" is necessary to this end. Thus it is only in furtherance of state security that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is finally proclaimed."
Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996)

#113 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-16 08:01 PM | Reply

Considering this history, we cannot conclude that the Second Amendment protects the individual possession of military weapons. In Miller, the Court simply recognized this historical residue. The rule emerging from Miller is that, absent a showing that the possession of a certain weapon has "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia," the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to possess the weapon. Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S.Ct. at 818. Miller simply "did not hold ... that the Second Amendment is an absolute prohibition against all regulation of the manufacture, transfer and possession of any instrument capable of being used in military action." Warin, 530 F.2d at 106.

This court has on at least three occasions, citing and relying on Miller, denied challenges to the constitutionality of arms control legislation, because there was no evidence of a reasonable relationship to the maintenance of a militia. See United States v. Nelsen, 859 F.2d 1318 (8th Cir.1988); Cody v. United States, 460 F.2d 34 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010, 93 S.Ct. 454, 34 L.Ed.2d 303 (1972); United States v. Decker, 446 F.2d 164 (8th Cir.1971). In Nelsen and Cody we also cited and relied on the decisions of other circuits discussed in this opinion.

U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992).

#114 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-16 08:04 PM | Reply

Established case law makes clear that the federal Constitution grants appellant no right to carry a concealed handgun. See, e.g., United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178, 59 S.Ct. 816, 818, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939) (second amendment applies only to weapons that have a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."); United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384, 387 (10th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 926, 98 S.Ct. 1493, 55 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (same); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548, 550 (4th Cir.1974) (same); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265, 6 S.Ct. 580, 584, 29 L.Ed. 615 (1886) (second amendment confers rights as against activity by the "federal government only"); Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261, 269-70 (7th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 863, 104 S.Ct. 194, 78 L.Ed.2d 170 (1983) (same); Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916, 921 (1st Cir.1942), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770, 63 S.Ct. 1431, 87 L.Ed. 1718 (1943) (same); United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 948, 96 S.Ct. 3168, 49 L.Ed.2d 1185 (1976) (second amendment grants right to the state, not the individual); Stevens v. United States, 440 F.2d 144, 149 (6th Cir.1971) (same). See Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n. 8, 100 S.Ct. 915, 920 n. 8, 63 L.Ed.2d 198 (1980).
Need any more cites?

#115 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-16 08:06 PM | Reply

- an "impenetrable mess."

But enough about Mackris.....

#116 | Posted by Corky at 2019-01-16 08:13 PM | Reply

Shut the ---- up Joe.

No one is taking away the individual right to own a weapon. Period. No matter what kangaroo court you cite.

And good thing the founding father's saw -------- like YOU coming and put it in an amendment, which cannot be turned over in a local district court.

#117 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-16 08:46 PM | Reply

Need any more cites?

Just two.

Parker v. District of Columbia (D.C Cir. 2007)

United States v. Emerson (5th Cir. (2001)

Both adopting an individual rights interpretation contrary to the consensus view that Miller compels a collective rights interpretation.

#118 | Posted by et_al at 2019-01-16 08:47 PM | Reply

Shut the ---- up Joe.

Toxic masculinity on display.

#119 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-01-16 08:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#118 Link 1- Page Not Found
Link 2 - a link to the drudge retort

In any event, my point was that Courts of Appeals throughout the 20th century all agreed with Miller and that not one of them criticized it the way you do. If there are cases from the 2000s when jurisprudence magically started to shift, that doesn't refute my argument.

#120 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-17 07:50 AM | Reply

#117 Look how mad gun fetishists get when you simply point out that they are the ones who changed longstanding interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Your "right" to a hobby is killing innocent people. I hope you're proud.

#121 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-17 07:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#121,

Well, we see things differently. My "Right" didnt kill anyone. I havent pulled any trigger. Another person did that. Not me. Blame that person. Fix that person.

And we have not changed anything. It's you trying to change my right. Something that's implicitly protected.

You cant have it. Sorry.

#122 | Posted by boaz at 2019-01-17 09:04 AM | Reply

My "Right" didnt kill anyone. I havent pulled any trigger.

You fight for the "right" of people who do pull the trigger to own their weapon of murder, every single day.

Fix that person.

Aside from how unrealistic it is to demand that we "fix" every person before they commit murder, can we count on you to support the hundreds of billions in mental health funding it would take to do that?

And we have not changed anything.

As i demonstrated above, you absolutely have.

#123 | Posted by JOE at 2019-01-17 09:19 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 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort