Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, August 14, 2019

Police are in a standoff with a suspect who shot six officers on Wednesday in a North Philadelphia neighborhood.

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.

Unless and until someone blames this on White Supremacists, the number of fccks that the DR Left could give about this approaches zero.

#1 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-08-14 06:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Reporting still an active firefight. Now say 6 officers shot.

#2 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2019-08-14 06:07 PM | Reply

Maybe the law and order crowd will pull their heads out of the NRAs butt now that it's cops that were shot. I doubt it but there's always a chance.

#3 | Posted by qcp at 2019-08-14 06:11 PM | Reply

#3, I'm pretty sure the "law and order crowd" will continue to support laws about misuse of firearms.

#4 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-14 06:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

It looks like 500 cops surrounding the place.

#5 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-14 06:25 PM | Reply

Thoughts and prayers. This shooter is obviously just exercising his Constitutional rights as part of that "well-regulated militia" we are all members of despite nobody ever talking about it. Resist the oppressive tyranny of the state! This is what the Second Amendment is for!

#6 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-14 06:38 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

#6 | POSTED BY JOE

You probably should have read #1 before posting that. Just sayin'

#7 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-08-14 06:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#6 Posted by JOE

Leave it to Angry Little Joe to knee jerk straight into the buzzsaw.

#8 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-08-14 06:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Why are Democrat-run cities so violent?

#9 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-08-14 06:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Why are Democrat-run cities so violent?"

One reason is because they have stricter gun control laws the good guys obey. But they foolishly thought thought that the bad guys would obey them, too.

#10 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-14 06:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

#7 - #1 When did i say i gave a feck? There is clearly nothing that can be done to stop incidents like this, as the "right" constantly tells me. I'm here to support our Constitutionally-mandated militia. USA! USA! USA!

#11 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-14 06:59 PM | Reply

IWhy are Democrat-run cities so violent?

Democrats are angry and violent.

Too bad we can't all be peace loving Republicans.

Was that the answer you were hoping for?

Perhaps try not "puking out the predictable hyper-partisan response" and people can start taking you seriously again.

#12 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-08-14 07:00 PM | Reply

they have stricter gun control laws the good guys obey

Republicans have successfully gutted just about every city's gun laws by suing in Court. You'll have to update your pre-2012 talking points.

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

"This is what the Second Amendment is for!

#6 | POSTED BY JOE "

Um, no -- the second amendment does not advocate murder. I guess you were sick the day they taught that in civics class. Well, now you know and you don't have an excuse for these hyperbolic, drama queeinish posts any more. Thank god.

#14 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-14 07:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Perhaps try not "puking out the predictable hyper-partisan response" and people can start taking you seriously again.

#12 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK "

Nulli was just asking a question, not puking out a response. Calm down for Christ sake.

#15 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-14 07:05 PM | Reply

the second amendment does not advocate murder

The "right" tells me the purpose of the Second Amendment is to give ordinary citizens the ability to resist a tyrannical government. Who are you to judge this gentleman's exercise of those rights?

#16 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-14 07:06 PM | Reply

"Who are you to judge this gentleman's exercise of those rights?

#16 | POSTED BY JOE "

I'm not, unless I'm one of the 12 on the jury at his trial. And I won't be since I live in San Antonio, not Philadelphia,

#17 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-14 07:08 PM | Reply

#1 When did i say i gave a feck?

#11 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-14 06:59 PM

You just can't help but make my point for me.

#18 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-08-14 07:08 PM | Reply

#18 What "point" is that?

Who ever said every shooting was committed by white supremacists? Your entire "point" is based on a strawman.

#19 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-14 07:12 PM | Reply

#17 You said his acts were not authorized by the Second Amendment.

I'm trying to understand- when the "right" says the purpose of the 2A is to allow for an armed citizenry to resist a tyrannical government, are they saying these armed people don't have the right to shoot anyone when they determine tyranny exists?

#20 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-14 07:16 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Spent many years in that area as a kid.

According to local news, warrant being served and narcotics involved.

Not your normal national issue, but typical philly.

#21 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-08-14 07:18 PM | Reply

Treason is illegal except for one mitigating factor...unless you win.

#22 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-08-14 07:19 PM | Reply

"I'm trying to understand- when the "right" says the purpose of the 2A is to allow for an armed citizenry to resist a tyrannical government, are they saying these armed people don't have the right to shoot anyone when they determine tyranny exists?

#20 | POSTED BY JOE"

I don't speak for the right. I speak only for myself. And even among the right, there won't be a single answer.

That is the biggest problem of the left -- the think there is one answer, a one-size-fits-all solutionor answer to everything.

#23 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-14 07:20 PM | Reply

Why are Democrat-run cities so violent

Stupid right-wing alternate "facts" and people that accept those garbage premises do too much damage to finding solutions and solving actual problems. What a waste of energy.

#24 | Posted by YAV at 2019-08-14 07:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Why are Democrat-run cities so violent

Stupid right-wing alternate "facts" and people that accept those garbage premises do too much damage to finding solutions and solving actual problems. What a waste of energy.

#25 | Posted by YAV at 2019-08-14 07:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#23 What, in your mind, is the purpose of the Second Amendment?

#26 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-14 07:24 PM | Reply

The 2nd amendment is so the people can defend their home and property. Then, as can be seen in the State Constitutions, that the defense of the State is done by an armed populace.

The State doesnt supply the arms. The public brings their arms.

The only reason to discuss arms to overthrow the government is when you discuss the American Revolution. To make the government think first, knowing the people will fight back.

Our forefathers believed that the Colonies had legitimate grievances to commit treason.

Are the grievances today equal?

#27 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-08-14 07:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Also, remember the belief of tyranny wasn't just one person. The men, representing their citizenry, weighed the seriousness of the harms caused by their gov't.

They pledged their lives and fortunes for the good of all. The people stood behind their elected leaders.

Treason by one is very different than treason by the whole 'country'

#28 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-08-14 07:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The 2nd amendment is so the people can defend their home and property

Where does the Amendment say that?

Or are you not an originalist?

#29 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-14 07:37 PM | Reply

"#23 What, in your mind, is the purpose of the Second Amendment?

#26 | POSTED BY JOE "

To allow gun ownership by private citizens

#30 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-14 07:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Isnt the shooter, in this case, at home?

#31 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-08-14 07:47 PM | Reply

So he was defending his home.

Against representatives of the government.

I'm sure he felt that the police serving a warrant were tyranists.

#32 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-08-14 07:48 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"The 2nd amendment is so the people can defend their home and property

Where does the Amendment say that?

#29 | POSTED BY JOE "

It doesn't say that. And the 1st amendment doesn't say we can read Science Fiction or mystery novels. But we can. What is your point?

#33 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-14 07:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

To allow gun ownership by private citizens

Posted by goatman

Who are members of a 'Well regulated militia.'

#34 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-14 07:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Shot six officers"

Obviously none of them were "good guys"

"- the usual suspects

#35 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-08-14 07:59 PM | Reply

I read a report that this began with a warrant being served for narcotics violation.
These cops are victims in the failed, racist war on drugs.

People really like getting high. Let's acknowledge it, decriminalize it and then put the money spent on drug enforcement into education and addiction treatment. We will save money and save lives.

#36 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2019-08-14 08:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I like cops who don't get shot"

-Illegitimate President Bucket of ----

#37 | Posted by truthhurts at 2019-08-14 08:01 PM | Reply

#34 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY

Nope.

#38 | Posted by et_al at 2019-08-14 08:10 PM | Reply

#38 | Posted by et_al

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.

#39 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-14 08:14 PM | Reply

#40 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-14 08:15 PM | Reply

To allow gun ownership by private citizens

For what purpose?

Any?

#41 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-14 08:15 PM | Reply

Guns are tools and need to not be misused. Who here has ever misused a tool before? A screwdriver can be a chisel but you may hurt someone or yourself from misuse.

Im sure this fool was a NRA card carrier.

10% of the american population cause 90 percent of the gun crime.

#42 | Posted by mutant at 2019-08-14 08:16 PM | Reply

"For what purpose?
Any?

#41 | POSTED BY JOE "

Any legal pupose.

OK, it's obvious your string of silly questions is trolling towards something. Get to your point and quit asking so many questions. You get one more, then I'm not feeding the troll any more.

#43 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-14 08:17 PM | Reply

#38 Oh look, our resident decoupler has appeared.

Maybe today you can explain why virtually every pre-2000's federal appellate and supreme court case ruled that a weapon needed some nexus to a "well-regulated militia" for the Second Amendment to confer any rights thereto.

#44 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-14 08:17 PM | Reply

Any legal pupose.

Resisting a tyrannical government is not one of them, then?

#45 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-14 08:18 PM | Reply

"Resisting a tyrannical government is not one of them, then?

#45 | POSTED BY JOE "

I'm not a Consitutional scholar, so I don't know. I can see where it could be, and where it isn't. That is question up to the Supreme court.

#46 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-14 08:20 PM | Reply

#39 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY

I'm quite familiar with the phraseology but you seem unfamiliar with the operative phraseology or the history of the amendment particularly its common law roots.

#47 | Posted by et_al at 2019-08-14 08:21 PM | Reply

Doesn't begin to compare with government violence against the public.

#48 | Posted by Ray at 2019-08-14 08:21 PM | Reply

A well regulated Militia (capitalized for a reason) ...

The framers of the Constitution intended it to support the military aspects of defending America.

#49 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-14 08:22 PM | Reply

Joe, let me help you. What is your home State?

#50 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-08-14 08:24 PM | Reply

Maybe today you can explain why ...

They were wrong.

#51 | Posted by et_al at 2019-08-14 08:24 PM | Reply

"10% of the american population cause 90 percent of the gun crime.

#42 | POSTED BY MUTANT "

It's much less than that. There were about 34,000 gun related deaths in the US (that includes suicides) About half the people in the US own guns. So that means 1:5,147 gun ownders commit 100% of the crimes,

#52 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-14 08:27 PM | Reply

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [particular weapon]!at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 178 (1939).

"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."
Lewis v. U.S., 445 U.S. 55, n8 (1980).

#53 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-14 08:28 PM | Reply

"The framers of the Constitution intended it to support the military aspects of defending America.

#49 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY "

Highly educated legal scholars (AKA the USSC) for over 200 years disagree with your layman's interpretation. Sorry. I hope it's not too heavy of a blow on your ego.

#54 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-14 08:30 PM | Reply

They were wrong.

How convenient. For nearly a century, hundreds and hundreds of judges were all wrong until five rightwingers corrected them after a decades long campaign by the NRA. Incredible!

"Until the Fifth Circuit's decision in United States v. Emerson, 270 F. 3d 203 (2001), every Court of Appeals to consider the question had understood Miller to hold that the Second Amendment does not protect the right to possess and use guns for purely private, civilian purposes. See, e.g., United States v. Haney, 264 F. 3d 1161, 1164"1166 (CA10 2001); United States v. Napier, 233 F. 3d 394, 402"404 (CA6 2000); Gillespie v. Indianapolis, 185 F. 3d 693, 710"711 (CA7 1999); United States v. Scanio, No. 97"1584, 1998 WL 802060, *2 (CA2, Nov. 12, 1998) (unpublished opinion); United States v. Wright, 117 F. 3d 1265, 1271"1274 (CA11 1997); United States v. Rybar, 103 F. 3d 273, 285"286 (CA3 1996); Hickman v. Block, 81 F. 3d 98, 100"103 (CA9 1996); United States v. Hale, 978 F. 2d 1016, 1018"1020 (CA8 1992); Thomas v. City Council of Portland, 730 F. 2d 41, 42 (CA1 1984) (per curiam); United States v. Johnson, 497 F. 2d 548, 550 (CA4 1974) (per curiam); United States v. Johnson, 441 F. 2d 1134, 1136 (CA5 1971); see also Sandidge v. United States, 520 A. 2d 1057, 1058"1059 (DC App. 1987). And a number of courts have remained firm in their prior positions, even after considering Emerson. See, e.g., United States v. Lippman, 369 F. 3d 1039, 1043"1045 (CA8 2004); United States v. Parker, 362 F. 3d 1279, 1282"1284 (CA10 2004); United States v. Jackubowski, 63 Fed. Appx. 959, 961 (CA7 2003) (unpublished opinion); Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F. 3d 1052, 1060"1066 (CA9 2002); United States v. Milheron, 231 F. Supp. 2d 376, 378 (Me. 2002); Bach v. Pataki, 289 F. Supp. 2d 217, 224"226 (NDNY 2003); United States v. Smith, 56 M. J. 711, 716 (C. A. Armed Forces 2001)."

All wrong!

#55 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-14 08:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Highly educated legal scholars (AKA the USSC) for over 200 years disagree with your layman's interpretation.

Wrong. As i demonstrated in #53 and 55, your interpretation is a post-2000 fabrication. But you're not a Constitutional scholar so I forgive you.

#56 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-14 08:32 PM | Reply

The framers of the Constitution intended it to support the military aspects of defending America.

And it does so today. But if they sought to restrict the right to keep and bear arms to the the militia they failed miserably when they wrote "the right of the people ..." instead of the "militia."

#57 | Posted by et_al at 2019-08-14 08:33 PM | Reply

As everyone keeps quoting the US Constitution 2nd Amendment, my home State of Pennsylvania has in the State Constitution "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

I am biased. My home State sees arms in the hands of the people, not just a State militia. The people will defend the State. It shall not be questioned.

That's clear enough for a Pennsylvanian. Go disarm your citizens and hope your militia is enough. My whole State fights and defends as one.

#58 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-08-14 08:35 PM | Reply

"As i demonstrated in #53 and 55, your interpretation is I a post-2000 fabrication. But you're not a Constitutional scholar so I forgive you.

#56 | POSTED BY JOE "

I interpreted absolutely nothing, nor did I attempt to. Please try againm, but this time without lies. It really dilutes your argument.

#59 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-14 08:35 PM | Reply

#59 Interpretation, statement, whatever.

You said "Highly educated legal scholars (AKA the USSC) for over 200 years disagree with your layman's interpretation." That claim is demonstrably false.

#60 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-14 08:38 PM | Reply

52, suicide isnt a crime. Well, I guess it could be 1st degree murder, so...I guess the death penalty would be warranted.

#61 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-08-14 08:39 PM | Reply

"That claim is demonstrably false.

#60 | POSTED BY JOE "

I guess the word didn't get from the judicial to the executive branch of the government.

#62 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-14 08:41 PM | Reply

#62 Huh?

#63 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-14 08:42 PM | Reply

New Hampshire State Constitution "All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property, and the state."

Amazing how we see the US Constitution as different than the States that created our country regarding the armed citizenry.

#64 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-08-14 08:46 PM | Reply

#64 Not that amazing considering the provision you quote was enacted by the State of New Hampshire in 1982.

#65 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-14 08:48 PM | Reply

But if they sought to restrict the right to keep and bear arms to the the militia they failed miserably when they wrote "the right of the people ..." instead of the "militia."

#57 | Posted by et_al

There's a reason they began it with "A well regulated Militia..." Which was made up of people.

We have 4 branches of military and state National Guards to do the job now.

But we citizens should be armed and ready to do the military's job, right? Why can't I own arms like a sawed off shotgun? An RPG? Surface to air missiles? You never know where a threat to the U.S. will come from ...

#66 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-14 08:49 PM | Reply

"#62 Huh?

#63 | POSTED BY JOE"

I guess the word didn't get from the judicial to the executive branch of the government.

#67 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-14 08:53 PM | Reply

"Here's what we've learned about the government's gun violence since Ferguson, according to The Washington Post: If you're a black American, you've got a greater chance of being shot by police. If you're an unarmed black man, you're four times more likely to be killed by police than an unarmed white man. Most people killed by police are young men. Since 2015, police have shot and killed an average of 3 people per day. More than 2,500 police departments have shot and killed at least one person since 2015. And while the vast majority of people shot and killed by police are armed, their weapons ranged from guns to knives to toy guns.

Clearly, the U.S. government is not making America any safer.

Indeed, the government's gun violence " inflicted on unarmed individuals by battlefield-trained SWAT teams, militarized police, and bureaucratic government agents trained to shoot first and ask questions later " poses a greater threat to the safety and security of the nation than any mass shooter.

According to journalist Matt Agorist, "mass shootings ... have claimed the lives of 339 people since 2015... [D]uring this same time frame, police in America have claimed the lives of 4,355 citizens."

www.sott.net

#68 | Posted by Ray at 2019-08-14 08:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

U.S. v. Miller

A seriously flawed opinion that made no attempt to analyze the historical basis of the amendment. On top of that it was a set up test case that presented only the side of the government.

I assume all the cases listed at 55 rely on Miller.

Lewis v. U.S.

A statutory construction case that relegated its Second Amendment reference to a footnote the basis of which was again Miller. However, since you're into dicta, see The Supreme Court's Thirty-Five Other Gun Cases.

#69 | Posted by et_al at 2019-08-14 08:55 PM | Reply

#67 What does that have to do with your erroneous claim that "Highly educated legal scholars (AKA the USSC) for over 200 years disagree with your layman's interpretation?"

#70 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-14 09:00 PM | Reply

I'm not, unless I'm one of the 12 on the jury at his trial. And I won't be since I live in San Antonio, not Philadelphia,

#17 | POSTED BY GOATMAN AT 2019-08-14 07:08 PM | FLAG: Lucky bastard.

Favorite, most beautiful city I've ever been in, to me at any rate. At Ft Sam Houston for training once, and back again several times for a girl living near there. Not that she didn't have something to do with that impression. Still, loved the atmosphere, architecture, river walk, etc.

#71 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2019-08-14 09:00 PM | Reply

There's a reason they began it with "A well regulated Militia..."

Yes, by way of introduction, a statement of purpose, a preamble, which, like the preamble to the constitution, has no operative legal effect.

Which was made up of [some] people. FTFY

Yet, the right is not guaranteed to "some" people instead its all people.

#72 | Posted by et_al at 2019-08-14 09:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#69 | Posted by et_al

If not for the NRA America wouldn't be armed to the teeth with an outrageous number of weapons, some of which don't belong in the hands of private citizens, IMO.

Americans did fine with shotguns, revolvers, and bolt action rifles for over 200 years.

Since the advent of the NRA's transformation from an organization that represented the interests of target shooting/hunting into a full blown mouthpiece for gun manufacturers, we've had an explosion of gun violence and mass shootings that we never had before then.

Why anyone thinks that's a good thing is beyond logic.

Who TF needs an AR or AK to defend their home? My grandmother lived by herself for decades. A shotgun behind a hall door was all she ever felt she needed to protect herself. Pistols used to be what people who carried valuables like money or gems used to protect themselves. The rest of Americans didn't feel it was necessary. Because it wasn't.

#73 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-14 09:08 PM | Reply

#71 -- all the things you describe are what brought me here. I'm originally from north central Texas (Dallas 'burb) but I grew to hate it. It's so full of phony people. Also, SA has such a low cost of living.

#74 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-14 09:08 PM | Reply

yet another false flag to divert from the real issue of elite pedophiles ruling us.

rusty has great video of the epstein/clinton "little" island resort. Check IT!

www.youtube.com

#75 | Posted by mutant at 2019-08-14 09:12 PM | Reply

Also, SA has such a low cost of living.

#74 | Posted by goatman

Think I'll post that in "Democratic Voter Relocation Magazine?" LOL

#76 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-14 09:12 PM | Reply

A seriously flawed opinion that made no attempt to analyze the historical basis of the amendment.

That's just a lie. The Miller court spent plenty of time on that. Including but not limited to the following:

"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

"The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia"civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators." Miller, 307 U. S., at 178"179.

You cannot be taken seriously if you claim the Miller court made "no attempt to analyze the historica basis of the amendment." You are a liar.

And if Miller were "a seriously flawed opinion," surely there would be other decisions in the 70 years that followed questioning its reasoning and viability, instead of hundreds and hundreds of judges following it to the letter. And surely you could point to some Miller-era scholars criticizing the opinion for being so seriously flawed.

But you cant. You lie about Miller to begin with.

#77 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-14 09:15 PM | Reply

take away my guns and I'll be as defenseless as the victims of Auschwitz

#78 | Posted by mutant at 2019-08-14 09:16 PM | Reply

Who TF needs an AR or AK to defend their home? My grandmother lived by herself for decades. A shotgun behind a hall door was all she ever felt she needed to protect herself. Pistols used to be what people who carried valuables like money or gems used to protect themselves. The rest of Americans didn't feel it was necessary. Because it wasn't.

#73 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY AT 2019-08-14 09:08 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

An AR is just a scary looking .22.

#79 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2019-08-14 09:18 PM | Reply

#73 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY

Useless straw men and anecdotes. I get you don't like the effect of the Second Amendment. The remedy is another amendment. I support one being introduced. I oppose ratification.

#80 | Posted by et_al at 2019-08-14 09:19 PM | Reply

#73 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY

Useless straw men and anecdotes. I get you don't like the effect of the Second Amendment. The remedy is another amendment. I support one being introduced. I oppose ratification.

#81 | Posted by et_al at 2019-08-14 09:19 PM | Reply

The remedy is another amendment. I support one being introduced.

Your expectation of it being passed is...?

#82 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-08-14 09:22 PM | Reply

The Second Amendment provides U.S. citizens the right to bear arms. Ratified in December 1791, the amendment says: ... Having just used guns and other arms to ward off the English, the amendment was originally created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government.Jun 28, 2017
The Second Amendment & the Right to Bear Arms - Live Science

www.livescience.com
Search for: Why was the Second Amendment added to the Constitution?

#83 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-08-14 09:22 PM | Reply

look to the victimization of south africa farmers to see why one may need a semi auto to fend off the roving gangs of hoodlums. Why waste time reloading when a 30 round banana clip (ha ha) will suffice just fine to blast those degenerates back to their creator?

#84 | Posted by mutant at 2019-08-14 09:23 PM | Reply

Still going on, unreal. Possible hostiages.

#85 | Posted by gracieamazed at 2019-08-14 09:26 PM | Reply

Useless straw men and anecdotes. I get you don't like the effect of the Second Amendment. The remedy is another amendment. I support one being introduced. I oppose ratification.

#81 | Posted by et_al

I oppose ARs and AKs in the hands of private citizens.

Someone said they're nothing more than a "glorified .22" .... except for the velocity at which they fire and the number of shots they can shoot in seconds.

#86 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-14 09:30 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#77 | POSTED BY JOE

I bet you're a real charmer in court. /snark

I don't interact with petty trolls that resort to calling me a liar. I know what I know and write it here. I might be wrong but that does not make me a liar.

Welcome to Snoofyland.

#87 | Posted by et_al at 2019-08-14 09:31 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Your expectation of it being passed is...?
#82 | POSTED BY REDIAL

It's expressed in the part of the quote you left out.

#88 | Posted by et_al at 2019-08-14 09:33 PM | Reply

It's expressed in the part of the quote you left out.

That was your hope. I asked about your expectation.

#89 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-08-14 09:55 PM | Reply

The police chief and mayors of Philadelphia just called for an assault weapons ban during a news conference.

(sic) "No reason for someone to have this number of weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammunition. It puts our officers and the public in danger."

#90 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-14 10:04 PM | Reply

"Think I'll post that in "Democratic Voter Relocation Magazine?" LOL

#76 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY "

I know you joke, but what's interesting is that most of my neighbors, who are almost all Hispanic, despise the illegals. They tell me that the illegals give them a bad name. Paradoxically, it seems most illegals move beyond SA, a city that is 2/3 Hispanic, and move on to other cities where the liberals boo hoo for them. The locals let the illegals know they are not welcome.

Fate is funny in that way.

#91 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-14 10:06 PM | Reply

i'll give up my ak when swat gives up their ARs

#92 | Posted by mutant at 2019-08-14 10:11 PM | Reply

#91 | Posted by goatman

Funny you assume everyone with a different opinion than yours is 'pro-illegal immigration.' Hardly so.

I'm for enforcement against employers (which worked well and reduced the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. to their lowest levels since the 1990's) and for treating fellow human beings with respect.

That just makes me a logical and compassionate human being.

#93 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-14 10:16 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

93 - keep dreaming bucko - do you know where you are posting at? you are here forever

#94 | Posted by mutant at 2019-08-14 10:22 PM | Reply

"Funny you assume everyone with a different opinion than yours is 'pro-illegal immigration.'

#93 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY"

Please provide evidence to support your claim. If you cannot, we'll just just this off to another of your flights of fantasy.

"I'm for enforcement against employers "

So you are selective in your level of law enforcement. Must be nice. Me? I think all laws should be enforced. Not just the ones that prevent new voters to my political party

"That just makes me a logical and compassionate human being.

#93 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY"

There is nothing logical about selective law enforcement or giving illegal aliens more than America's indigent get.

#95 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-14 10:23 PM | Reply

"That just makes me a logical and compassionate human being.

#93 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY"

So where is your compassion for America's needy and indigent, and homeless vets? Could it be the illegals from south of the border are more likely to bring your party votes? Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's it.

#96 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-14 10:34 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 2

6 cops shot.
Small price to pay for our freedoms.
Those cops knew what they signed up for.

#97 | Posted by bored at 2019-08-14 10:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I asked about your expectation.
#89 | POSTED BY REDIAL

I don't think amending the Second Amendment would achieve the 2/3 vote in Congress much less the 3/4 requirement for ratification.

#98 | Posted by et_al at 2019-08-14 10:49 PM | Reply

just saw a video on 4chan of a cop spraying some fake blood on another cop. should not post that here though.... fake news - epstein is alive - diversionary taktiks

#99 | Posted by mutant at 2019-08-14 10:50 PM | Reply

#87 Translation: I got caught making ---- up so i'll pretend to be on some moral high ground to avoid admitting i stepped in it.

Welcome to Trumptardland.

#100 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-14 11:00 PM | Reply

So where is your compassion for America's needy and indigent, and homeless vets? Could it be the illegals from south of the border are more likely to bring your party votes? Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's it.

#96 | Posted by goatman

WTF? You aren't making any sense. Talk about a-----------!!

#101 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-14 11:01 PM | Reply

#101 He played the same game with me when he got backed into a corner. Goatman is a Sheeple-tier troll.

#102 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-14 11:12 PM | Reply

a sanctuary city such as philly should just ban cops as well as plexiglass on storefronts of food and gas stations in the crime ridden ghettos (90% of geographic area).

reason.com

#103 | Posted by mutant at 2019-08-14 11:20 PM | Reply

"Crowd Taunts Philadelphia Police Officers, Laugh At Them In Midst Of Gunfire During Standoff In Nicetown-Tioga"

#104 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-08-14 11:24 PM | Reply

"...when he [goatman] got backed into a corner.

#102 | POSTED BY JOE "

And who says he got backed into a corner? Oh, you did. Well congratulations on your self declared victory.

#105 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-14 11:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Thanks!

#106 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-14 11:54 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#100 | POSTED BY JOE

No, Joe, I did not get caught making s**t up. Miller offers no analysis of the amendment. It assumes, "[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such [militia] ...," without citation or analysis of the history of the amendment. It was also a set up to test, and ultimately affirm the constitutionality of, the New Deal National Firearms Act.

That opinion is supported by my reading of numerous analyses of the case from many different sources. However, this source encapsulates the thoughts of the myriad sources. "The Peculiar Story of United States v. Miller" uknowledge.uky.edu Have fun with the footnotes or you can ignore it like you did with the 35 other cases article.

Like I said you must be a real charmer in court. Next time, instead of calling me a liar try asking for a citation or explication of my opinions. That's what discourse is. Otherwise, its Snoofyland for you.

BTW, throwing me into Trumpland is another mistake, I can't stand that Buffoon.

#107 | Posted by et_al at 2019-08-15 01:33 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#11

You're here to be an idiot, joe, which you frequently accomplish. After seeing you whining about plonking, you're a cowardly idiot. Plonk me.

#108 | Posted by willowby at 2019-08-15 01:36 AM | Reply

Shooter surrenders.

Free cheesesteak Thursday.

#109 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-15 02:34 AM | Reply

#107 So you aren't a Trumper but you link to an article claiming Miller was set up by the government as a test case to affirm federal gun control? And that nobody ever realized this for 70 years? Good lord.

You've been hoodwinked by a well-funded campaign to redefine the Second Amendment. Read about how badly you've been fooled here, if you like.

www.brennancenter.org

Next time, instead of calling me a liar try asking for a citation or explication of my opinions.

It's not an "opinion" to say the Miller court "made no attempt to analyze the historical basis of the amendment." That is a statement of fact which is clearly incorrect to anyone who reads the ruling.

Like I said you must be a real charmer in court

I don't go to court anymore; i got tired of mopping the floor with guys like you years ago. But i do recall that, when faced with anything approaching the mountain of case law cited in #55, if an opposing attorney simply said "they're all wrong" he'd be laughed out of the room. The history of American jurisprudence is not on your side here. Your position is a very recent development.

#110 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-15 04:06 AM | Reply

Word games with the US Constitution. The States obviously, when writing their Constitutions, were in most part very clear what they wanted. The US Constitution made a right absolute. The State Constitution does the same within that State. They don't conflict. I've provided just a few of the States, but all States are there at the link at the bottom.

The People may have arms. Some are specific about in times of peace, no standing army. What do you suppose they do in times of war? The people will bring their guns.

I believe the US Constitution confirms the rights of the people to have arms. Why? Because there were fears of standing armies. The people themselves were the protectors during peace.

US Constitution:
"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."

States:
Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, 26 (enacted 1819, art. I, 23, with "defence" in place of "defense," spelling changed 1901).

Florida: (a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.
(b) There shall be a mandatory period of three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at retail of any handgun. For the purposes of this section, "purchase" means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer, and "handgun" means a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. Holders of a concealed weapon permit as prescribed in Florida law shall not be subject to the provisions of this paragraph.
(c) The legislature shall enact legislation implementing subsection (b) of this section, effective no later than December 31, 1991, which shall provide that anyone violating the provisions of subsection (b) shall be guilty of a felony.
(d) This restriction shall not apply to a trade in of another handgun. Art. I, 8 (sections (b)-(d) added in 1990).

Kansas: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Bill of Rights, 4 (enacted 2010).

Mississippi: The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons. Art. III, 12 (enacted 1890, art. 3, 12).

New Hampshire: All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state. Pt. 1, art. 2-a (enacted 1982).

South Carolina: 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. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. Art. 1, 20 (enacted 1895).
1868: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence. As, in times of peace . . . ." Art. I, 28.

[Right treated as an individual right, apparently aimed at least partly at self-defense, State v. Johnson, 16 S.C. 187 (1881);

Wyoming: The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied. Art. I, 24 (enacted 1889).

www2.law.ucla.edu

#111 | Posted by Petrous at 2019-08-15 08:07 AM | Reply

Your position is a very recent development.
#110 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2019-08-15 04:06 AM

Meaning these have been snuck into our state laws since the 80's? This seem concerted, deliberate and methodical... perhaps conspiratorial?

Why would any government want to be surrounded by high-caliber rifles and not delay and verify access to AR-whatnuts? This "well regulated" portion seems to not explain too many of the individuals, but militia actually does fit some of these current online and in the street domestic threats. Antifa, Proud Boys, white nationalists - or as I understand them to be "neo" Nazi. However, emphasis on the Nazi part. We really would be screwed if any of these factually organized with weapons training to take on a parade and police. The terrorized places we'll go.:/

#112 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-08-15 08:08 AM | Reply

I'm for enforcement against employers (which worked well and reduced the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. to their lowest levels since the 1990's)

#93 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-14 10:16 PM
I already disproved this falsity when you posted it here
drudge.com Please refrain from making me disprove your same bs talking point in multiple threads.

#113 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-15 08:18 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'm trying to understand- when the "right" says the purpose of the 2A is to allow for an armed citizenry to resist a tyrannical government, are they saying these armed people don't have the right to shoot anyone when they determine tyranny exists?

That's because you are blinded by partisan hate.

The Armed citizenry should be a part of that "well regulated militia". An no, the federal government will NOT have the ability to approve or sanction that militia.

#114 | Posted by boaz at 2019-08-15 08:20 AM | Reply

"I'm trying to understand- when the "right" says the purpose of the 2A is to allow for an armed citizenry to resist a tyrannical government, are they saying these armed people don't have the right to shoot anyone when they determine tyranny exists?"
That's because you are blinded by partisan hate.
The Armed citizenry should be a part of that "well regulated militia". An no, the federal government will NOT have the ability to approve or sanction that militia.
#114 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2019-08-15 08:20 AM

So, a true patriot isn't military used to defend the tyrannical government, but citizens of the militia.

Are you certain you're not a white nationalist?

Should assault rifles be banned? The damage they cause seems deliberately irreparable.

#115 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-08-15 08:46 AM | Reply

Americans did fine with shotguns, revolvers, and bolt action rifles for over 200 years. - #73 | Posted by AMERICANUNITYM at 2019-08-14 09:08 PM

And cannons and gatling guns and the Thompson submachine gun...Hell, even Thomas Jefferson owned 20shot semi-auto rifles back in 1804.
I know that you are trying to ignore the civilian ownership of weapons that completely destroy your narrative.
I just wish you'd try to be less pathetic in the effort.

#116 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-15 08:47 AM | Reply

Private citizens owned warships through 1812 and into the civil war.

Not that any of it is relevant to this shooting. Felon with a firearm with extensive narcotics convictions. You're not stopping that guy from getting drugs or a gun.

#117 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-08-15 09:45 AM | Reply

Why are Democrat-run cities so violent?

#9 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

How are you still alive with so little functional brain matter?

#118 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-15 09:49 AM | Reply

How are you still alive with so little functional brain matter?

POSTED BY JPW AT 2019-08-15 09:49 AM | REPLY

GREAT question.

#119 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-08-15 09:53 AM | Reply

POSTED BY JPW AT 2019-08-15 09:49 AM | REPLY
GREAT question.
#119 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Two of the big thinkers of the Retort. lol

#120 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-08-15 09:58 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Two of the big thinkers of the Retort. lol

#120 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

It's hilarious that people like you, sheeple and goat man think that your posts are "thinking".

Do you really think your sneering, bitter whining comes across as thoughtful? Or is deserving of a thoughtful response?

#121 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-15 10:38 AM | Reply

Do you really think your sneering, bitter whining comes across as thoughtful?

Holy Crap! You could address that question to your condescending self.

#122 | Posted by boaz at 2019-08-15 10:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#121 | POSTED BY JPW

Man overboard! Launch the rubber duckie!

#123 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-15 10:47 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

So, a true patriot isn't military used to defend the tyrannical government, but citizens of the militia.

You cant tell the difference between a national army and a local, state militia?

Oh yea, you are a liberal, you only like ONE thing, ie ONE government, ONE leader, ONE world..yea..

You need to open your mind to how our government is constructed and what it was intended to be.

#124 | Posted by boaz at 2019-08-15 10:47 AM | Reply

Could you at least aim for an honest one?

#125 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-15 10:50 AM | Reply

Yes, by way of introduction, a statement of purpose, a preamble, which, like the preamble to the constitution, has no operative legal effect.

#72 | POSTED BY ET_AL AT 2019-08-14 09:04 PM | REPLY

The Preamble to the Constitution outlines the purposes of the Constitution, and defines the powers of the new government as originating from the people of the United States.

The Preamble is the what and why the constitution is the how.

#126 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2019-08-15 02:25 PM | Reply

I found this to be an interesting take ....

"A guy with a rifle held off 50 cops for hours, 'good guy with' gun is pure myth."

"How are you going to revolt against a tyrannical government with just civilian small arms? Don't you know the U.S. government has nukes?"

Same people.
twitter.com

#127 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-08-15 10:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Holy Crap! You could address that question to your condescending self.

#122 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Don't post demonstrably wrong garbage and you won't have a problem.

#128 | Posted by jpw at 2019-08-16 12:28 AM | Reply

The shooter here is a patriot defending the US from the tyranny of the war on drugs. He is fighting for freedom. He is a hero. This is what the 2A is for.

#129 | Posted by bored at 2019-08-16 08:49 AM | Reply

How is armed resistance of a tea tax different from armed resistance of drug prohibition?

#130 | Posted by bored at 2019-08-16 08:51 AM | Reply

Oh yea, you are a liberal, you only like ONE thing, ie ONE government, ONE leader, ONE world..yea..
You need to open your mind to how our government is constructed and what it was intended to be.

#124 | POSTED BY BOAZ

You mean like e pluribus unum, "out of many, one", i.e., "ONE government", and yes it has ONE leader - POTUS. As for "one world", that's just a fear held by those who think they're better than everybody else. "One world" is a corporate fantasy (only ONE set of politicians to corrupt), not a Progressive one.

#131 | Posted by whodaman at 2019-08-16 12:15 PM | Reply

I found this to be an interesting take ....
"A guy with a rifle held off 50 cops for hours, 'good guy with' gun is pure myth."
"How are you going to revolt against a tyrannical government with just civilian small arms? Don't you know the U.S. government has nukes?"
Same people.
twitter.com

#127 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

You aren't smart enough to understand this so let me help... It's because they didn't want to kill him.

Now ask how small arms do against the US military when they don't mind killing.

See, the difference or is your head so far up Trump's ass you still can't see anything?

#132 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-08-16 12:20 PM | Reply

--"One world" is a corporate fantasy (only ONE set of politicians to corrupt), not a Progressive one.

Total bullcrap. It's always been a utopian, progressive dream. What do you think Lennon's 70s anthem, "Imagine" was about? Progressives still quote it like it was a serious policy proposal It's like a Communist Manifesto for hippies.

#133 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-08-16 12:25 PM | Reply

To allow gun ownership by private citizens
For what purpose?
Any?
#41 | Posted by JOE

None of your ------- business. We Americans have privacy, dont you know? Oh, but you liberals are working hard to get rid of that.

#134 | Posted by boaz at 2019-08-16 01:49 PM | Reply

and yes it has ONE leader - POTUS

I dont agree.

The House and senate are supposed to be leading. The President is only there to execute laws given to him by congress, enforce laws and lead the military.

#135 | Posted by boaz at 2019-08-16 01:51 PM | Reply

The House and senate are supposed to be leading. The President is only there to execute laws given to him by congress, enforce laws and lead the military.

#135 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Oh, really? Tell me: when did that ever happen? Which President and what is his "legacy"?

#136 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-08-16 03:38 PM | 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