Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, August 20, 2019

Three days after a pair of mass shootings in Ohio and Texas that left 31 people dead, President Donald Trump was preoccupied with visions of a Rose Garden ceremony.

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.

"NRA Forces The Dotard To Retreat On Backround Checks"

He never had any intention on pursuing background checks to address the terrorism problem in this country. He just said it to get a bump in the polls. The same reason he does most things.

#1 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2019-08-20 09:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

The NRA and those who do their bidding and those who support those who do their bidding all have blood on their hands. Gun manufacturer profiteers should be viewed in the same light as drug cartels. Just as guilty of selling death.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-20 10:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

The NRA and those who do their bidding and those who support those who do their bidding all have blood on their hands. Gun manufacturer profiteers should be viewed in the same light as drug cartels. Just as guilty of selling death.

POSTED BY DANNI AT 2019-08-20 10:40 AM | REPLY

Yep they sure do.

#3 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-08-20 10:42 AM | Reply

"The NRA and those who do their bidding and those who support those who do their bidding all have blood on their hands. Gun manufacturer profiteers should be viewed in the same light as drug cartels. Just as guilty of selling death.

POSTED BY DANNI "

Well, other than the fact that guns are guaranteed by the Constitution and drugs are not and that only `1:10,000 guns are used illegally while 100% of cartel drugs are used illegally, you are absolutely correct.

#4 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-20 11:14 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's being reported Trump called LaPierre at the NRA before flip flopping, not the other way around.

89% of Americans support enhanced background checks. The majority of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents want action.

#5 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-21 12:12 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

So do you libs support requiring background and ID checks for voters?

#6 | Posted by Greatamerican at 2019-08-21 12:25 AM | Reply

So do you libs support requiring background and ID checks for voters?

#6 | Posted by Greatamerican

With 7 cases of proven voter fraud out of a billion votes, no.

There is no rampant 'voter fraud' going on.

The most recent couple of prosecuted cases were Republicans who voted twice.

#7 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-21 12:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

On the other hand, there have been thousands killed and injured in mass shootings, but y'all oppose background checks for gun purchasers. Doesn't make any sense, does it?

7 cases of proven voter fraud out of a billion votes, thousands killed and injured in mass shootings. Which one needs background checks the most? Huh?

#8 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-21 12:37 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

"So do you libs support requiring background and ID checks for voters?"

I could tolerate a free Federal national ID card, that could be used for identification, much like a passport.
But State voter ID laws are intended to disenfranchise likely Democrat voters.
And that's why Republicans oppose a free National ID.

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-08-21 01:05 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

But State voter ID laws are intended to disenfranchise likely Democrat voters.
#9 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Everyone has an ID except democrats on Election Day.

"But they was all birthed in a log cabin and never been allowed off the farm!" - Snoofy

#10 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-08-21 01:25 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

Advertisement

Advertisement

Wonder if Benedict Donald and Wayne Lasmallweewee were discussing who has the biggest tiniest mushroom?

#11 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-08-21 02:15 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

The 300 lb sack of---------- kissed LaPierre's ring and took backround checks off the table.

www.rawstory.com

#12 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2019-08-21 06:00 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Well, other than the fact that guns are guaranteed by the Constitution and drugs are not and that only `1:10,000 guns are used illegally while 100% of cartel drugs are used illegally, you are absolutely correct."

I think you need to actually read the second amendment.

"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."

Where is that "well-regulated" militia? Are you pretending that all those guns out there are there to "insure the security of a free state?" So, you see, your entire argument is totally b.s. The Constitution does not guarantee every idiot in the country to own a weapon of war. How many nukes do you own? Howitzers? The NRA has rotted your brain and convinced you that every man in America should be a one man army without an enemy so those idiots just imagine an enemy and then go shoot innocent people. Me and the majority of Americans are sick of it and tired of the NRA buying politicians. You should be too but then that wouldn't fit with your idiotic ideology.

Remember Parkland.

#13 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-21 07:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The NRA has rotted your brain ...

#13 | POSTED BY DANNI "

I have nothing to do with the NRA. Try again.

As for your rambling about the 2nd amendment, 200 years of USSC decisions and interpretations of it disagree with you. Deal with it.

#14 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-21 07:42 AM | Reply

"I have nothing to do with the NRA. Try again."

But you repeat their dishonest arguments like a puppet. You need to "try again" with coming up with rational ideas. Do you remember Sandy Hook and Parkland? Sorry but no rational person would know about those crimes and not want to prevent them in the future and gun control is the only method that has worked in other countries. Allowing crazy morons to buy weapons of war is a recipe for murder. I don't know if you have kids but I do know that having them changed me, protecting them became my number one mission in life. Allowing some crazy idiot to buy an assault rifle just because the NRA wants to help gun manufacturers sell more guns doesn't cut it as a reason to ignore half of the second Amendment. Wayne LaPiere will burn in hell, he is a totally evil man.

#15 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-21 08:12 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

200 years of USSC decisions and interpretations of it disagree with you.

The notion that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms that have no nexus to a "well-regulated militia" is a post-2000 interpretation that is contradicted by the long history of jurisprudence you're trying to rely on. Go read a book you lying hack.

#16 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-21 08:46 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 5

"Go read a book you lying hack."

Well said Joe!

#17 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-21 09:09 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

The Russian financed and infiltrated NRA calls the tune and the Dolt immediately dances the Cassock's dance.
www.youtube.com

#18 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2019-08-21 10:14 AM | Reply

So do you libs support requiring background and ID checks for voters?

#6 | POSTED BY GREATAMERICAN

Just a sec... background checks for voters? WTF are you talking about here?

If you are talking about not allowing people to register who are not allowed to vote (non-citizens, felons who are not allowed, underage), I am all for it. I would hope they do that now.

If you are talking about background checks WHEN YOU VOTE, what is the point? Do you think the person could have lost their citizenship in the meantime.

As for people convicted of a felony... I would be fine with having some sort of check in place to ensure that they are informed that they are not allowed to vote. (though make sure they still have a mechanism to have their vote counted if they protest, in case there is a mistake in the records and they ARE legal to vote)

#19 | Posted by Gtbritishskull at 2019-08-21 10:23 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Once again, Russia will pump millions of dollars into Combover Quisling's campaign by laundering it through the NRA. LaPeePee was just reminding Dotard of their Faustian bargain. The problem is it's a deal between three devils.

#20 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2019-08-21 10:29 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"But you repeat their dishonest arguments like a puppet.

#15 | POSTED BY DANNI "

I'm not sure what you are talking about because as usual for you, you make false claims, but if I do it is coincidental. You see, Danni, it is possible for a person to independently form opinions that may parallel others. I realize as a Democrat Sheep who thinks as she is told to think that this concept is alien to you so I forgive you for thinking I am a NRA stooge.

#21 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-21 11:03 AM | Reply

"The notion that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms that have no nexus to a "well-regulated militia" is a post-2000 interpretation that is contradicted by the long history of jurisprudence you're trying to rely on.

POSTED BY JOE "

I guess the word never got from the judicial branch to the executive branch.

"Go read a book you lying hack.

POSTED BY JOE "

Great advice, but I am already an avid and voracious reader. Perhaps if you had some good muffin recipes to share?

#22 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-21 11:11 AM | Reply

Where is that "well-regulated" militia? - #13 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-21 07:22 AM
Why, they're all around you Danni.
The Militia act says that it is all able bodied men 17-45.
Personally I don't cotton to that type of age and sex discrimination, so I'm all for women and the elderly being part of my militia as well.

Now that we've proven that all of America is part of the Militia, what actions is the government allowed to infringe on the rights to bear arms, again?
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
www.law.cornell.edu


The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

#23 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-21 11:23 AM | Reply

#22

scholarship.law.ufl.edu

In Heller, the Court undertook its first thorough consideration of the Second Amendment and resolved (at least as a matter of law) a longstanding academic debate about the nature of this constitutional provision. Writing for five members of the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia concluded (1) that individuals have a constitutionally protected individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, not just a right to serve in militias organized by state governments; and (2) that the District of Columbia's handgun ban violated the Second Amendment.

Goat... please cite the decisions in the "200 years of USSC decisions and interpretations" that also decide that the "well-regulated militia" portion in the second amendment is superfluous.

To help me educate myself, of course. Because I have been under the impression that Heller was the first time that the courts decided unambiguously that the second amendment gave the right to bear arms to all individuals, outside of the "well-regulated militia" (which means controlled by the state) context. If I am wrong, I want to see the facts to prove me so.

#24 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-08-21 11:28 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#23 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

So... you think that all able-bodied males between 17 and 45 constitute a "well-regulated" militia?

Because I don't see the words "well-regulated" in your citation anywhere.

Or are you just following in the footsteps of the conservative judicial activists on the Supreme Court, and just ignoring any words in the constitution (or post) that you find inconvenient?

#25 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-08-21 11:32 AM | Reply

"Goat... please cite the decisions in the "200 years of USSC decisions and interpretations" that also decide that the "well-regulated militia" portion in the second amendment is superfluous."

I'm not a legal scholar, so that would be difficult for me. I do not feel like spending a significant amount of time doing so.

#26 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-21 11:32 AM | Reply

So do you libs support requiring background and ID checks for voters?

#6 | Posted by Greatamerican

Let's address the REAL problem and that's voter suppression. You claim that all Americans have a right to bear arms. What about the right of all Americans to vote? In today's world, between the right to bear arms and the right to vote, which one is ACTUALLY the most important when it comes to protecting the freedoms won by our forefathers.

OCU

#27 | Posted by OCUser at 2019-08-21 11:35 AM | Reply

-- I do not feel like spending a significant amount of time doing so.

What? You're not willing to spend hours researching something for a anonymous blogger who will just dismiss your findings anyway?

#28 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-08-21 11:38 AM | Reply

"Goat... please cite the decisions in the "200 years of USSC decisions and interpretations" that also decide that the "well-regulated militia" portion in the second amendment is superfluous.

#24 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL AT 2019-08-21 11:28 AM |"

The fact that indiviuals now own guns legally is a testimony to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the militia clause of the 2nd amendment. Or perhaps they forgot to tell the executive branch otherwise.

#29 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-21 11:49 AM | Reply

Or are you just following in the footsteps of the conservative judicial activists on the Supreme Court, and just ignoring any words in the constitution (or post) that you find inconvenient? - #25 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-08-21 11:32 AM

The constitution does not reserve the right to keep and bear arms to the 'well regulated militia'. You're aware that adding words is just as foolish as ignoring that they exist, right?
It says that a well regulated militia is important.
And that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

#30 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-21 12:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The fact that indiviuals now own guns legally is a testimony to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the militia clause of the 2nd amendment. Or perhaps they forgot to tell the executive branch otherwise."

You believe that all you want but the rest of us know that it was the SC sellout to the NRA. The SC is totally corrupt and does the bidding of the big donors to the GOP. People like Clarence Thomas have no integrity and it is laughable that you think they do.

"Thomas is perhaps the most corrupt Supreme Court justice in recent memory. He has spent 20 years filing false financial statements " a crime that he will likely never be convicted of due to his position of power and the political gridlock in Congress.[7] Furthermore, he did not recuse himself from the Citizens United case despite Citizens United having spent $100,000 on his behalf to support his nomination to the court.[8)"

rationalwiki.org

#31 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-21 12:04 PM | Reply

Putin gives money to the NRA and the NRA tells Trump what to do.

#32 | Posted by bored at 2019-08-21 12:06 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

"You believe that all you want but the rest of us know that it was the SC sellout to the NRA.

#31 | POSTED BY DANNI "

And you can ignore the obvious that people legally own guns which is proof that the USSC ruled in the individual's rights to have them. How can you deny this?e Again, perhaps the mudicial ranch forgot to inform the executive branch of their ruling?

#33 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-21 12:13 PM | Reply

"It says that a well regulated militia is important.
And that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

"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."

It says it in one sentence, the two thoughts are not seperate. Dishonest people always try to distort the meanings of words but here we sometimes catch them in the act. You're a liar attempting to change the meaning of the authors of the Constitution's intent to please who? NRA? I would personally be ashamed to admit that Wayne LaPierre owned me. What do you get out of that deal? You aren't even intelligent enough to be embarrassed much less ashamed.

#34 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-21 12:23 PM | Reply

@#34 | Posted by danni at 2019-08-21 12:23 PM
I made no effort to change their meaning. That one sentence says both that the militia is important (necessary) and that the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I understand that you are unable to comprehend it. I forgive you that weakness.
I answered your question. "Where is that "well-regulated" militia?". Would you be honest enough to answer my question, "what actions is the government allowed to infringe on the rights to bear arms, again?"

#35 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-21 12:31 PM | Reply

And you can ignore the obvious that people legally own guns which is proof that the USSC ruled in the individual's rights to have them. How can you deny this?e Again, perhaps the mudicial ranch forgot to inform the executive branch of their ruling?
#33 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

I can also own boxes of breakfast cereal, children's playground sets, and cars. I do not recall the Supreme Court ruling on my rights to own ANY of those things. But by your argument, I have a constitutional right to all of them.

Your argument is absurd. The Supreme Court doesn't ban things. It tells the government which things it CANNOT ban (or allow, or do, etc).

#36 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-08-21 12:58 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

" The Supreme Court doesn't ban things. It tells the government which things it CANNOT ban (or allow, or do, etc).

POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL AT 2019-08-21 12:58 PM "

It took google 0.72 seconds to prove that wrong. (this is just one of several examples. You'll have to google the rest if you want to see them.)

www.manatt.com

#37 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-21 01:03 PM | Reply

The constitution does not reserve the right to keep and bear arms to the 'well regulated militia'. You're aware that adding words is just as foolish as ignoring that they exist, right?

#30 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

"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."

Please tell me the purpose of the words in bold. The constitution and amendments regulate the actions of the government (it tells the GOVERNMENT what the government CAN and CANNOT do). What specific purpose do they serve? By your interpretation, what is that first phrase telling the government what it is allowed to do, or what it is banning it from doing?

Or are you claiming that it is completely superfluous and serves absolutely no legal purpose?

If the latter, please give your reasoning. Is there another place in the Constitutional Amendments (or the Constitution itself) where the framers decided to just throw in extra useless phrases because they had not yet hit their word count goal yet?

#38 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-08-21 01:04 PM | Reply

It took google 0.72 seconds to prove that wrong. (this is just one of several examples. You'll have to google the rest if you want to see them.)
www.manatt.com
#37 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

Please explain. Your link talks about the "----" trademark. The Supreme Court ruled that the GOVERNMENT cannot BAN IT as a trademark. The alternative was that the Supreme Court would say that the GOVERNMENT could BAN IT.

But, there is no mechanism for the Supreme Court to actually ban the "----" trademark. They can only allow or disallow legislation (i.e. "actions by the government"). They cannot create their own.

Come on Goat... I expected better than this of you.

#39 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-08-21 01:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I guess the word never got from the judicial branch to the executive branch.

Has nothing to do with how wrong your statement was.

#40 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-21 01:11 PM | Reply

"Has nothing to do with how wrong your statement was.

POSTED BY JOE AT 2019-08-21 01:11 PM |"

It's so easy to vomit out the words, "You're wrong", but not so easy to proove it. But thanks for your well thought out opinion.

#41 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-21 01:14 PM | Reply

I already explained that "The notion that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms that have no nexus to a "well-regulated militia" is a post-2000 interpretation that is contradicted by the long history of jurisprudence you're trying to rely on." You don't dispute that because you have no ------- clue what you're talking abour.

#42 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-21 01:24 PM | Reply

Trump conferring with LaPierre before setting his gun policy would be like Obama conferring with Farrakhan to determine racial policies. It is outrageous, offensive, absurd and should never ever happen. It really drives home the manner in which money and corporate power take precedence over the national best interests when it comes to issues involving gun control.

#43 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-08-21 01:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Please tell me the purpose of the words in bold. The constitution and amendments regulate the actions of the government (it tells the GOVERNMENT what the government CAN and CANNOT do). What specific purpose do they serve? By your interpretation, what is that first phrase telling the government what it is allowed to do, or what it is banning it from doing? - #38 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-08-21 01:04 PM
It provides the reason that the government not be allowed to infringe upon he rights of the people to keep and bear arms (what the government cannot do).

Is there another place in the Constitutional Amendments (or the Constitution itself) where the framers decided to just throw in extra useless phrases because they had not yet hit their word count goal yet?


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Why yes, the authors did include the 'why' before a lot of the stuff they included. Why do you ask?

#44 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-21 01:34 PM | Reply

The preamble to the Constitution can hardly be compared to the first half of one sentence.

#45 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-21 01:44 PM | Reply

The 2nd Amendment as interpreted by gun nuts is a lie and a joke. A joke that kills. I just got back from Europe two days ago. More than any single issue, they are blown away at our complete unwillingness to get a handle on gun violence in America.

#46 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-08-21 01:49 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

*ScroteMan frantically googles "historical Supreme Court 2nd Amendment cases" and either never returns to the thread or comes back with some imbecilic off-topic remark*

#47 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-21 02:05 PM | Reply

"*ScroteMan...

#47 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2019-08-21 02:05 PM"

So mature. And I'll bet you wonder why I scoff at you and your posts. Grow up if you wish to be taken seriousy.

#48 | Posted by goatman at 2019-08-21 02:16 PM | Reply

The 2nd Amendment as interpreted by gun nuts is a lie and a joke. A joke that kills. I just got back from Europe two days ago. More than any single issue, they are blown away at our complete unwillingness to get a handle on gun violence in America.
#46 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-08-21 01:49 PM

1/3 of Americans own guns.
1/3 of Swiss own guns.
America has 3x as many murders with guns than Switzerland.
America 250x the murder rate.

The evidence indicates that gun ownership isn't the issue.
www.nationmaster.com

#49 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-08-21 02:38 PM | Reply

An average person being able to do background checks on anybody for any reason is the most stooped idea to come since free healthcare for every illegal.

#50 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-08-21 03:01 PM | Reply

With 7 cases of proven voter fraud out of a billion votes, no.
There is no rampant 'voter fraud' going on.
The most recent couple of prosecuted cases were Republicans who voted twice.
#7 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

That is a damn lie ame. How can there be more votes cast in a precinct than there are registered voters?

#51 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-08-21 03:04 PM | 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."
.
#13 | Posted by danni

You must have flunked reading comphrension at least 20 times.

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, Is the reason for the second part.

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

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

#52 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-08-21 03:10 PM | Reply

The notion that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms that have no nexus to a "well-regulated militia" is a post-2000 interpretation that is contradicted by the long history of jurisprudence you're trying to rely on. Go read a book you lying hack.
#16 | Posted by JOE

You have the same problem ddan has. You can't comphrend what you read.

#53 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-08-21 03:12 PM | Reply

In today's world, between the right to bear arms and the right to vote, which one is ACTUALLY the most important when it comes to protecting the freedoms won by our forefathers.
OCU
#27 | Posted by OCUser

GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! By all means. They protect us from all evil.

#54 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-08-21 03:17 PM | Reply

"How can there be more votes cast in a precinct than there are registered voters?"

There's a difference between voter fraud and election fraud. No need to apologize. We're used to it.

#55 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2019-08-21 03:21 PM | Reply

#48 Nice escape hatch. Stop repeating lies if you want to be taken seriously.

#56 | Posted by JOE at 2019-08-21 03:35 PM | Reply

Comedian Jim Jeffries has a great bit on guns, -----------, and their BS.
Google it.

#57 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-08-21 03:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Why yes, the authors did include the 'why' before a lot of the stuff they included. Why do you ask?

#44 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

Hahahaha... really got me there. You must think you are a smart one.

So, the preamble is for context. The rest of the constitution and amendments are not. Can you remind me... is the part about a "well-regulated militia" in the preamble (context) part or the law part?

#58 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-08-21 03:52 PM | Reply

Based on recent reports, Trump and LaPierre are both grifters. No wonder they have a bromance.

#59 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-08-21 04:09 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Gun manufacturer profiteers should be viewed in the same light as drug cartels. Just as guilty of selling death.
#2 | POSTED BY DANNI

Does that count the military-industrial complex?

Just wondering.

#60 | Posted by Ray at 2019-08-21 05:43 PM | Reply

Fact is that every president is influenced by large voting blocs.

#61 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-08-22 12:03 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