Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, December 02, 2019

The Supreme Court on Monday is set to wade into the highly charged gun control debate for the first time in nearly a decade, hearing oral arguments in a dispute over a New York City gun restriction that could have major implications for gun rights nationwide.

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.

You will not get my 2nd Amendment right. You will not limit it. It's MY right. You can limit YOURSELF in your right to own a weapon, but not ME. Go ---- yourself. Sincerely, the rest of America not in California, New York or Washington State.

#1 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-01 09:38 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

And there are TWO parts to the Second Amendment. One that addresses Militia's outside of the governments control, and one that addresses a citizen's personal right to carry a weapon. It's right there in black and white.

If you dont agree, I dont care. You will not infringe on a citizen's right to own a weapon. Period. End of story.

Thank God for Donald Trump and his Supreme Court Nominees.

I dont care about his crazy behavior or you liberals Trump Derangement Syndrome. He did what he said he would do. Put up a firewall between the crazy, constitution destroying left by electing common sense, actual people who know about the constitution judges to stop the crazed left. And he has more than fulfilled his word.

Go get em Supreme Court.

#2 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-01 09:43 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

@#1 ... You will not get my 2nd Amendment right. You will not limit it. ..

A nice bumper sticker.

But the reality is that is has already been limited.

You are now living under those limits.

So when you start to deal with the reality of what is now, we'll talk.

#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-01 09:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I picture Boaz, sitting on his front porch. Screaming at nobody about his rights to own a gun.

People passing by wonder why he isn't in a mental health facility.

They will never see the civil war he's waging in his mind.

#4 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-12-01 09:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Napoleon Complex thy name is Boaz.

#5 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2019-12-01 09:50 PM | Reply

Ballad of Davy Crockett
www.youtube.com

fwiw... :)

#6 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-01 11:14 PM | Reply

But the reality is that is has already been limited.

You are now living under those limits.

And I can agree with that. But any further limits need to STOP. Stop trying to come up with ideas to limit my right. The second amendment needs to be left alone. A fence needs to be placed around the second amendment and that's what the court is probably going to do.

#7 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-01 11:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

we'll talk.

About what? There's nothing to talk about. How about you read the text of the 2nd amendment. That's all the talking I need to do..

#8 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-01 11:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Funny...

The reason Iposted #6 is that the son appeared on a mix tape I was listening to.

The next song to appear on that tape...
Bob Dylan - ainy Day Women #12 & 35
www.youtube.com

Go figure... :)

#9 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-01 11:21 PM | Reply

@#8 ... About what? There's nothing to talk about. How about you read the text of the 2nd amendment. That's all the talking I need to do.. ...

Oh wow, just wow.

With regard to your opinion, there appears to be a lot to talk about.

For starters...

How does your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment correlate with the rule of law in the United States?

I have other issues to talk about, but let's just start with that one. OK?

I await your comment.

thx.


#10 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-01 11:26 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

And the next song on the tape...

The Chiffons - Hes so Fine
www.youtube.com
he Chiffons - Hes so Fine
(OK, I'll stop...)

#11 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-01 11:31 PM | Reply

But the reality is that is has already been limited.

#3 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER AT 2019-12-01 09:45 PM | REPLY

Has it? I can buy artillery pieces, squad automatic weapons, short barreled rifles, Cobra attack helicopters, etc.

#12 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-12-02 07:38 AM | Reply

You will not get my 2nd Amendment right. You will not limit it. It's MY right. You can limit YOURSELF in your right to own a weapon, but not ME. Go ---- yourself. Sincerely, the rest of America not in California, New York or Washington State.

#1 | POSTED BY BOAZ

You don't speak for anybody but yourself you childish ass.

#13 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-02 08:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You don't speak for anybody but yourself you childish ass.

#13 | Posted by jpw

LOL. I bet I speak for more of the country than you do.

But you keep thinking like that. It will keep us winning elections for years to come..

#14 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-02 08:46 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

How does your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment correlate with the rule of law in the United States?

What do you mean?

#15 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-02 09:18 AM | Reply

He means what are you going to do when there's eventually a convention of the states that removes the 2nd amendment. That's the law of the land.

#16 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-12-02 09:37 AM | Reply

#14 you're a Trumper who says whatever is necessary in the moment to be "right".

You speak for, at most, 30% of the dregs of America.

Not something to be proud of, sport.

#17 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-02 09:52 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

He means what are you going to do when there's eventually a convention of the states that removes the 2nd amendment.

If the states, together, vote for that then ok. But we know that wont happen. No state is going to give up it's voice just because California has an over abundance of people.

#18 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-02 09:54 AM | Reply

@#12 ... Has it? ...

Yes.

Why do you think the case mentioned in the cited article exists?

#19 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-02 12:09 PM | Reply

@#15 ... What do you mean? ...

Exactly what I asked.

#20 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-02 12:10 PM | Reply

The 1st Amendment has a "public safety" exception. You can't (falsely) shout "FIRE" in a crowded theatre, because it endangers public safety. The government (at all levels) has responsibiity for public safety and public health. Your right to own as many guns of any kind you want is not in the Constitution. It says you have a right to bear arms (in the context of a "well regulated militia") to defend your State (from "Foreigners" or "Indians"). Additionally, the President can...

...call out the militias of the several states, "whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe"

So the idea that the 2nd Amendment is to "protect us from tyranny" doesn't make sense because it can be comandeered by POTUS (just like the National Guard--the real Militia).

It doesn't guarantee "guns for fun".

#21 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-12-02 12:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

there are TWO parts to the Second Amendment.

It's one sentence, and was overwhelmingly understood to limit ownership rights to militias until the two parts of the sentence were decoupled by rightwing activist judges just a few short years ago.

You can dance on the Constitution's grave all you want but you will never change history or reality.

#22 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-02 12:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

#22

Rwingers are not interested in history or reality.... that's all fake news to them.

"For about two hundred years, the meaning of the Second Amendment was clear and mostly undisputed, despite the gnarled syntax of the text itself: "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."

Generations of Supreme Court and academic opinion held that the amendment did not confer on individuals a right "to keep and bear Arms" but, rather, referred only to the privileges belonging to state militias. This was not a controversial view.

The late Chief Justice Warren E. Burger said, in 1991, that the idea that the Second Amendment conferred a right for individuals to bear arms was "a fraud on the American public." Burger was no liberal, and his view simply reflected the overwhelming consensus on the issue at the time."

www.newyorker.com

#23 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-02 01:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#22 and #23

You are wrong. That sentence has been understood since the dawn of the Republic that people have the right to own weapons to defend themselves. And NO, it wasnt "just" defined a few short years ago. It's only been trying to be CHANGED by -------- like YOU a few short years ago.

I wont let you change the meaning of things all the time like you liberals try to do.

his view simply reflected the overwhelming consensus on the issue at the time."

Actually, it didnt. And if it was "overwhelming", then a constitutional convention would have over turned it and we all know how THAT would turn out.

#24 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-02 01:42 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

but you will never change history or reality.

You mean like you are trying to do?

#25 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-02 01:43 PM | Reply

There were two reasons for the 2nd Amendment, neither of which apply today:

1. Protection from foreign invasion. The Founders were skeptical of standing armies during times of peace as a result of their understanding of European (and World) history. That is why there is no standing Army in the Constitution. It has to be re-authorized by Congress every two years.

2. Protecting the rights of Slave states to organize Slave Patrols to control the slave population through recapture of runaways, and intimidation to prevent rebellions.

There is no mention of "self-protection" or "tyranny" (much less "hunting" or "sports"). All the 2nd Amendment does in today's America is insure that tens of thousands of Americans every year will die from gunfire.

And there is no reason to expect that anyone wants to "take all our guns away". Just treat all guns (outside of the "Militia" context) as a privilege (like owning and driving an automobile) rather than an "inalienable" right. Require registration, comptency testing (conducted at a firing range), and liability insurance. Most "responsible gun owners" would still be able to buy and keep "reasonable" arms for whatever purpose they want. Lots of people have guns in countries that don't have a 2nd Amendment (i.e., all the other countries), and it doesn't seem to create any problems, but they don't have the mass shootings in public places that we have. Those countries also have mentally ill individuals, as well as violent movies and video games, but they don't have the problems we have.

Bottom line, statistics show that the more guns there are the more people will end up being shot.

#26 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-12-02 01:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- You are wrong.

Scholars don't debate the history; "For about two hundred years, the meaning of the Second Amendment was clear and mostly undisputed...".

Of course, they believe in history and facts and science and stuff like that.

#27 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-02 02:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

2. Protecting the rights of Slave states to organize Slave Patrols to control the slave population through recapture of runaways, and intimidation to prevent rebellions.

Your racist card has been declined, do you another card that you can make a reasoned argument with?

#28 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-02 02:38 PM | Reply

In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by state militias, "a standing army ... would be opposed [by] a militia." He argued that state militias "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms," and assured that "the existence of subordinate governments ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition".[14][15]

There it is in black and white.

1. that the states should and were intended to be separate and autonomous to keep the federal in check.
2. that the 2nd was intended as a way for states to fight against an overbearing federal government.
3. that it is a people's right.

#29 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-02 02:40 PM | Reply

Early English settlers in America viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes (in no particular order):[g][h][55][56][57][58][59][60]

enabling the people to organize a militia system;[61]
participating in law enforcement;
safeguarding against tyrannical government;[62]
repelling invasion;[61]
suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts,[63][64][65] though some scholars say these claims are factually incorrect;[66]
facilitating a natural right of self-defense.[61]

Your premise is --------, whodaman

#30 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-02 02:42 PM | Reply

Furthermore, one article from New York in 1769 stated: "it is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence."[72]

Learn something you ignorant idiots...

en.wikipedia.org

#31 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-02 02:46 PM | Reply

Pennsylvania, September 28, 1776

Article 13. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.[91]

North Carolina, December 18, 1776

A Declaration of Rights. Article XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.[95]

Vermont, July 8, 1777

Chapter 1. Section XVIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.[97]

Massachusetts, June 15, 1780

Sure looks like they wanted the individual to have arms...It's even repeated often throughout.

A Declaration of Rights. Chapter 1. Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.[98]

#32 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-02 02:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[14][119]

You people really need to learn some history.

#33 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-02 02:55 PM | Reply

Timothy Farrar

In 1867, Judge Timothy Farrar published his Manual of the Constitution of the United States of America, which was written when the Fourteenth Amendment was "in the process of adoption by the State legislatures.":[141][m]

The States are recognized as governments, and, when their own constitutions permit, may do as they please; provided they do not interfere with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or with the civil or natural rights of the people recognized thereby, and held in conformity to them. The right of every person to "life, liberty, and property," to "keep and bear arms," to the "writ of habeas corpus" to "trial by jury," and divers others, are recognized by, and held under, the Constitution of the United States, and cannot be infringed by individuals or even by the government itself.

God, we need people like this today...

#34 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-02 03:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"The Heller decision stemmed from a new interpretation of American history that emerged during the past 40 years as a result of concerted advocacy by gun rights supporters such as the National Rifle Association.

This campaign " which rewrites our national history to fit a modern gun rights narrative " threatens to lead the Supreme Court further astray."

"The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, ratified in September 1791, reads: "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."

For more than 200 years, most legal scholars and historians viewed this language as conferring a right "to keep and bear arms" only in the context of a "well-regulated militia.".

www.washingtonpost.com

The NRA financed rwing pols onto the SC and gave us Scalia and the Heller decision... which, contrary to rwing rhetoric and as un-originalist as it is, still provides for gun laws that could help keep military-style weapons off of the streets.

Though that isn't likely with this current rwing court.

#35 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-02 03:02 PM | Reply

The NRA?

Russia.

Russia financed rwing pols onto the SC and gave us Scalia and the Heller decision.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-02 03:04 PM | Reply

The 2nd amendment is nothing more than a check against government power. The right to bear arms was already a natural right that all free peoples had.

#37 | Posted by Daniel at 2019-12-02 03:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So, BOAZ, are we supposed to fear the US Army? You know, the one you served in? Were you prepared follow orders to fire on American citizens? Why do think they would now? If not, what's the big deal?

#38 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-12-02 03:31 PM | Reply

"It's one sentence, and was overwhelmingly understood to limit ownership rights to militias"

So..."the people" being referred to in the second amendment limited to members of the "well regulated militia?"

If so, then it follows that you can by replacing "the people" with "well regulated militia," you get a better understanding of who is given rights under the BoR.

A few excerpts:

Amendment I--Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of "a well regulated militia" peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment IV--The right of "a well regulated militia" to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX--The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by "a well regulated militia".

Amendment X--The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to "a well regulated militia".

Do you still think "the people" referenced in the 2nd amendment were limited to the members of the "well regulated militia?"

Feel free to don your thinking cap before answering.

#39 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-12-02 03:32 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

The right to bear arms was already a natural right that all free peoples had.

And in what country are people guaranteed that right besides the US? Do you really think the US is "freer" than all the other free countries, i.e., the ones without a 2nd Amendment? Do you think the "right to bear arms" would work in, say, Hong Kong? Or would it just lead to a massacre by the Chinese Army?

#40 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-12-02 03:34 PM | Reply

"Just treat all guns (outside of the "Militia" context) as a privilege (like owning and driving an automobile) rather than an "inalienable" right."

It's very different, because there is nothing in the Bill of Rights giving "the people" or "the well regulated militia" the right to keep and bear automobiles. And if you were concerned about unnecessary deaths, banning, or severely restricting vehicle usage would be the ideal place to start. If for no other reason than you could do so without having to worry about constitutional barriers.

#41 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-12-02 03:36 PM | Reply

There's nothing wrong with society electing to change or eliminate the second amendment. There are well established mechanisms for doing so. So why keep screwing around with trying to get around the second amendment?

#42 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-12-02 03:38 PM | Reply

"The right to bear arms was already a natural right that all free peoples had."

"Natural right"
But it only applies to
"Free peoples"

If you can't see the contradiction, it's because you don't want to.

Conversely, you're saying slavery itself is the natural state for some peoples. Which is probably a little closer to your true beliefs.

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-02 03:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There are also probably ways that you could implement gun control in a manner that would in no way interfere or contradict the language of the second amendment. Maybe something similar to how Switzerland handles gun control.

#44 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-12-02 03:48 PM | Reply

That sentence has been understood since the dawn of the Republic that people have the right to own weapons to defend themselves.

I've explained to you more than once, in excruciating detail, why this isn't true.

You still come here and post abject lies, because you're too stupid to comprehend anything that doesn't align with how you want things to be.

You do not live in reality. You live in a fantasy land. And i'm done trying to talk you out of it. Get ------ you moron.

#45 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-02 03:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Amendment I--Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of "a well regulated militia" peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Ok, where is the "well regulated" militia? Who's "regulating" these nut jobs running around hugging their ARs? How do you have any kind of command structure and how do you have a "well regulated militia" without one?

#46 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-12-02 04:36 PM | Reply

Who's "regulating" these nut jobs running around hugging their ARs? How do you have any kind of command structure and how do you have a "well regulated militia" without one?

#46 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN AT 2019-12-02 04:36 PM | REPLY

Federal, state, and local governments with their laws. It's The People, not The Milita. Once you get that right, it makes more sense, given that the Brits field a hundred regiments of loyalist militia that took the lead in firearm confiscation. At the time, The Militia was a necessary evil The People may have to shoot in the face, again.

#47 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-12-02 05:24 PM | Reply

How do you have any kind of command structure and how do you have a "well regulated militia" without one?

#46 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN AT 2019-12-02 04:36 PM | REPLY

Since we're not confused enough, here comes the fun part. There's more than 1 kind of militia. There's the militia as State Defense Force authorized by state & federal laws. There's the Organized Militia, that's the National Guard. There's the Unorganized Militia, which is every able-bodied man between 17 and 45 not in the National Guard or a Naval Militia. Of course that's all separate from the army. In the Federalist papers, Madison argued that an armed civilian populace had to outnumber the army 10 to 1, because nobody trusts the army. How times change on that one, huh?

What the hell is a "Naval Militia" you ask? This is the fun one. This is where a war breaks out and I get my hands on a letter of marque, then we jump on a sloop and engage in legal piracy against whoever the letter says we can.

#48 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-12-02 06:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

So my question after reading the article.

What in the world is wrong with taking an unloaded, locked gun beyond city limits.

I'm not no sure this case is really about gun control.

It's about people control.

#49 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2019-12-02 07:42 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

meant...I'm not so sure....etc.

#50 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2019-12-02 07:45 PM | Reply

Ok, where is the "well regulated" militia? Who's "regulating" these nut jobs running around hugging their ARs? How do you have any kind of command structure and how do you have a "well regulated militia" without one?

#46 | POSTED BY WHODAMAN

You look like a fool trotting this argument out given the number of times this topic has been beaten to death on this site.

#51 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-02 07:46 PM | Reply

If what I read in the article is right, then it means this is a New York City gun restriction preventing a person from taking their legally owned gun out of city limits.

Why should New York City be making laws that affect other localities?

Why is New York making laws controlling guns in other localities than itself?

This seems more akin to the kind of border laws set up by West Berlin. You are prisoner here. We prevent you from going elsewhere.

I can see New York making laws about what you're allowed to bring INTO the city.

But making laws about what you can take FROM the city is more along the lines of countries banning you from leaving rather than making laws about who can come in.

Kind of wierd.

I'm sure someone means well, it's just that this law seems to be overstepping.

#52 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2019-12-02 08:14 PM | Reply

- It's The People, not The Milita.

Wow. There were some really bad spellers back in the day, eh?

btw, to which "well-regulated militia" do you belong?

Ax'd only out of curiosity as in 2008 the new, modern, non-originalist addition of "individuals" into the law by Scalia is now the law.... although the ability to limit what weapons can be owned by individuals was left to future legislation.

#53 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-02 08:16 PM | Reply

Ooopss...I meant East Berlin....not West

#54 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2019-12-02 08:22 PM | Reply

"I'm sure someone means well, it's just that this law seems to be overstepping."

^
The Second Amendment in a nutshell.
Well said.

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-02 10:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I've explained to you more than once, in excruciating detail, why this isn't true.

You havent done anything but ignore the PROOF I gave you in posts 28 - 31...

Sort of kin to you putting your fingers in your ears going LALALALALALAALALALALALALA

#56 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-02 11:12 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Ok, where is the "well regulated" militia?

It's where the people want it to be. In their individual, sovereign states, independent of the federal government.

Who's "regulating" these nut jobs running around hugging their ARs? How do you have any kind of command structure and how do you have a "well regulated militia" without one?

Not you. You are against us. You think the federal government, who the militia's that were created in the constitution to guard against, should be regulated by the one entity they were created to be a check on?

God liberals are stupid...

#57 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-02 11:15 PM | Reply

We're allowed to have guns just like we're allowed to have toasters. Get the ---- over it already.

#58 | Posted by Merovigan at 2019-12-03 01:46 AM | Reply

btw, to which "well-regulated militia" do you belong?

#53 | POSTED BY CORKY AT 2019-12-02 08:16 PM | FLAG:

Huey Newton Gun Club

#59 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-12-03 07:22 AM | Reply

While everybody is busying arguing The People or The Militia, the actual meat of the case is interesting.

Dearing, on behalf of NY, is trying to give the SC justices verbal exceptions to written law to get the case mooted. No way in hell that's going to work.

#60 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-12-03 07:48 AM | Reply

#60 it's also interesting because they're arguing against a law that has already been repealed.

What other outdated/non-existent laws will they fight against?

#61 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-12-03 08:32 AM | Reply

It's not repealed. It's modified.

#62 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-12-03 08:45 AM | Reply

"Gorsuch also noted that it's unclear whether the new rules allow gun owners to make stops while en route to ranges, competitions, or second homes outside the city. The city says such trips have to be "continuous and uninterrupted," while the state law says gun owners have to be traveling "directly" to their destinations. If those restrictions might be read to preclude stops for coffee, gas, or bathroom breaks, Gorsuch wondered, "why isn't there a live controversy remaining?" He suggested that "despite herculean, late-breaking efforts to moot the case," there is still relief the plaintiffs could obtain only through a decision on the merits.

Dearing assured the justices that the NYPD would not look askance at "reasonably necessary" stops for coffee, gas, or bladder relief, prompting Gorsuch to wonder, "Is coffee reasonably necessary?" While that remark prompted laughter, Gorsuch emphasized his point: "What's going to qualify? I'm just a little unclear about that.""

I'll go out on a limb and say coffee is an absolute necessity.

#63 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-12-03 08:53 AM | Reply

Somebody please tell us when BOAZ became an unsupervised out-patient. I am concerned as he presents as though his personal cheese has slipped off his cracker. If BOAZ's numerous comments on this particular post were a single note, it would read like a Trump outburst.

#64 | Posted by john47 at 2019-12-03 10:10 AM | Reply

It's not repealed. It's modified.

#62 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG AT 2019-12-03 08:45 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

The article says it is. I heard in another news report that it was.

Can you explain further?

#65 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-12-03 10:21 AM | Reply

Call it a repeal & replace? New rules in effect. That's what Gorsuch was picking apart, the new rules ambiguous writing around what "continuous journey" means.

#66 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-12-03 11:03 AM | Reply

Ok, where is the "well regulated" militia?
It's where the people want it to be. In their individual, sovereign states, independent of the federal government.
#57 | POSTED BY BOAZ

So then how was President Washington command the Militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, if the militia was independent of the Federal Government?

"Washington assumed emergency power to assemble more than 12,000 men from the surrounding states and eastern Pennsylvania as a federal militia." www.history.com

I don't think you knew what you were saying when you swore the Oath of Office, Boaz.

#67 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-03 01:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#67: Hmm, I wonder if the assembled militia showed up with their personal weapons or were they issued weapons by Washington?

#68 | Posted by Daniel at 2019-12-03 01:31 PM | Reply

What other outdated/non-existent laws will they fight against?

#61 | Posted by BruceBanner

The ones you liberals havent thought up yet..

#69 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-03 01:50 PM | Reply

So then how was President Washington command the Militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion, if the militia was independent of the Federal Government?

From soldiers who were still on the active/Inactive rolls. This isnt hard, Snoofy.

Why you try to so hard to not understand what type of nation and government we have is beyond me..

#70 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-03 01:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Washington responded by sending peace commissioners to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the rebels, while at the same time calling on governors to send a militia force to enforce the tax. Washington himself rode at the head of an army to suppress the insurgency, with 13,000 militiamen provided by the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

Basically, it was the national guard Washington used....

en.wikipedia.org

#71 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-03 01:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

The shooting part of the Whiskey Rebellion was started by a militia. They list them as "insurgents", but James McFarlane & crew were 2nd Company, 2nd Battalion West Pennsborough Township Militia.

#72 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-12-03 02:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- The shooting part of the Whiskey Rebellion was started by a militia.

The next one will be started by Boaz's Bare Foot Militia.

#73 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-03 03:38 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

News of Necker's dismissal reached Paris on the afternoon of Sunday, 12 July. The Parisians generally presumed that the dismissal marked the start of a coup by conservative elements.[12] Liberal Parisians were further enraged by the fear that a concentration of Royal troops"brought in from frontier garrisons to Versailles, Svres, the Champ de Mars, and Saint-Denis"would attempt to shut down the National Constituent Assembly, which was meeting in Versailles. Crowds gathered throughout Paris, including more than ten thousand at the Palais-Royal. Camille Desmoulins successfully rallied the crowd by "mounting a table, pistol in hand, exclaiming: 'Citizens, there is no time to lose; the dismissal of Necker is the knell of a Saint Bartholomew for patriots! This very night all the Swiss and German battalions will leave the Champ de Mars to massacre us all; one resource is left; to take arms!'"[7]

Funny how, in the midst of the French revolution, the people realized the only way to true freedom, was to take up arms. But afterward, the liberals who had gained control, immediately disarmed the public.

#74 | Posted by boaz at 2019-12-04 08:38 AM | Reply

How does your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment correlate with the rule of law in the United States?

Are you so stopid you don't know the constitution is the supreme law of the land?

#75 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-12-04 11:30 AM | Reply

He means what are you going to do when there's eventually a convention of the states that removes the 2nd amendment. That's the law of the land.

#16 | Posted by sitzkrieg

Dumb interpretation of what he said. What you said is NOT going to happen. There will be a shooting war when that happens and the USA will no longer exist.

#76 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-12-04 11:34 AM | Reply

"Funny how, in the midst of the French revolution, the people realized the only way to true freedom, was to take up arms."

Did they have to do anything with the arms, such as use them on their repressive government, or was merely having arms enough to guarantee their true freedom?

Is it the same in America? Is having arms sufficient, or do we have to use them on our government to get true freedom?

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-04 02:44 PM | Reply

the federal government, who the militia's that were created in the constitution to guard against

The Right: "Support our Troops! We Back the Badge! Stand for the Anthem! Freedom Isn't Free!"

Also the Right: "We need guns to shoot at our troops."

#78 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-04 02:49 PM | Reply

"Also the Right: "We need guns to shoot at our troops.""

It was downright hilarious, that Rand Paul stopped retweeting about the 2nd amendment being to protect against tyranny, once he discovered HE could be the tyrannical target to some.

#79 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-04 02:59 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