Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, April 03, 2022

Six people were killed and 10 others wounded in a mass shooting in downtown Sacramento early Sunday, transforming multiple blocks of the central city into a horrific crime scene of blood and shattered glass.

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.

Wow ... crazy

twitter.com

#1 | Posted by oneironaut at 2022-04-03 12:10 PM | Reply

An Armed Society Is A Polite Society.

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-04-03 03:12 PM | Reply

Are they war crimes?

#3 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2022-04-03 06:48 PM | Reply

This reminds me just how many people did Putin have murdered in that Russian theater?

#4 | Posted by Tor at 2022-04-03 07:01 PM | Reply

Are they war crimes?

Six is barely even news.

#5 | Posted by REDIAL at 2022-04-03 07:02 PM | Reply

#4 Another time everyone knew Putin was going to kill a bunch of civilians and nobody could do anything about it.

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-04-03 07:07 PM | Reply

IAMRUNT is concerned about a handful of crisis actors?

#7 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2022-04-03 07:09 PM | Reply

IAMRUNT is concerned about a handful of crisis actors?

Just gleeful it happened in California. I'm surprised Gracie didn't post it.

#8 | Posted by REDIAL at 2022-04-03 07:16 PM | Reply

Just gleeful it happened in California.

You are? I am saddened, many friends of mine live off J street downtown.

Incredibly shocking for them.

#9 | Posted by oneironaut at 2022-04-03 07:55 PM | Reply

Thoughts and prayers.

Nothing can be done.

Too bad there wasn't a good guy with a gun around to save the day.

Abortions are murder!

#10 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-04-03 07:58 PM | Reply

"#4 Another time everyone knew Putin was going to kill a bunch of civilians and nobody could do anything about it."

All I know is that I could have saved more lives than Putin that day simply doing nothing.

Now I don't want to say he's a mass murderer or anything but there are some very intelligent people out there with questions about all the kids that he got killed.

#11 | Posted by Tor at 2022-04-03 08:12 PM | Reply

Thanks NRA!

#12 | Posted by a_monson at 2022-04-04 03:49 AM | Reply

Any word on the shooter? Last I read is the shooter is still at large and unidentified.

#13 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-04-04 11:40 AM | Reply

Imagine being so cucked by the Russian-funded NRA that you won't even support reasonable gun safety measures, murder after murder, mass shooting after mass shooting. We just have to live like this, forever.

Republicans. Are. Scum.

#14 | Posted by JOE at 2022-04-04 11:46 AM | Reply

Too bad. So sad. But, as you know, Nothing Can be Done.

Just another American Freedom event. In the Land of the Free.

The Tree of Liberty is so very thirsty and must be constantly fed with the blood of innocents.

It is the Way.

Apparently.

#15 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-04-04 12:19 PM | Reply

You can always count on the usual leftist idiots to show up on a gun thread.

#16 | Posted by willowby at 2022-04-04 01:11 PM | Reply

ONEIRONAUT isn't a leftist.

#17 | Posted by Tor at 2022-04-04 01:26 PM | Reply

You can always count on the usual leftist idiots to show up on a gun thread.

#16 | Posted by willowby

Just like you can always count on a bunch of firemen to show up at an apartment fire.

#18 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-04-04 01:28 PM | Reply

You can always count on the usual leftist idiots to show up on a gun thread.
#16 | POSTED BY WILLOWBY

It's a gun thread? There may be hope for you yet.

#19 | Posted by JOE at 2022-04-04 01:31 PM | Reply

I'm hearing the recovered gun came from Nevada.

#20 | Posted by Tor at 2022-04-04 01:38 PM | Reply

Any word on the shooter? Last I read is the shooter is still at large and unidentified.
#13 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

That doesn't sound very polite.

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-04-04 01:49 PM | Reply

Any word on the shooter?

Sounds like there were several.

#22 | Posted by REDIAL at 2022-04-04 02:08 PM | Reply

You can always count on the usual leftist idiots to show up on a gun thread.
#16 | POSTED BY WILLOWBY

I didn't realize you were a leftist.

#23 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-04-04 02:10 PM | Reply

Yeah. How stupid are those leftists. Why can't they be rel smrt like the gun-fondlers, who can't see ANY way to reduce the number of Americans shot.

#24 | Posted by contrecoup at 2022-04-04 03:11 PM | Reply

"Any word on the shooter? Last I read is the shooter is still at large and unidentified."

The shooter was some sort of firearm. What else matters?

#25 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-04-04 03:16 PM | Reply

"Yeah. How stupid are those leftists. Why can't they be rel smrt like the gun-fondlers, who can't see ANY way to reduce the number of Americans shot."

Maybe the US should ban gus.

Like Mexico did.

#26 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-04-04 03:16 PM | Reply

"Maybe the US should ban guns."

No need to ban them.
Just control who has access to them.
Unfortunately the Second Amendment makes that outright illegal or practically unworkable.

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-04-04 03:18 PM | Reply

Unfortunately the Second Amendment makes that outright illegal or practically unworkable.

I correct you on this a lot, but the Second Amendment is not the problem; the Federalist Society's new, bad faith, NRA-friendly, judicially imposed interpretation of it is.

#28 | Posted by JOE at 2022-04-04 03:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#28

I don't understand your position. Do the people have the right to keep and bear arms or not?

The constitution seems to say they do. Is the constitution wrong?

And if it is wrong, it's OK to just ignore it, right?

#29 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-04-04 03:40 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Fair point.

I don't see those interpretations changing any time soon.

Correction: I can only foresee those interpretations becoming even more restrictive of government's ability to control and regulate trafficking in small arms.

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-04-04 03:40 PM | Reply

"I don't understand your position. Do the people have the right to keep and bear arms or not?"

For example: Permitless concealed carry. Constitutional right, or up to the states?

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-04-04 03:41 PM | Reply

The constitution seems to say they do. Is the constitution wrong?

And if it is wrong, it's OK to just ignore it, right?

#29 | Posted by madbomber

Well we ignore the part about "well trained militia" so why not just ignore the whole thing?

#32 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-04-04 03:46 PM | Reply

One of the perpetrators has now been arrested. The only question the majority of Californians have to ask is what steps are needed to prevent more guns coming from Nevada.

#33 | Posted by Tor at 2022-04-04 03:46 PM | Reply

don't understand your position. Do the people have the right to keep and bear arms or not?

The constitution seems to say they do. Is the constitution wrong?

And if it is wrong, it's OK to just ignore it, right?

#29 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Is the constitution a suicide pact?

#34 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-04-04 03:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I don't understand your position. Do the people have the right to keep and bear arms or not?
The constitution seems to say they do. Is the constitution wrong?
And if it is wrong, it's OK to just ignore it, right?
#29 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

The Second Amendment says that people have the right to keep and bear arms in the mandatory context of a well-regulated militia. This was interpreted by virtually every federal court to consider the question from the Amendment's inception through the year 2000 to mean that it conferred no rights upon a citizen to own a weapon if it had no connection to a "well-regulated militia." The notion that everyone in the US can own a gun because the 2nd Amendment says so is a relatively new, novel, and completely bastardized reading pushed by the NRA and FedSoc judges.

#35 | Posted by JOE at 2022-04-04 05:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The Second Amendment says that people have the right to keep and bear arms in the mandatory context of a well-regulated militia.

Define "context"?

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.

A free states security is derived from a well-regulated militia.
A well-regulated militia is made up of the people keeping and bearing arms.

To conclude ...
The ability of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It might not be reasonable today but it was taken for granted by the colonists that the right to individually possess and bear arms was inseparable from the right to form a militia.

mean that it conferred no rights upon a citizen to own a weapon if it had no connection to a "well-regulated militia."

The right to have arms/guns by individuals, was derived by the English, in fact it was used by the colonists, in its fight against the English during the Revolutionary War and was later incorporated into the Constitution.

#36 | Posted by oneironaut at 2022-04-04 11:27 PM | Reply

"A free states security is derived from a well-regulated militia."

LOL no. A free state's security is derived from the consent of the governed.

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-04-04 11:32 PM | Reply

I understand what the Second Amendment says.

That part of it is simply not true. It serves as propaganda, and a rationalization for an insane law, a law that lets someone have a gun even when their intent is criminal.

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-04-04 11:33 PM | Reply

a law that lets someone have a gun even when their intent is criminal.

That was an abysmally stupid piece of writing, Snoofy.

#39 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-04-04 11:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Foreigners are use to being ruled by crazy people Americans are not okay with it. Unlike you people our Founders were not stupid and had no intention of arming crazies convicts or kids.

That's why we have a president and you have a dictator.

#40 | Posted by Tor at 2022-04-04 11:44 PM | Reply

#39 The Second Amendment is an abysmally stupid piece of law.

Without it, we wouldn't be required to let people have guns even when their sole intent is criminal.

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-04-04 11:58 PM | Reply

"For example: Permitless concealed carry. Constitutional right, or up to the states?"

The answer to that question would come from a court. I can offer my opinion, which would be that you shouldn't need a permit to exercise a constitutional right.

#42 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-04-05 02:21 PM | Reply

"Well we ignore the part about "well trained militia" so why not just ignore the whole thing?"

Not at all. It's the right to keep and bear arms that makes the well-trained militia a possibility.

#43 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-04-05 02:21 PM | Reply

"Is the constitution a suicide pact?"

I don't understand the question. The constitution is not a pact at all, and its purpose is not to enable suicide.

#44 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-04-05 02:23 PM | Reply

"This was interpreted by virtually every federal court to consider the question from the Amendment's inception through the year 2000 to mean that it conferred no rights upon a citizen to own a weapon if it had no connection to a "well-regulated militia." The notion that everyone in the US can own a gun because the 2nd Amendment says so is a relatively new, novel, and completely bastardized reading pushed by the NRA and FedSoc judges."

Really?

So at the time of the drafting of the constitution, arms were only legally kept in order to support militia actions?

#45 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-04-05 02:25 PM | Reply

"LOL no. A free state's security is derived from the consent of the governed."

Like in Russia?

#46 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-04-05 02:26 PM | Reply

"Unlike you people our Founders were not stupid and had no intention of arming crazies convicts or kids."

I think they had every intention of arming them if supported the defense of the state.

Consider the Azov Battalion fighting the Russians in Ukraine. Would you permit them to have guns?

#47 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-04-05 02:28 PM | Reply

"Without it, we wouldn't be required to let people have guns even when their sole intent is criminal."

If you were somehow able to determine that their intent was criminal, why not just preemptively remove them from society.

#48 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-04-05 02:29 PM | Reply

"If you were somehow able to determine that their intent was criminal, "

But we're not able to determine that.
Which is why we shouldn't grant the right to people who shouldn't be trusted.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-04-05 02:34 PM | Reply

"LOL no. A free state's security is derived from the consent of the governed."
Like in Russia?
#46 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

You're calling Russia a free state?

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-04-05 02:35 PM | Reply

"You're calling Russia a free state?"

It's their latest time wasting method.

#51 | Posted by Tor at 2022-04-05 02:36 PM | Reply

But we're not able to determine that.
Which is why we shouldn't grant the right to people who shouldn't be trusted.

#49 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2022-04-05 02:34 PM

In your world, who are "people who shouldn't be trusted"?

#52 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-04-05 03:00 PM | Reply

In your world, who are "people who shouldn't be trusted"?

#52 | Posted by lfthndthrds

The ones who lie about a fair election and attempt a fascist coup.

Which could have all been avoided if morons realized to stop trusting them after they told blatant lies about their inauguration size, proving to the world that they would just lie even in the face of plain evidence to the contrary.

#53 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-04-05 03:15 PM | Reply

Really?

Yes, really.

But if you don't believe me, or are going to insinuate that what i said is not true, please go peruse federal case law on the Second Amendment dating from 1789-2000 and let me know what you find. I'll be waiting. My guess is for quite a while.

#54 | Posted by JOE at 2022-04-05 03:34 PM | Reply

So at the time of the drafting of the constitution, arms were only legally kept in order to support militia actions?

That's not what i said at all; you're a piss-poor reader. What i said was merely that the Second Amendment was generally not interpreted by federal courts to affirmatively confer a right of private weapons ownership unless the weapon in question had some nexus to a well-regulated militia.

There is a difference between the Constitution granting someone a specific right and someone merely doing something anyway because no other level of government has decided to prohibit it. For example, the Constitution doesn't explicitly say you have a right to pretend to be stupid on the computer. You just do it anyway.

#55 | Posted by JOE at 2022-04-05 03:37 PM | Reply

In your world, who are "people who shouldn't be trusted"?
#52 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

Basically, nobody should be trusted with a gun without an extensive background check first.

Much like a bank wouldn't issue you a loan without a background check first.

#56 | Posted by Snoofy at 2022-04-05 04:17 PM | Reply

A national background check is what Lincoln would want.

Just some simple questions like Are you a traitor? Have you a history of mental illness? can you prove you're an adult? are you a felon or planning to commit a crime?

Any one of those questions would have taken care of Booth.

#57 | Posted by Tor at 2022-04-05 04:21 PM | Reply

And Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy.

Our Presidents have about a 1 in 10 chance of getting assassinated with a gun.

That shows the Second Amendment is working as intended -- provided you believe it exists so that the average citizen can overthrow tyranny.

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-04-05 04:29 PM | Reply

In your world, who are "people who shouldn't be trusted"?

#52 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

1. People that lie about the results of an election
2. People that incite a riot that invades our nation's capitol during a peaceful transition of administrations
3. ------- like you, -------.

#59 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2022-04-05 07:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Our Presidents have about a 1 in 10 chance of getting assassinated with a gun.
That shows the Second Amendment is working as intended -- provided you believe it exists so that the average citizen can overthrow tyranny.

#58 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

In the course of the history of the United States four Presidents have been assassinated, within less than 100 years, beginning with Abraham Lincoln in 1865. Attempts were also made on the lives of two other Presidents, one President-elect, and one ex-President. Still other Presidents were the objects of plots that were never carried out. The actual attempts occurred as follows:

Andrew Jackson, Jan. 30, 1835.
Abraham Lincoln, Apr. 14, 1865. Died Apr. 15, 1865.
James A. Garfield, July 2, 1881. Died Sept. 19, 1881.
William McKinley, Sept. 6, 1901. Died Sept. 14, 1901.
Theodore Roosevelt, Oct. 14, 1912. Wounded; recovered.
Franklin D. Roosevelt, Feb. 15, 1933.
Harry S. Truman, Nov. 1, 1950.
John F. Kennedy, Nov. 22, 1963. Died that day.
Attempts have thus been made on the lives of one of every five American Presidents. One of every nine Presidents has been killed. Since 1865, there have been attempts on the lives of one of every four Presidents and the successful assassination of one of every five. During the last three decades, three attacks were made.

www.archives.gov

#60 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-04-05 09:58 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 2022 World Readable

Drudge Retort