Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, June 23, 2022

As the country struggles from an epidemic of mass shootings, the US Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York handgun-licensing law that will usher in the widest expansion of gun rights in a decade.

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.

That was a pretty ruthless decision from the High Court.

Get it?

#1 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-06-23 11:40 AM | Reply | Funny: 3

I'd like to thank Joe Biden and the Democratic gerontocracy for failing to appreciate or address the magnitude of horrors that will come from this illegitimate SCOTUS "majority," which is really nothing more than an unelected third legislative body at this point.

#2 | Posted by JOE at 2022-06-23 11:41 AM | Reply

address the magnitude of horrors

Adhering to the ------- Constitution?

Get a grip, Poof.

#3 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-06-23 11:43 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"Adhering to the ------- Constitution?"

So you're saying we weren't adhering to the Constitution, back whenever America was Great...

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-23 11:52 AM | Reply

which is really nothing more than an unelected third legislative body at this point.

#2 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2022-06-23 11:41 AM | REPLY | FLAG

You've made it clear that you would like the Supreme Court to be a legislative body by stripping people of their constitutional rights, to make your opinion law.

#5 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-06-23 11:52 AM | Reply

So you're saying we weren't adhering to the Constitution, back whenever America was Great...

------- New York obviously wasn't ;)

#6 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-06-23 11:53 AM | Reply

"Adhering to the ------- Constitution?"

More like they are adhering to the alternate history created by the NRA in the last 50 years.

Maybe you are the one one needs to get a grip.

Try getting a grip on real history of guns in America.

Instead of your alternate one.

Enjoy the consequences (which you will later refuse to accept responsibility for).

#7 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-06-23 11:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Try getting a grip on real history of guns in America.

Oh. Now there's a "secret history of guns in America"---like a Howard Zinn version?

Shut the ---- up, Leftist scum.

So ------- sick of you people.

#8 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-06-23 11:58 AM | Reply

in recent years, we've discovered the Constitution has twice been interpreted wrong for well over a century, in ways broadly affecting the general public. (The other example is gay marriage.)

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-23 11:58 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Shut the ---- up, Leftist scum.
So ------- sick of you people.
#8 | POSTED BY MAO_CONTENT

^
Conservatives seem to be getting everything they want.
So why are they still so angry?

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-23 11:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

You've made it clear that you would like the Supreme Court to be a legislative body by stripping people of their constitutional rights, to make your opinion law.
#5 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

LOL
Right to Abortion on Line 2

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-23 12:00 PM | Reply

So you're saying we weren't adhering to the Constitution, back whenever America was Great...

No, back when we didnt need a court decision to understand you dont screw with the right to carry a weapon.

#12 | Posted by boaz at 2022-06-23 12:01 PM | Reply

Enjoy the consequences (which you will later refuse to accept responsibility for).
#7 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2022-06-23 11:55 AM

Like people being able to protect themselves when police can't, or outright won't protect them?

#13 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-06-23 12:01 PM | Reply

Right to Abortion on Line 2

Which hasnt been taken from anyone. Line 2 loud enough?

#14 | Posted by boaz at 2022-06-23 12:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Finally, a court that makes good, modern decisions. A good back stop to preventing liberals from destroying this great nation and what it stands for.

#15 | Posted by boaz at 2022-06-23 12:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

BTW, if you dont carry concealed, GFY, it doesnt affect you anyway.

#16 | Posted by boaz at 2022-06-23 12:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Conservatives seem to be getting everything they want. So why are they still so angry?

Rights of all people are being expanded by the Court.

Why are leftists so angry?

#17 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-06-23 12:08 PM | Reply

Or is that just supposed to be for the alphabet people?

#18 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-06-23 12:08 PM | Reply

Oh. Now there's a "secret history of guns in America"---like a Howard Zinn version?

New York has required anyone to carry guns outside the home needed a license since 1911.

It's not a secret. Except to morons like you apparently.

The Sullivan Act was a gun control law in New York state that took effect in 1911. The NY state law requires licenses for New Yorkers to possess firearms small enough to be concealed. Private possession of such firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, and carrying them in public is a felony.

#19 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-06-23 12:09 PM | Reply

And next, as gun crimes increase in NY thanks to this overreach by SCOTUS, conservatives will blame NY's Dem politicians for not being tough enough on crime.

#20 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2022-06-23 12:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

Why are leftists so angry?

#17 | POSTED BY MAO_CONTENT

Why are Trumpers such selfish ignorant loudmouth morons?

#21 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-06-23 12:11 PM | Reply

The Sullivan Act was a gun control law in New York state that took effect in 1911. The NY state law requires licenses for New Yorkers to possess firearms small enough to be concealed. Private possession of such firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, and carrying them in public is a felony.

So kinda like Jimm Crow laws in terms of constitutionality?

What happened to those?

#22 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-06-23 12:12 PM | Reply

You've made it clear that you would like the Supreme Court to be a legislative body by stripping people of their constitutional rights

I'd settle fir them abiding by hundreds of years of Second Amendment jurisprudence stating that a weapon needs to have some nexus to a well-regulated militia for the 2A to confer any rights of ownership, instead of just deleting half the Amendment's text without any consent of the governed.

But yeah, if they're gonna be a transparently partisan legislature, i'd prefer they not force extremist minority views on the country and drag us back into the stone age. But i can see why that might appeal to a knuckle-dragging mouthbreather like you.

#23 | Posted by JOE at 2022-06-23 12:13 PM | Reply

The Sullivan Act was a gun control law in New York state that took effect in 1911. The NY state law requires licenses for New Yorkers to possess firearms small enough to be concealed. Private possession of such firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, and carrying them in public is a felony.

#19 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2022-06-23 12:09 PM | REPLY

The problem was never with the permit itself. The problem lies with the people in charge who get to determine if someone's need to carry is legit, and in most cases self defense doesn't cut it. The permitting is still subject to background/criminal convictions and mental health records.

#24 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-06-23 12:14 PM | Reply

widest expansion of gun rights

It's not an "expansion" if the right was already there.

Do you people really think rights are given by man?

#25 | Posted by boaz at 2022-06-23 12:14 PM | Reply

"So kinda like Jimm Crow laws in terms of constitutionality?"

Nothing to do with the "jim crow" laws of the south.

Regulation of guns is obviously constitutional. The scotus just said so. And has historical presidence.

#26 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-06-23 12:16 PM | Reply

And next, as gun crimes increase in NY thanks to this overreach by SCOTUS, conservatives will blame NY's Dem politicians for not being tough enough on crime.

#20 | POSTED BY WHATSLEFT AT 2022-06-23 12:10 PM

Even with the laws they've had on the books, New York's crime is presently climbing and police officers in NYC are quitting at an alarming rate.

#27 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-06-23 12:17 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

i'd prefer they not force extremist minority views on the country

I bet 70% of the nation agrees with this. People like YOU are the problem. This was done to keep you liberals in check when you overreach on a person's right to carry.

God Bless America.

#28 | Posted by boaz at 2022-06-23 12:17 PM | Reply

Right to Abortion on Line 2
Which hasnt been taken from anyone. Line 2 loud enough?
#14 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Texas on Line 2.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-23 12:24 PM | Reply

I bet 70% of the nation agrees with this.

That's because you're retarded and live in an information bubble. Not my problem.

#30 | Posted by JOE at 2022-06-23 12:24 PM | Reply

i'd prefer they not force extremist minority views on the country and drag us back into the stone age.

#23 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2022-06-23 12:13 PM | FLAG:

Because all of the gun laws created in the last 200 years, where we limited access for law abiding citizens access, has made us all safer. Good luck with that.

#31 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-06-23 12:26 PM | Reply

back when we didnt need a court decision to understand you dont screw with the right to carry a weapon.
#12 | POSTED BY BOAZ

When exactly do you think that was? Because prior to the Roberts era, our federal courts uniformly interpreted the 2A to mean that you had zero, none, absolutely no "right" to own or carry a weapon unless that weapon had some nexus to a well-regulated militia. So you aren't really trying to go "back" to anything - you're trying to drag the vast majority of Americans kicking and screaming into your NRA-funded and bastardized interpretation of the 2A.

#32 | Posted by JOE at 2022-06-23 12:27 PM | Reply

#31 Unintentionally correct. The only time you're ever right about anything.

#33 | Posted by JOE at 2022-06-23 12:28 PM | Reply

Re 31

More guns are going to make us safer?

Good luck with that ! (Painfully but obviously not true)

#34 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-06-23 12:29 PM | Reply

Rights of all people are being expanded by the Court.
Why are leftists so angry?
#17 | POSTED BY MAO_CONTENT

^
The only right of all people that the Court has expanded is access to firearms.
Things like the right to appeal your conviction because your legal team was asleep have been removed.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-23 12:29 PM | Reply

Because all of the gun laws created in the last 200 years, where we limited access for law abiding citizens access, has made us all safer. Good luck with that.
#31 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

LOL!!
Especially the
"where we limited access for law abiding citizens access"

Pulse Nightclub sure made us all safer!

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-23 12:31 PM | Reply

"What guns do is make hostile interactions"robberies, assaults"much more deadly,"

#37 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-06-23 12:33 PM | Reply

Don't panic. A bi-partisan Congress has finally found its moral backbone concerning the powerful NRA lobby. It looks like a federal gun law is going to trump (no pun intended) state law.

This Supreme Court decision looks more like a "cover our conservative ass" decision, knowing that so many Republicans on board with Biden's gun legislation will be taking the heat instead of them.

#38 | Posted by Twinpac at 2022-06-23 12:40 PM | Reply

Biden and the Dems need to deal with the clear and present danger presented by the right wing crazies on the SC. Pack the God damned court and return the nation to democracy. Use all the tools we have available.

#39 | Posted by danni at 2022-06-23 12:40 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

This is the part of the story where the taxpayer is informed that judges need more security, because everyone deserves a gun and they aren't safe from all the Americans being kept safe with their guns

It's a big win for someone, who exactly I don't know

#40 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2022-06-23 12:40 PM | Reply

When exactly do you think that was? Because prior to the Roberts era, our federal courts uniformly interpreted the 2A to mean that you had zero, none, absolutely no "right" to own or carry a weapon unless that weapon had some nexus to a well-regulated militia.
~ Joe

Not exactly true, It was a collision of gun restrictions imposed by the states got tighter and tighter, eventually the SCOTUS had to make an interpretation.

The NRA used to be for gun control, but once they saw it becoming restrictive they realized they would be legislated out of existence.

I wouldn't have a problem with more control, if the government in these big cities actually protected its citizens, its the Wild West at this point, all over the Bay Area there are shootings, with the good citizen being helpless, but the Politician, MovieStart and Sports star can carry; Why shouldn't an individual be able to carry if they feel they need protecting? Either we all can or none of us can.

#41 | Posted by oneironaut at 2022-06-23 12:44 PM | Reply

Pulse Nightclub sure made us all safer!

#36 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2022-06-23 12:31 PM | REPLY

The worst part about that was he was turned in by his own family as being mentally unstable and 100% capable of doing that. No one did anything.

#42 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-06-23 12:50 PM | Reply

No one did anything.

That's not true. SCOTUS, Republicans, the NRA all made it possible for him to legally buy and use weapons of war in a nightclub.

#43 | Posted by YAV at 2022-06-23 12:52 PM | Reply

Why shouldn't an individual be able to carry if they feel they need protecting? Either we all can or none of us can.
#41 | POSTED BY ONEIRONAUT

While I agree individuals be able to carry they should also be regulated. Registered and licensed and background checked. I think they decided NY was too restrictive. You should be allowed to concealed carry if you can show cause. Those causes were not well defined and was left up to the local sheriff.

Unfortunately as far as I can tell, the supremes did not to help define those causes or restrictions.

#44 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-06-23 12:53 PM | Reply

"That's not true. SCOTUS, Republicans, the NRA all made it possible for him to legally buy and use weapons of war in a nightclub."

Actually, the constitution did that. Just as it would have done if this were 1790.

#45 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-23 12:55 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

The law was 100 years old!!!!! Clarence Thomas is an idiot and should resign for his attempt to shield his wife's emails.

#46 | Posted by Enlightened at 2022-06-23 12:56 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

SCOTUS Republicans say "you have to look at the history of law on this matter!"
NY says "Our law is 100 years old."
SCOTUS Republicans say "Not that law!"

#47 | Posted by YAV at 2022-06-23 12:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Do you people really think rights are given by man?

#25 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Interesting philosophical question.

I believe rights are what a group of people, living together as a group, community, or state, decide they are. That decision may be simple or complex, as well as the enforcement and consequences of the decision. And if they do not decide, it is likely someone else will decide for them.

#48 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-06-23 12:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Actually, the constitution did that. Just as it would have done if this were 1790.

Wrong.

An misinterpretation of the 2nd that was pushed starting in the 70's when the patent expired on the AR-15 by Colt expired and politicians and the NRA (gun manufacturers) needed it changed so they could make tons of money selling weapons of war to every day "muricans.

That it fits your bias is irrelevant.

#49 | Posted by YAV at 2022-06-23 01:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

As I read it, basically today's SCOTUS just took a shiv to Scalia's Heller ruling from 2008. I guess that makes Scalia a flaming lib by today's standards when he quite clearly stated that certain regulations were constitutional under the historical interpretations of the 2nd Amendment.

Can't wait to hear why Anton was so obviously wrong as Clarence reinterprets the past into what he thinks it should have been, ignoring what prior Courts ruled since multiple 2nd Amendment cases have been adjudicated before allowing for reasonable firearm regulations for the sake of public safety in our ever-changing society.

Funny, a person is deprived of both life and liberty when the state allows some idiot to gun them down while they traverse public spaces. Guns uber alles!

#50 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-06-23 01:05 PM | Reply

This is the part of the story where the taxpayer is informed that judges need more security, because everyone deserves a gun and they aren't safe from all the Americans being kept safe with their guns
#40 | POSTED BY CHIEFTUTMOSES

Courtrooms are gun free zones.
How can that be?
How can a participant in the court's proceedings protect themselves from someone who doesn't obey the law?

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-23 01:07 PM | Reply

Do you people really think rights are given by man?
#25 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Well, since you asked:
Who do you believe gave New Yorkers their rights today, Boaz?

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-23 01:08 PM | Reply

Do you people really think rights are given by man?

#25 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Interesting philosophical question.

Indeed.

Apparently bozo thinks the only people on earth are Americans. Our rights are not universal.

Who /what defines our rights?

The constitution does. It is a contract between the people and the government of the people by the people and for the people.

While the constitution may have been "divinely inspired " it was written by men and interpreted by men (and now, of course, women).

#53 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-06-23 01:09 PM | Reply

This is what happens with a political SC.

Also what happens when Old West Fairy Tales become historical facts:

"But there's more: gun laws were not only ubiquitous, numbering in the thousands, but also spanned every conceivable
category of regulation, from gun acquisition, sale, possession, transport, and use, including deprivation of use through outright confiscation, to hunting and recreational regulations, to registration and express gun bans.

For example, the contemporary raging dispute over the regulation of some semi-automatic weapons that began in late 1980s was actually presaged seven decades earlier, when at least seven states banned such weapons entirely - a fact that seems to have been unknown to modern analysts until now.

A vast newly compiled dataset of historical gun laws reveals that the first gun grabbers (as contemporary gun
rights advocates like to label gun control proponents) were not Chablis-drinking liberals of the 1960s, but rum-guzzling pioneers dating to the 1600s."

scholarship.law.duke.edu

#54 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-23 01:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Adhering to the ------- Constitution?
Get a grip, Poof.

#3 | POSTED BY MAO_CONTENT

Your view of the constitution is likely as ------ up as the rest of your world view.

#55 | Posted by jpw at 2022-06-23 01:13 PM | Reply

So ------- sick of you people.

#8 | POSTED BY MAO_CONTENT

And you think miserable trust fund ranchers who are selfish ----- hell bent on making everyone as miserable as them are so loveable?

#56 | Posted by jpw at 2022-06-23 01:14 PM | Reply

Pulse Nightclub sure made us all safer!
#36 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2022-06-23 12:31 PM | REPLY
The worst part about that was he was turned in by his own family as being mentally unstable and 100% capable of doing that. No one did anything.
#42 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

What should have been done?

Are you of the opinion that people should be deprived of their Second Amendment rights because someone else claims they are mentally unstable?

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-23 01:15 PM | Reply

No, back when we didnt need a court decision to understand you dont screw with the right to carry a weapon.

#12 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Poor boaz. He needs to always have his weapon on him in case a trans gendered swimmer says "good morning" to him.

#58 | Posted by jpw at 2022-06-23 01:15 PM | Reply

A good back stop to preventing liberals from destroying this great nation and what it stands for.

#15 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Duuuhhhh libruls...duhhhhh STFU ------.

Your ------ up world view is what's the problem.

#59 | Posted by jpw at 2022-06-23 01:16 PM | Reply

What happened to those?

#22 | POSTED BY MAO_CONTENT

What happened to state's rights?

No right is absolute. It was entirely up to states how to regulate guns within their borders, no?

#60 | Posted by jpw at 2022-06-23 01:17 PM | Reply

Do you people really think rights are given by man?

#25 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Well...since God doesn't exist...

#61 | Posted by jpw at 2022-06-23 01:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

God Bless America.

#28 | POSTED BY BOAZ

You are not in any majority you ------- moron.

Well, except for fake ass Chreestians. That's the majority for sure.

#62 | Posted by jpw at 2022-06-23 01:19 PM | Reply

So, just to be clear, unrestricted open carry of firearms everywhere but outside SCOTUS Justice's homes, right?
How convenient.

#63 | Posted by morris at 2022-06-23 01:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

So kinda like Jimm Crow laws in terms of constitutionality?
What happened to those?
#22 | POSTED BY MAO_CONTENT

So you think one reason for gun violence in America, as exemplified by Chicago, is because it is too hard for Blacks to get guns.

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-23 01:26 PM | Reply

is because it is too hard for Blacks to get guns.

#64 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Well, historically, making it hard for Blacks to get guns was one reason the NRA used to support gun control. Until one of their own got shot during an ATF raid to confiscate stockpiled illegal weapons.

time.com

#65 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-06-23 01:31 PM | Reply

This only makes sense, really.

How are Abortion Bounty Hunters s'posed round up pregnant women if they don't have proper artillery?

#66 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-23 01:32 PM | Reply

"Do you people really think rights are given by man?
#25 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Strange, coming from someone who believes rights are given by guns.

#67 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-06-23 01:33 PM | Reply

"And you think miserable trust fund ranchers who are selfish ----- hell bent on making everyone as miserable as them are so loveable?"

Mao seems to be one of the least miserable people on this site.

It's the people who are always wining about guns and billionaires who seem to be the most miserable.

#68 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-23 01:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It looks like a federal gun law is going to trump (no pun intended) state law.

Thats why you liberals like one dictator. SO you can whine when you dont get your way.

Federal law should never trump state law. The second amemndment already told the federal government what the law is. Everything else is up to the state. I say let NY regulate this. If you are dumb enough to live in NY, you deserve it.

This has just told NY they have stepped too far.

#69 | Posted by boaz at 2022-06-23 01:34 PM | Reply

Strange, coming from someone who believes rights are given by guns.

Rights are protected by guns, rights are given by God.

#70 | Posted by boaz at 2022-06-23 01:36 PM | Reply

"Strange, coming from someone who believes rights are given by guns."

There are two different types of rights, legal and natural. Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government.

Guns don't give you these, but they do offer you a potential solution when someone tries to take them, hence the second amendment.

#71 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-23 01:37 PM | Reply

Amazingly the Roman's found more sensible effective ideas in the guts of chickens than are contained in all of our political sciences (and lately from rulings from Supreme Court).

(Paraphrased from a Paul Valery quote about Europe in the 1920s.)

#72 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-06-23 01:39 PM | Reply

rights are given by God.

#70 | POSTED BY BOAZ

So might makes right?

Also

Which God? How come this God of yours is nowhere mentioned in the constitution?

#73 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-06-23 01:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I've got a great idea that appears to be totally legal. America needs to calculate the complete cost of damage caused by those exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, including the ancillary costs of ramped up security across the board both public and private as it relates to protecting Americans from other Americans who choose to commit gun violence.

And then, those costs should be calculated into a tax percentage added to all gun and ammunition sales everywhere in America.

SCOTUS justices need more protection? Add it to the tab. Congressmen receiving gun violence threats and need more security? Add it to the tab. And so on, and so on.

There is zero reason for non-gun owners/carriers to be forced to protect themselves and their families from those carrying guns on their own dime with the current numbers of shootings and gun fatalities in this nation. Freedoms are not FREE, this should have been obvious from the very beginning. Freedoms have both costs and responsibilities attached and so far 2nd Amendment adherents have been derelict on both accounts.

At minimum, the 2nd Amendment should not be an active threat to the lives and safety of those who have an equal right not to bear arms. And the costs of protection certainly shouldn't fall onto the backs and pocketbooks of the unarmed either.

Time for gun owners to pay the price for their 2nd Amendment freedoms by compensating everyone else who seeks protection from the inevitable carnage and destruction the use of this basic freedom causes - except when said use of this right is attached to citizens acting within a well regulated militia, naturally.

#74 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-06-23 01:45 PM | Reply

Rights of all people are being expanded by the Court.
Why are leftists so angry?

#17 | POSTED BY MAO_CONTENT

Conservatives sitting in front of a keyboard in their mom's basement apparently feel the tree of liberty needs to be watered by the blood of elementary school students.

While the "blue lives" which conservatives think are the only ones that "matter" sit on their laurels letting the "watering" happen.

But conservative saint Ronald Reagan had no problem (and the NRA supported him) in decimating these supposed rights granted by the second amendment when it was black people asserting their "constitutional right".

And you wonder why liberals are angry?

Maybe it is because conservatives are demonstrating themselves to be, in the eyes of decent people (who are not ok with sacrificing the lives of children to score political points), pretty immoral and just all around crappy human beings.

#75 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2022-06-23 01:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Thank God for the Trump Supreme court. Bad times for the rabid left wing.

#76 | Posted by willowby at 2022-06-23 01:46 PM | Reply

"This historical examination is especially relevant to the modern gun debate
because, at its core, that debate is typically framed as a fierce, zero-sum struggle
between supporters of stronger gun laws versus supporters of gun rights (who, of
course, largely oppose stronger gun laws"or so it is said).

The zero-sum quality of this struggle posits that a victory for one side is a loss for the other, and vice
versa.

Yet history tells a very different story"that, for the first 300 years of
America's existence, gun laws and gun rights went hand-in-hand. It is only in
recent decades, as the gun debate has become more politicized and more
ideological that this relationship has been reframed as a zero-sum struggle."

.
from the link in 54, wherein the actual history, volume and types of US gun laws are revealed... not that facts matter to rwingers.

Apparently dead kids are worth their "right" to carry a gun in church or anywhere else.

Fact is that most towns, even Old West towns, in the 16, 17, and 1800s in this country had laws against carrying guns in town.

But hey, when the NRA buys a political cult, they sure stay bought!

#77 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-23 01:50 PM | Reply

Bad times for the rabid left wing.

#76 | POSTED BY WILLOWBY

Parroting Fox News again?

I don't think you know what the word "rabid" means.

The Jan 6 rioters and insurrectionists were "rabid". And they were not from the "left".

#78 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-06-23 01:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

America is so safe now Virginias governor was on the news this morning demanding judges and justices get more taxpayer funded security

So in essence it's a big win for everyone with their own taxpayer funded security force

#79 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2022-06-23 01:59 PM | Reply

rights are given by God.

#70 | POSTED BY BOAZ

But if rights are given by your god, or any god, and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", then our American system of government cannot respect those rights. Therefore the only rights which can be respected are rights decided and agreed upon by people.

#80 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-06-23 02:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Well, our local Brownshirts needed a good day after having people find out that Dear Leader Trump has been and still is lying to them about the last election.

Not that they care any more about a lying President than they do dead school kids.

#82 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-23 02:06 PM | Reply

Chief Justice Warren Burger lays it out clearly and concisely:
www.youtube.com

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

But SCOTUS actually believes what they've decided is consistent with their reasoning for it? Suuuuuure...

#83 | Posted by YAV at 2022-06-23 02:07 PM | Reply

It would be a great day in America if all of you right wing ---------- would follow Budd Dwyer's example.

#84 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2022-06-23 02:08 PM | Reply

Lots of democrat voters gonna get offed while committing crimes in NYC.
Charles Bronson to the rescue!
Pew pew

#85 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2022-06-23 02:08 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Shoot - Two separate thoughts above.
Chief Justice Burger's comments are not what was italicized. The italicized text is from the link below and from Tubin.

#86 | Posted by YAV at 2022-06-23 02:08 PM | Reply

Just think about it Reinsnot, you can now legally carry that 9" barrel up your gay ass.

#87 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2022-06-23 02:09 PM | Reply | Funny: 3 | Newsworthy 1

Rights are protected by guns, rights are given by God.

#70 | POSTED BY BOAZ

God. Doesn't. Exist.

#88 | Posted by jpw at 2022-06-23 02:09 PM | Reply

"God. Doesn't. Exist.

#88 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2022-06-23 02:09 PM"

I'm not a religious person however I am humble enough to know that I don't know whether God does or doesn't exist. I believe he does, but that is just a personal belief.

#89 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-06-23 02:13 PM | Reply

#54 | POSTED BY CORKY

And arguably the most famous gunfight in the "Old West", the O.K. Corral, was precipitated by outlaws carrying weapons in violation of the town ordinance. History and tradition favor states and municipalities restricting weapons possession.

#90 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-06-23 02:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

rights are given by God.

#70 | POSTED BY BOAZ

So might makes right?

Yep.

#91 | Posted by boaz at 2022-06-23 02:15 PM | Reply

101 size queen can fit his entire arsenal in his stretched out --------.

#92 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2022-06-23 02:15 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Pulse Nightclub sure made us all safer!

#36 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2022-06-23 12:31 PM | FLAG: that shooter was a registered dem, so not surprise there.

#93 | Posted by MSgt at 2022-06-23 02:18 PM | Reply

Mao seems to be one of the least miserable people on this site.

Rigght. Because people who show up somewhere with the sole intention of getting a rise out of people are entirely happy, normal and healthy.

That's not at all the behavior of a miserable sad sack...

#94 | Posted by jpw at 2022-06-23 02:19 PM | Reply

Pulse Nightclub sure made us all safer!
#36 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2022-06-23 12:31 PM | FLAG: that shooter was a registered dem, so not surprise there.

#93 | POSTED BY MSGT

STFU you pathetic moron.

#95 | Posted by jpw at 2022-06-23 02:19 PM | Reply

Thank God for the Trump Supreme court. Bad times for the rabid left wing.

#76 | POSTED BY WILLOWBY

Yet why do I suspect Trumpers will be he first to whine when we slip into failed state status.

Will you finally realize you've been used...again? Nah.

#96 | Posted by jpw at 2022-06-23 02:21 PM | Reply

Justice Breyer invokes Uvalde and Buffalo mass shootings in scathing dissent of decision expanding 2nd Amendment

"Many states have tried to address some of the dangers of gun violence," the majority ruling "severely burdens" these efforts, Breyer wrote.

"Since the start of this year alone (2022), there have already been 277 reported mass shootings"an average of more than one per day," Breyer wrote.

"Gun violence has now surpassed motor vehicle crashes as the leading cause of death among children and adolescents," he added, noting that in 2020, 45,222 Americans were killed by firearms, according to federal data.

The majority decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, "invokes the Second Amendment to strike down a New York law regulating the public carriage of concealed handguns. In my view, that decision rests upon several serious mistakes," he wrote. It "refuses to consider the government interests that justify a challenged gun regulation, regardless of how compelling those interests may be."

"When courts interpret the Second Amendment, it is constitutionally proper, indeed often necessary, for them to consider the serious dangers and consequences of gun violence that lead States to regulate firearms," he explained.

"The primary difference between the Court's view and mine is that I believe the Amendment allows States to take account of the serious problems posed by gun violence that I have just described," he added.

"I fear that the Court's interpretation ignores these significant dangers and leaves States without the ability to address them."

www.nbcnews.com

#97 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-23 02:21 PM | Reply

So might makes right?

"Yep."

America was founded on different principles.

You really don't like the concept of America, do you?

#98 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-06-23 02:21 PM | Reply

Wow.

Run into town and back for a dance camp recital and it's up to 92 comments.

The neckbeards are angry lol....

#99 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-06-23 02:21 PM | Reply

I feel safer already.

So may a person otherwise allowed to own a firearm now carry around a concealed AR-15? If not, why not?

The US Supreme Court is absolutely insane. I don't care about your political position on guns. This ruling is wack.

#100 | Posted by moder8 at 2022-06-23 02:22 PM | Reply

Because people who show up somewhere with the sole intention of getting a rise out of people are entirely happy, normal and healthy.

I'm not trying to get a rise out of you or anyone, J. Pussoir.

I'm just using humor and mockery to show how ------- stupid people who "think" like you are.

It's a novel approach to education---like Montessori.

Mao-tessori, if you will.

#101 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-06-23 02:25 PM | Reply

No, back when we didnt need a court decision to understand you dont screw with the right to carry a weapon.

#12 | Posted by boaz

You do realize the NY law that was stuck down was 100 years old right? Of course you don't, what am I thinking.

#102 | Posted by qcp at 2022-06-23 02:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Not that it was very hard in GOP controlled America for a person to carry out a mass-shooting in any case, but this only makes it that much easier.

New trend: People moving to Red States to pay less in taxes, not have their kids adequately educated and to more easily be able to carry out mass homicides.

#103 | Posted by moder8 at 2022-06-23 02:29 PM | Reply

#27 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

How do you even make comments like that with a straight face?

Republican-controlled states have higher murder rates than Democratic ones: study

#104 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2022-06-23 02:30 PM | Reply

- 100 years old right?

Yes, and it was much like thousands of other gun laws in this country over the last 300 years, as per the link in #54.

'Member when "conservatives" were all about state's rights?

Now that's only when states make dead kids more likely, not when they make them less likely.

Which pretty much undermines their supposed concern for all state's rights.

#105 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-23 02:31 PM | Reply

Jpw is still a ------- speedbag...

#106 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2022-06-23 02:34 PM | Reply

- Mao-tessori

Mao-ficence, more like.

www.smithsonianmag.com

#107 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-23 02:35 PM | Reply

And you wonder why liberals are angry?

You're not really "liberals", for starters. At least, not any more.

You're more of a disproportionately noisy online presence that seems to be pining for some technocratic fascist utopia. Given that most of you are purple-haired, semi-translucent little eunuchs of questionable gender and hygiene habits, you just lack the means to enact one in any real sense. You certainly can't impose it on anyone.

I think that's why guns weigh so heavily on the minds of you people. You don't understand the meaning of the word "no", and don't like being told "no" by people whom you wish behave in a certain manner.

The Chinese Communist Party doesn't have that problem.

#108 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-06-23 02:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

POSTED BY 101CHAIRBORNE

Congratulation, Brother.

Good day for you.

#109 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-06-23 02:38 PM | Reply

Poor boaz. He needs to always have his weapon on him in case a trans gendered swimmer says "good morning" to him.

#58 | Posted by jpw

wrong....another typically stupid comment.

He needs to be able to protect himself from some felon just released by a left wing , Soros bought, DA after multiple

crimes / arrests and releases....and those punks don't include the ones swarming the brain dead vegetable's open border.

#110 | Posted by Kempster at 2022-06-23 02:41 PM | Reply

I hope the preventable tragedy of losing a loved to a mass shooting not be suffered by anyone. But if it does have to happen, I hope it happens to people who advocate a pretty much unfettered right to own any gun they want and carry it almost anywhere they want. People like the rightwingers posting on this thread.

#111 | Posted by moder8 at 2022-06-23 02:41 PM | Reply

Member when "conservatives" were all about state's rights?

I remember when Democrats were all about state's rights.

Then I remember the iconic image of National Guards troops escorting a little girl up the school house steps to she could attend.

Those armed troops that were necessary for her to exercise her rights as an American.

This is just a Supreme Court decision, for ----- sake.

Get a grip.

#112 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-06-23 02:42 PM | Reply

#89 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Cool story.

#113 | Posted by jpw at 2022-06-23 02:43 PM | Reply

#112 - and everyone here knows those democrats became dixiecrats became republicans. God you are one willfully stupid ****.

#114 | Posted by YAV at 2022-06-23 02:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So might makes right?
Yep.

#91 | POSTED BY BOAZ

You wouldn't know the Constitution if it kicked you in the AR-15.

#115 | Posted by jpw at 2022-06-23 02:44 PM | Reply

Gun control laws are as American as apple pie and as old as the Constitution.... older actually, per the link in 54.

It's Trump Cultist's mesmerization by the NRA and the "threat" of people who look different than them that stokes this fire to let 18 year olds have tactical weapons... weapons that military service members are required to log weeks of training in.

#116 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-23 02:44 PM | Reply

ou're not really "liberals", for starters. At least, not any more.

You're more of a disproportionately noisy online presence that seems to be pining for some technocratic fascist utopia. Given that most of you are purple-haired, semi-translucent little eunuchs of questionable gender and hygiene habits, you just lack the means to enact one in any real sense. You certainly can't impose it on anyone.

I think that's why guns weigh so heavily on the minds of you people. You don't understand the meaning of the word "no", and don't like being told "no" by people whom you wish behave in a certain manner.

The Chinese Communist Party doesn't have that problem.

#108 | Posted by Mao_Content

1000 %

today's leftist extremist ( democrat voter ) can be depicted by one simple example.

( simple example....maybe even simple enough for YAV and JPW. )

Bill Maher has begun to sound like a member of the 'john birch society' compared to today's so called libs after their sludge inspired move

so far left, they're off the page when you see a 'side by side"

#117 | Posted by Kempster at 2022-06-23 02:45 PM | Reply

It's Trump Cultist's
#116 | Posted by Corky

leftist definitions are --- which is why that's all I need to see.

#118 | Posted by Kempster at 2022-06-23 02:46 PM | Reply

Jpw is still a ------- speedbag...

#106 | POSTED BY 101CHAIRBORNE

And you're still a moron dude bro.

#119 | Posted by jpw at 2022-06-23 02:47 PM | Reply

Armed troops are authorized by the Constitution to protect rights.

Armed hicks with substandard IQs are not.

#120 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-23 02:48 PM | Reply

"#104 | POSTED BY WHATSLEFT AT 2022-06-23 02:30 PM | FLAG:
(CHOOSE)"

The problem with the study cited is it doesn't show its work. It gives one per capita number and other than cherry-picking stats for a couple of cities it doesn't give a breakdown of where those murders occurred in each state.

#121 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-06-23 02:48 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Apparently "State's Rights" only matters when it comes to abolishing abortion and denying Americans their civil rights.

"State's Rights" don't matter when in comes to gun laws.

Face it. The Supreme Court has become corrupted and only serves to rubber stamp the Rightwing agenda.

#122 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-06-23 02:48 PM | Reply

Congratulation, Brother.

Good day for you.

#109 | POSTED BY MAO_CONTENT AT 2022-06-23 02:38 PM | REPLY

I have had my concealed carry license for a while now, but at least now I can legally carry in NYC.
I have my Pennsylvania concealed license as well.

But still, it's a good day. Now my ---- buddy in LA will be able to legally carry the pistol he has been illegally carrying for years.

#123 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2022-06-23 02:48 PM | Reply

I'm just using humor and mockery to show how ------- stupid people who "think" like you are.

That usually requires a position of being able to "think" first.

Something you clearly aren't capable of, which is why you hide behind your "humor" and "mockery."

#124 | Posted by jpw at 2022-06-23 02:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I hope the preventable tragedy of losing a loved to a mass shooting not be suffered by anyone. But if it does have to happen, I hope it happens to people who advocate a pretty much unfettered right to own any gun they want and carry it almost anywhere they want. People like the rightwingers posting on this thread.

#111 | Posted by moder8

once again you're wishing death on people you disagree with and your cute little opening remark doesn't change that wish.

You are one despicable human being.

#125 | Posted by Kempster at 2022-06-23 02:49 PM | Reply

- that's all I need to see.

All you need to see is a red MAGA cap to make you excuse yourself for some alone time.

#126 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-23 02:49 PM | Reply

He needs to be able to protect himself from some felon just released by a left wing , Soros bought, DA after multiple
crimes / arrests and releases....and those punks don't include the ones swarming the brain dead vegetable's open border.

#110 | POSTED BY KEMPSTER

And these braindead ----- vote.

No wonder we're swirling around the drain.

#127 | Posted by jpw at 2022-06-23 02:50 PM | Reply

Armed hicks with substandard IQs are not.

#120 | Posted by Corky

bigot.

#128 | Posted by Kempster at 2022-06-23 02:50 PM | Reply

today's leftist extremist ( democrat voter ) can be depicted by one simple example.
( simple example....maybe even simple enough for YAV and JPW. )

Says the Fox News pull cord doll.

This simpleton ---- is so stupid he actually "thinks" he "thought" of the stuff he says.

#129 | Posted by jpw at 2022-06-23 02:51 PM | Reply

And these braindead ----- vote.

No wonder we're swirling around the drain.

#127 | Posted by jpw

4 martini lunch today ?

take the day off just you and the bong ?

seriously....you have totally misinterpreted that post.

#130 | Posted by Kempster at 2022-06-23 02:52 PM | Reply

#128

lmao! Way to self-identify with substandard IQs.

#131 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-23 02:52 PM | Reply

bigot.

#128 | POSTED BY KEMPSTER

If you don't want to be portrayed that way don't be that way.

#132 | Posted by jpw at 2022-06-23 02:53 PM | Reply

#127 Are you not aware of what he's referencing?

The San Fransisco DA (Boudin) was just recalled for being so ridiculously criminal friendly that it even managed to anger the overwhelmingly left-wing voters of San Fransisco. There are other DA's around the country with similar track records.

#133 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-06-23 02:53 PM | Reply

seriously....you have totally misinterpreted that post.
#130 | POSTED BY KEMPSTER

By all means fill me in then.

Because when I see Soros mentioned I'm 95% sure I'm dealing with a complete moron.

#134 | Posted by jpw at 2022-06-23 02:54 PM | Reply

Gun control laws are as American as apple pie and as old as the Constitution

Any laws enacted by regional legislative bodies are as American as apple pie and old as the Constitution.

We also have a Supreme Court to ensure those laws enacted don't run afoul of the Constitution.

Your watching that process work as intended. It's quite simple, really. Cherish the moment, Boomer.

The arc of justice is long, but it bends inevitably towards progress.

#135 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-06-23 02:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This simpleton ---- is so stupid he actually "thinks" he "thought" of the stuff he says.

#129 | Posted by jpw

I don't watch nor read fox, so you're another in a long line of bigots, but then we all knew that already.

Get back to me when you have something literate to say.

#136 | Posted by Kempster at 2022-06-23 02:55 PM | Reply

Back in the Old West day, even the hicks in Bumfuk, TX had to check their guns at the town line.

Now major metropolitan areas like NY can't even forbid concealed weapons.

And you know who will yell racist slogans loudest when people in metro areas are killed by concealed weapons?

Same -------- who want them concealed.

#137 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-23 02:57 PM | Reply

bigot.

#128 | POSTED BY KEMPSTER

If you don't want to be portrayed that way don't be that way.

#132 | Posted by jpw

holy geesush. mother mary and josephina....

do you have event the slightest idea.....that what you just wrote....is more bigoted than the remarks of the other bigot ?

oh geasshas KEYriist.......that's funny.

no, of course you don't.

#138 | Posted by Kempster at 2022-06-23 02:58 PM | Reply

"That usually requires a position of being able to "think" first.
Something you clearly aren't capable of, which is why you hide behind your "humor" and "mockery."

#124 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2022-06-23 02:49 PM"

You really should look in the mirror. At least 90% of your posts are nothing more than attacking/mocking people you disagree with politically.

#139 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-06-23 02:58 PM | Reply

"I hope the preventable tragedy of losing a loved to a mass shooting not be suffered by anyone. But if it does have to happen, I hope it happens to people who advocate a pretty much unfettered right to own any gun they want and carry it almost anywhere they want."

I hope the preventable tragedy of losing a loved to a car accident not be suffered by anyone. But if it does have to happen, I hope it happens to people who advocate a pretty much unfettered right to own any car they want and drive it almost anywhere they want.

#140 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-23 03:00 PM | Reply

"You wouldn't know the Constitution if it kicked you in the AR-15."

He was an Army officer...so yeah. He would.

He took an oath to the constitution.

Did you?

#141 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-23 03:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- Your watching that process work as intended

I'm watching rwing political appointees to the SC make a farce of gun control laws while ignoring their actual history and the damage being done daily.

see the decision dissent in #97

#142 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-23 03:02 PM | Reply

Federal law should never trump state law. The second amemndment already told the federal government what the law is. Everything else is up to the state. I say let NY regulate this. If you are dumb enough to live in NY, you deserve it.

This has just told NY they have stepped too far.

#69 | Posted by boaz

How the f--- do you even remember to breathe?

#143 | Posted by qcp at 2022-06-23 03:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

#143 excellent question!

#144 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-23 03:05 PM | Reply

"At minimum, the 2nd Amendment should not be an active threat to the lives and safety of those who have an equal right not to bear arms."

I don't understand your statement. Are you saying that the responsibility for ensuring the safety of an individual shouldn't be the responsibility of the individual?

"And the costs of protection certainly shouldn't fall onto the backs and pocketbooks of the unarmed either."

I would submit that the it is the unarmed who should be paying more. Those who sleep soundly in their beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do them harm.

If you're not going to be the rough man...you're going to need to pay one to protect you.

#145 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-23 03:05 PM | Reply

I'm watching rwing political appointees to the SC.....see the decision dissent in #97

Written by leftwing political appointees to the SC? The wise Latina toad?

Let it go, man.

#146 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-06-23 03:06 PM | Reply

#121 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Stop gaslighting, liar. You're trying to nitpick statistics to make a partisan claim that gun violence is worse per-capita in liberal cities. You're just flat wrong.

everytownresearch.org

#147 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2022-06-23 03:08 PM | Reply

If you can't figure out the Second Amendment is how criminals get guns, you probably also can't figure out why the US leads the modern world in gun violence.

But many of you can figure that out, and still support the Second Amendment.

And that's what I just don't get.

#148 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-23 03:08 PM | Reply

This is a good ruling...I don't get why the hand-wringers are pissing their pants.

This will literally make New York a safer place. At least for non-criminals.

#149 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-23 03:09 PM | Reply

"Are you saying that the responsibility for ensuring the safety of an individual shouldn't be the responsibility of the individual?"

How would you suggest an American ensure their individual safety when faced with an armed attacker intent on doing harm?

#150 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-23 03:10 PM | Reply

This will literally make New York a safer place. At least for non-criminals.
#149 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

How will you measure that?

#151 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-23 03:10 PM | Reply

#146

No, written by Justice Breyer...

Justice Breyer invokes Uvalde and Buffalo mass shootings in scathing dissent of decision expanding 2nd Amendment

"Many states have tried to address some of the dangers of gun violence," the majority ruling "severely burdens" these efforts, Breyer wrote.

"Since the start of this year alone (2022), there have already been 277 reported mass shootings"an average of more than one per day," Breyer wrote.

"Gun violence has now surpassed motor vehicle crashes as the leading cause of death among children and adolescents," he added, noting that in 2020, 45,222 Americans were killed by firearms, according to federal data.

The majority decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, "invokes the Second Amendment to strike down a New York law regulating the public carriage of concealed handguns.

In my view, that decision rests upon several serious mistakes," he wrote. It "refuses to consider the government interests that justify a challenged gun regulation, regardless of how compelling those interests may be."

"When courts interpret the Second Amendment, it is constitutionally proper, indeed often necessary, for them to consider the serious dangers and consequences of gun violence that lead States to regulate firearms," he explained.

"The primary difference between the Court's view and mine is that I believe the Amendment allows States to take account of the serious problems posed by gun violence that I have just described," he added.

"I fear that the Court's interpretation ignores these significant dangers and leaves States without the ability to address them."
www.nbcnews.com
#97

So, perhaps rather being racist about the source, you could address how this SC decision by political rwingers helps reduce the "leading cause of death among children" by allowing their killers to conceal their weapons?

#152 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-23 03:10 PM | Reply

He was an Army officer...so yeah. He would.
He took an oath to the constitution.
Did you?

#141 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Doesn't mean he understands it. ----. Doesn't even necessarily mean he's read it.

#153 | Posted by jpw at 2022-06-23 03:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If you can't figure out the Second Amendment is how criminals get guns, you probably also can't figure out why the US leads the modern world in gun violence.

In 2019, 90% of firearms held be criminals in the process of committing a crime were obtained illegally.

I doubt the numbers have changed much.

#154 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-23 03:11 PM | Reply

Run into town and back for a dance camp recital and it's up to 92 comments.

#99 | POSTED BY MAO_CONTENT

Bet you it's over 250 after dinner.

#155 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-06-23 03:14 PM | Reply

Back in the Old West day, even the hicks in Bumfuk, TX had to check their guns at the town line.

Now major metropolitan areas like NY can't even forbid concealed weapons.

And you know who will yell racist slogans loudest when people in metro areas are killed by concealed weapons?

Same -------- who want them concealed.

#137 | Posted by Corky a

been watching "Maverick" reruns I see. Me too, every AM on H&I network.

when Brett left town his guns were given back to him and the Marshal ( COP ) was judge,jury and executioner because he was the only one

with a gun..which sounds okay with you.

and the rest ?....same ole hyperbole festival.

#156 | Posted by Kempster at 2022-06-23 03:14 PM | Reply

And since this law is basically about allowing concealed carry, the percentage of concealed carry holders who committed a violent crime is tangent to zero. CCP holders may be the most law-abiding demographic outside of the Amish.

#157 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-23 03:16 PM | Reply

#156

No, mouthbreather... it's called historical fact.

scholarship.law.duke.edu

#158 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-23 03:16 PM | Reply

you're going to need to pay one to protect you.

#145 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

How much do we have to pay? 18 children? 25 children next time?

#159 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-06-23 03:17 PM | Reply

"He took an oath to the constitution."

What oath did he take?

I took an oath to the constitution. And I am still upholding it.

Trumpy also took an oath to the constitution. But he did not uphold that oath.

Trumpers obviously do not respect any oath that they may have taken.

#160 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-06-23 03:17 PM | Reply

Bet you it's over 250 after dinner.

What's the Goatmeter at?

#161 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-06-23 03:17 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Those who sleep soundly in their beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do them harm.

If you're not going to be the rough man...you're going to need to pay one to protect you.

What an ignorant statement. Who do you think pays the cost of police, fire, and the US military?

Taxpayers, ie. ALL of us. And how does being a gun holder equate to being a "rough man"? Seems like the "rough men" couldn't handle a kid mowing down students inside a grade school, could they?

I don't denigrate anyone who chooses to exercise their legal rights to gun ownership, but I'm tired of taxpayers and innocent people having to bear the expense of the result of this legal right when it affects them personally through no fault of their own. It's really that simple.

Your wrong car analogy (cars are not designed by purpose to injure or kill people. Guns are designed specifically to do that and that alone when used as they're built) works better here: Legal drivers have to carry liability insurance to protect/make whole anyone receiving damage from the car they're driving. So should gun owners, either through taxation at the point of sale, or mandatory insurance to compensate everyone effected by their use - legally or illegally - just like with cars.

#162 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-06-23 03:18 PM | Reply

You really should look in the mirror. At least 90% of your posts are nothing more than attacking/mocking people you disagree with politically.

#139 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

For the millionth time...it's not mere disagreement. It's sheer, unmistakable stupidity.

#163 | Posted by jpw at 2022-06-23 03:18 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"And since this law is basically about allowing concealed carry, the percentage of concealed carry holders who committed a violent crime is tangent to zero."

Meaning the tangent has almost nowhere to go but up, which is the way the macro dial is being turned.

#164 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-06-23 03:18 PM | Reply

criminals don't care about gun laws.

In fact, they want more gun laws. Less chance they run into someone with a gun.

they don't buy their guns at gun stores.... background checks don't stop them. ...Keep focusing on the good people....that's just what

they want.

#165 | Posted by Kempster at 2022-06-23 03:20 PM | Reply

No, written by Justice Breyer...

Good for him.

Looking forward to him and his type of archaic legal reasoning dying off.

I ------- hate Communists.

#166 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-06-23 03:20 PM | Reply

#166

That's a poor excuse for an actual argument... it so makes things look like you don't really have one.

"So, perhaps rather being racist about the source, you could address how this SC decision by political rwingers helps reduce the "leading cause of death among children" by allowing their killers to conceal their weapons?".

#167 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-23 03:22 PM | Reply

"archaic legal reasoning"

Just like a modern Conservative to reject "archaic legal reasoning" when it doesn't suit them!

#168 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-23 03:22 PM | Reply

#147 Now you are moving the goalposts.

Your first study was murder rate. The one you just produced is gun violence rate. NOT the same thing.

#169 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-06-23 03:22 PM | Reply

Your wrong car analogy (cars are not designed by purpose to injure or kill people. Guns are designed specifically to do that and that alone

To call somebody "ignorant" then immediately drop that incandescent ----------- above....all in the same post.... is hard to fathom.

#170 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-06-23 03:23 PM | Reply

Trumpers obviously do not respect any oath that they may have taken.

#160 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

It never seems to occur to them that people can simply lie.

#171 | Posted by jpw at 2022-06-23 03:23 PM | Reply

#167 Pretty hard to conceal an AR-15, the mother of all hated guns by the left.

#172 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-06-23 03:23 PM | Reply

In 2019, 90% of firearms held be criminals in the process of committing a crime were obtained illegally.
#154 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

So what you're saying is we are powerless to prevent criminals from obtaining weapons illegally.

That's what I'm saying too.

I'm also saying why.

#173 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-23 03:24 PM | Reply

I ------- hate Communists.

#166 | POSTED BY MAO_CONTENT

You should know what a communist is first...

#174 | Posted by jpw at 2022-06-23 03:25 PM | Reply

"And since this law is basically about allowing concealed carry, the percentage of concealed carry holders who committed a violent crime is tangent to zero."

Does that include permitless concealed carry?

Because I'm pretty most of those "90% of firearms held be criminals in the process of committing a crime were obtained illegally" were also concealed prior to use in said crime.

#175 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-23 03:27 PM | Reply

"If society is honest and historically accurate, this is the only question with relevance...." do you trust those in government, now and in the

future, to not take your life, liberty and property through the force of government?"......

if the answer is no, the debate is over.".....KrissAnne Hall. J

and that's a wrap.

-30-

#176 | Posted by Kempster at 2022-06-23 03:27 PM | Reply

He took an oath to the constitution.

#141 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

So did Lee Harvey Oswald, Timothy McVeigh, Ian David Long, Devin Patrick Kelley, Charles Whitman, Aaron Alexis, Nidal Malik Hasan, and John Allen Williams.

Many people with whom I served were some of the finest human beings I've met. Conversely, many were some of the slimiest excuses for humanity I've ever seen. There were several I'd have gladly shot. Military service and the oath to the constitution mean no more or less than the person's subsequent actions.

#177 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-06-23 03:28 PM | Reply

"Doesn't mean he understands it. ----. Doesn't even necessarily mean he's read it."

OK. Fair.

Are you a constitutional lawyer?

Again, other than as an overly emotional response...what's wrong with the ruling?

#178 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-23 03:30 PM | Reply

- archaic legal reasoning

"This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."

Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger on the Second Amendment, in 1991 on 2nd Amendment changes

www.npr.org

That's a rock-ribbed conservative Nixon appointee. Just not bought off by the NRA.

#179 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-23 03:30 PM | Reply

"do you trust those in government, now and in the future, to not take your life, liberty and property through the force of government?"

What's to stop a truly committed government from taking you out if they wanted? What level of weapons do you think appropriate to own in order to prevent that from happening?

Nobody ever answers those questions.

#180 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2022-06-23 03:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

www.brennancenter.org

#181 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-23 03:34 PM | Reply

"How much do we have to pay? 18 children? 25 children next time?"

You lose children when you A) aren't the rough men, and B) refuse to buy their services.

You've alluded to the fact that you have LE/MIL experience. What would you have done in Uvalde?

#182 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-23 03:34 PM | Reply

"If society is honest and historically accurate, this is the only question with relevance...." do you trust those in government, now and in the
future, to not take your life, liberty and property through the force of government?"......
if the answer is no, the debate is over.".....KrissAnne Hall. J
and that's a wrap.
-30-
#176 | POSTED BY KEMPSTER

^
People who say this stuff always end up supporting the Death Penalty.

#183 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-23 03:34 PM | Reply

"The pen is mightier than the sword!"
~Edward Bulwer-Lytton

Boaz: (Stabs him to death.)

#184 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-06-23 03:35 PM | Reply

"You lose children when you A) aren't the rough men, and B) refuse to buy their services."

Really, so German and Canadian schools are crawling in well-paid rough men, then?
LOL

You lose children when it's perfectly legal for the killer to purchase an AR-15 to kill children.

#185 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-23 03:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I took an oath to the constitution. And I am still upholding it."

Technically speaking, you took an oath of enlistment (I recall you were enlisted, correct?)

I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (So help me God)."

Did you obey the orders of Trump when he was president?

#186 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-23 03:37 PM | Reply

Are you a constitutional lawyer?

To my knowledge nobody here is.

Again, other than as an overly emotional response...what's wrong with the ruling?

#178 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Inconsistency.

State's rights when it's convenient.

The claim in the decision of no legal precedence in the time frame NY state's law existed.

#187 | Posted by jpw at 2022-06-23 03:37 PM | Reply

I ------- hate Communists.

#166 | POSTED BY MAO_CONTENT

You should know what a communist is first...

#174 | POSTED BY JPW

Exactly. He hates The Other. "Communists" are just another convenient victim of the day.

More haters with guns violating their oaths to the constitution.

Just what America needs.

#188 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-06-23 03:37 PM | Reply

- against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

Would include an insurrectionist President like Trump.

Oh, and his supporters.

#189 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-23 03:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Your wrong car analogy (cars are not designed by purpose to injure or kill people. Guns are designed specifically to do that and that alone when used as they're built) works better here: Legal drivers have to carry liability insurance to protect/make whole anyone receiving damage from the car they're driving. So should gun owners, either through taxation at the point of sale, or mandatory insurance to compensate everyone effected by their use - legally or illegally - just like with cars.

#162 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

Car drivers also have to pass written and physical performance tests to get that license. They have to periodically renew that license. They can have that license suspended or revoked for certain crimes or administrative violations. They have to register their car(s). They are legally liable not only for what happens when they are driving, in some circumstances may still be liable if someone else is driving, i.e. a minor child. I'm OK with applying the car analogy to firearms ownership, including my own.

#190 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-06-23 03:40 PM | Reply

"So, perhaps... you could address how this SC decision by political rwingers helps reduce the "leading cause of death among children" by allowing their killers to conceal their weapons?".

Maybe someone else could answer since Mao can't....

#191 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-23 03:41 PM | Reply

"Taxpayers, ie. ALL of us."

You seem to be suggesting that the cost of those services be levied on gun owners. Did I misunderstand you?

"I don't denigrate anyone who chooses to exercise their legal rights to gun ownership, but I'm tired of taxpayers and innocent people having to bear the expense of the result of this legal right when it affects them personally through no fault of their own. It's really that simple."

That's kind of a fair point. So how do we, the taxpayers, compensate the legally armed bystander who intervenes and terminates a dangerous or violent situation?

#192 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-23 03:42 PM | Reply

"Did you obey the orders of Trump when he was president?"

Trump didn't give me any orders.
Did Trump give you any orders? Did you ask yourself if they were Constitutional, because that's what you swore you would do.

#193 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-23 03:43 PM | Reply

What would you have done in Uvalde?

#182 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

As soon as I had a backup, made entry and shot the ------.

#194 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-06-23 03:44 PM | Reply

address how this SC decision by political rwingers helps reduce the "leading cause of death among children" by allowing their killers to conceal their weapons?"

Like you do with so many other things, you profoundly misunderstand the role of the Supreme Court in a Constitutional Republic.

It's not designed to be a Rapid Response Tactical Social Justice Team.

#195 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-06-23 03:47 PM | Reply

"Your wrong car analogy (cars are not designed by purpose to injure or kill people. Guns are designed specifically to do that and that alone when used as they're built) works better here: Legal drivers have to carry liability insurance to protect/make whole anyone receiving damage from the car they're driving."

Guns are not designed to injure or kill people. Guns are designed to use some form of energy to project a weighted mass along a specific trajectory. I'm not the world's biggest gun nut...but I don't know how you would design a gun to kill humans. And that's, before you ackowledge the fact that a gun without a human won't...can't...kill anything.

As for the second part. I think that most people do have some form of liability insurance that would protect them if, by chance, they accidentally caused harm while shooting a gun.

#196 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-23 03:49 PM | Reply

I don't know about ya'll, but I'm ready to go back to being really outraged by Insurrections and Fascists Coups (TM).

I don't like talking about icky guns. They scare me.

#197 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-06-23 03:50 PM | Reply

#195

The idea that the SC has no bidness taking into account, "the serious dangers and consequences of gun violence that lead States to regulate firearms"... you know, like it being the leading cause of death of children... is just more nonsense.

from the dissent

"In my view, that decision rests upon several serious mistakes," he wrote. It "refuses to consider the government interests that justify a challenged gun regulation, regardless of how compelling those interests may be."

"When courts interpret the Second Amendment, it is constitutionally proper, indeed often necessary, for them to consider the serious dangers and consequences of gun violence that lead States to regulate firearms," he explained.

"The primary difference between the Court's view and mine is that I believe the Amendment allows States to take account of the serious problems posed by gun violence that I have just described," he added.

"I fear that the Court's interpretation ignores these significant dangers and leaves States without the ability to address them."

#198 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-23 03:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"State's rights when it's convenient."

In this case the state was playing faves.

Had the state simply banned any sort of concealed carry, it's entirely possible that the SCOTUS would have upheld it. Instead, NY had decided that the inherent right of self-defense was not something that applied to every New Yorker, but only those the state approved.

I think it's that inconsistency that was key. At least to me.

#199 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-23 03:52 PM | Reply

#190

And it goes back to the fact that cars are not designed to purposely harm or kill other people, yet we put standards, safeguards and regulations in place to insure those who operate them on public roads have demonstrated - to the state's satisfaction - the proficiency necessary to do so. Firearms are designed with the intent that they are used to harm or kill people for the defense of the individual or state, yet no such bar or standard of proficiency is required?

I still do not see why firearms cannot be regulated in the same manner as both a matter of public safety and to insure that their users have the proficiency to wield their weapons should the need for militia-use arise - as the amendment plainly states in its original form and understanding.

#200 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-06-23 03:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Maybe someone else could answer since Mao can't...."

Maybe I don't understand the question...are you asserting that more CCW holders will mean more crime by legal gun owners? More dead children?

Because that's ------- retarded.

#201 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-23 03:54 PM | Reply

I realize the Preamble isn't law, but isn't it a declaration of what the law should produce???

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

#202 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-06-23 03:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- Insurrections and Fascists Coups (TM).

All the sworn evidence of that is being given under penalty of perjury by your Cult Leader's own hand-picked lawyers who told him he had lost, and told him his plan to stay in power was criminal.

Of course, your ears are too delicate to hear them actually swear to it.

#203 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-23 03:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#201

No... it means that a future killer might be able to gain access to a school because it was legal for him to walk around with concealed weapons.... speaking of retarded, or perhaps just willful ignorance.

#204 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-23 04:00 PM | Reply

When courts interpret the Second Amendment, it is constitutionally proper, indeed often necessary, for them to consider the serious dangers and consequences of gun violence that lead States to regulate firearms," he explained.

And that's wonderful.

But then you pat the old man on the head and gently explain to him that the when courts interpret the Second Amendment, it is also constitutionally proper, indeed often necessary, for them to consider the serious dangers and consequences of government infringement on the inherent right to self defense.

Especially given the actions (and attempted actions) imposed on the population by his Client political party the past 2 years.

Thank you for your dissent, Justice.

Now go ---- yourself.

#205 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-06-23 04:00 PM | Reply

Instead, NY had decided that the inherent right of self-defense was not something that applied to every New Yorker, but only those the state approved.

That's not it at all. EVERY CCW applicant was treated the same on the plane of self defense. Those who were granted CCWs demonstrated an increased need for a weapon due to individual circumstances.

#206 | Posted by jpw at 2022-06-23 04:01 PM | Reply

"As soon as I had a backup, made entry and shot the ------."

Di you see the picture of the super cute teacher whose husband was a Uvalde cop?

When she called him and told her she had been shot, he tried to go in, but was disarmed and detained by his colleagues.

I used to like going out to Uvalde when I was going through Air Force flight training in San Antonio. I have to imagine that town was full of "rough" people who would have smoked that little ------------ in a heartbeat. But as you've seen across the country with police forces, you can't win when the criminal is a minority or member of a marginalized community.

That's another reason why the ability to self-protect is so important. Can you really trust the police to protect you when they might not even be sure you want to be protected?

#207 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-23 04:02 PM | Reply

Especially given the actions (and attempted actions) imposed on the population by his Client political party the past 2 years.

LOL what a hysterical cooze.

#208 | Posted by jpw at 2022-06-23 04:02 PM | Reply

Instead, NY had decided that the inherent right of self-defense was not something that applied to every New Yorker, but only those the state approved.

You argue against yourself with no awareness of what you're doing. Heretofore, the SCOTUS under Scalia's Heller opinion did find that the 2nd Amendment gave individuals the unfettered right to have handguns on their own property for protection purposes. As others mentioned, we have armed police, sheriffs, state police forces, private security forces, etc., to protect the public when in public/private spaces, and these very forces need to determine whether armed individuals they encounter are hostile or benign. If more people are carrying weapons, how are responders to determine active armed threats from engaged armed bystanders? Are we going to allow the police to shoot anyone they see with a gun once gunfire breaks out since how are they going to determine who's a friendly and who's a threat when no one is visibly identifiable?

This is a reality that threatens the safety of not only the public at large if armed bystanders engage themselves into shooting situations, it's a continuous threat to law enforcement everywhere. This is simply common sense. We had no handgun carrying law enforcement at the time the 2nd Amendment was written. Even Anton Scalia saw the need for reasonable regulation of handguns by the state for the safety needs of the public.

But now he's just another anti-2nd Amendment lib. I'm sure he's rolling over in his grave as we speak.

#209 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-06-23 04:04 PM | Reply

"No... it means that a future killer might be able to gain access to a school because it was legal for him to walk around with concealed weapons.... speaking of retarded, or perhaps just willful ignorance."

So...could that same person also drive a large truck through a playground because it was legal for him to drive a large truck?

I mean, in your scenario...it may take more effort to get a CCW that it would access to a large truck.

Maybe you should refocus your efforts to banning large vehicles that could injure people.

#210 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-23 04:04 PM | Reply

LOL what a hysterical cooze.

Says J. Pussoir---going apoplectic over a gun control law being ruled unconstitutional.

#211 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-06-23 04:06 PM | Reply

#205

What JPW notes about NY's law answers your "honest concern" about self-defense.

That you put that higher on your list of priorities than, oh, say, the lives of defenseless kids... is telling.

btw... what happened all that TX macho man gun protection with the Uvalde police?

Not "real" Texans?

Or typical all hat, no cattle hands?

#212 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-23 04:06 PM | Reply

Are we going to allow the police to shoot anyone they see with a gun once gunfire breaks out since how are they going to determine who's a friendly and who's a threat when no one is visibly identifiable?

Don't they do that now?

Are black people not visibly identifiable?

#213 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-06-23 04:08 PM | Reply

"That's not it at all. EVERY CCW applicant was treated the same on the plane of self defense. Those who were granted CCWs demonstrated an increased need for a weapon due to individual circumstances."

You literally just said the same thing I did. That the state determined who the inherent right to self defense applied to, and who it didn't.

And it's still kind of ballwash. If you need protection, you can pay a professional for protection. Or maybe more appropriate, the state determines who needs protection and pays for it out of taxpayer funds. That way you ensure that the protection being provided is equally distributed, and that those who are doing the protection are validated for that role.

#214 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-23 04:09 PM | Reply

#210

Perhaps you should take a laughable analogies course... you seem to keep mistaking weapons for vehicles.

Must be that "military intelligence" oxymoron.

#215 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-23 04:10 PM | Reply

"So...could that same person also drive a large truck through a playground because it was legal for him to drive a large truck?"

Turns out they could do that even if it's illegal for them to drive a large truck.
Make sure the truck you're driving, legally or otherwise, is beefy enough to get through all the fencing.

#216 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-23 04:11 PM | Reply

Says J. Pussoir---going apoplectic over a gun control law being ruled unconstitutional.

#211 | POSTED BY MAO_CONTENT

I don't think you know what apoplectic means...

#217 | Posted by jpw at 2022-06-23 04:11 PM | Reply

"This is a reality that threatens the safety of not only the public at large if armed bystanders engage themselves into shooting situations, it's a continuous threat to law enforcement everywhere. This is simply common sense."

What percentage of gun crimes are committed by legal CCW holders? The numbers I found were in percentages of a percent.

So you'll need to explain to me how having more CCW holder is any worse than having more cops.

Personally, I'd be more concerned in a state the restricted CCW or legal gun ownership. That's not something criminals care about...other than the fact that it is something that they can use to their advantage.

#218 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-23 04:13 PM | Reply

"are you asserting that more CCW holders will mean more crime by legal gun owners?"

Statistically, I can't see how it doesn't mean that.

If the crime rate by CCW holders stays the same, while the number of CCW holders increases, what do you expect happens to the crime rate by CCW holders?

Feel free to use your Econ 101 understanding of what happens when the Supply or Demand curve moves to answer this question!

#219 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-23 04:13 PM | Reply

"Must be that "military intelligence" oxymoron."

Not everyone is endowed the the illumination that comes from growing up in a ------ Florida trailer park.

#220 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-23 04:15 PM | Reply

"What percentage of gun crimes are committed by legal CCW holders?"

^
Roughly half the states don't require a permit to carry concealed.
concealedguns.procon.org

#221 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-23 04:16 PM | Reply

- growing up in a ------ Florida trailer park.

ROFL!

Well, thanks for not using the usual, "but you live in a gated community in Naples!" retort against me.

hahahaha!

#222 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-23 04:17 PM | Reply

Perhaps you should take a laughable analogies course... you seem to keep mistaking weapons for vehicles.

"On 19 December 2016, a truck was deliberately driven into the Christmas market next to the Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church at Breitscheidplatz in Berlin, leaving 12 people dead and 56 others injured."

en.wikipedia.org

On 7 April 2018, a man drove a van into people seated outside restaurants in a pedestrianised square in the old part of the German city of Mnster. He killed four people and injured about 20 others, six of them seriously, before committing suicide.

en.wikipedia.org

At 13:45 on 1 December 2020, a man rammed pedestrians with an SUV at high speed in a pedestrian zone in Trier, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany, killing six people[2][1]"a 45-year-old man and his infant daughter; a 77-year-old man; and three women aged 25, 52, and 73[3]" and wounding 23 others.[4] The driver, who was alone in the car and had a blood alcohol content of 0.14%, was arrested at the scene.

en.wikipedia.org

On 8 June 2022, a person drove a car onto the sidewalk at the corner of Kurfrstendamm and Rankestrae across from the Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church in Charlottenburg, Berlin, Germany, killing one person and injuring 17 people.[1] The suspect was arrested at the scene.

en.wikipedia.org

A Tunisian man, Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, drove a cargo truck into crowds celebrating Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, resulting in the death of 86 people and injuring 458. The driver was shot dead by police. ISIL claimed the responsibility for the attack.[15][55][68] Europol classified the attack as jihadist terrorism.

en.wikipedia.org

#223 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-23 04:22 PM | Reply

Like you do with so many other things, you profoundly misunderstand the role of the Supreme Court in a Constitutional Republic.
It's not designed to be a Rapid Response Tactical Social Justice Team.
#195 | POSTED BY MAO_CONTENTz

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court just doled out Social Justice for New York's concealed carry enthusiasts...
And from their comments, more concealed carriers will indeed spark an increase in Social Justice for everyone.

#224 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-23 04:24 PM | Reply

"Well, thanks for not using the usual, "but you live in a gated community in Naples!" retort against me."

Florida is trash.

It's for people who don't know any better.

Like Trump...and apparently you.

Living in a gated community in Naples is a pubic hair away from living in gated community in Little Rock or Biloxi. Maybe Myrtle Beach.

Cool, if that's your thing.

#225 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-23 04:25 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#223

You having to make a list of instances where a vehicle is used for something it is not designed for... to try to defend incredibly ignorant analogies to weapons being used for exactly what they were designed for; tactical weapons designed only to kill fast and often.... really reeks of a terrible insecurity on your part.

I could suggest counseling for you, if you like?

#226 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-23 04:26 PM | Reply

#223
The number of people killed by trucks in Europe over six years?
It's on par with the number of Americans killed by guns in six days (just homicides).

#227 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-23 04:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- a pubic hair away

If you're done counting your pubic hairs, you might have some 5 year old tell you the difference between Naples and... hahaha! Biloxi!

You dig yourself so deep a hole, I sometimes wonder if you are using a backhoe rather than a shovel.

#228 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-23 04:30 PM | Reply

and btw, just to avoid future confusion on your part, I mean, you are overburdened with enough already... Andrea and I lived in the same neighborhood in Naples a few years ago, and people here saw us talking about that.

But "gated community" was someone else's insertion; his family had a home in near the beach, and I had one on it, not a in any community, and not gated.

#229 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-23 04:36 PM | Reply

Give AR-15s to every African-American and watch how fast white racists clamor for gun laws to ban them.

Racist white Americans have passed gun control laws in every century Europeans have been on American soil every time they became scared of African-Americans owning guns.

#230 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2022-06-23 04:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#230

So true. Once Obama became President, the future was set for the payback by white nationalist racists that we see today.

Perhaps we'll see this political SC bring back the 3/5ths rule.

#231 | Posted by Corky at 2022-06-23 04:48 PM | Reply

There was a time when the NRA fought for a two-day waiting period on handgun sales and limits on concealed weapons permits. And a time when then"California Governor Ronald Reagan signed legislation forbidding the carrying of loaded firearms in public. Before gun control became a progressive cause, it was a right-wing staple, and it was aimed squarely at the rights of African-Americans nationwide.

More: www.mtv.com

(The first gun control laws aimed at African-Americans were enacted in the Colonies in 1680)

#232 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2022-06-23 04:50 PM | Reply

Give AR-15s to every African-American and watch how fast white racists clamor for gun laws to ban them.

A lot of black folks have AR-15s. We pig hunt with a bunch of dudes in Matagorda county. 70% of them are black. They're into the same ---- as everyone else---thermal optics, custom lower receivers, etc.

That's what makes comments like yours so funny.

You probably don't know any black people. You're an ignorant, lily-white liberal ---- and the world has passed you by.

#233 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-06-23 04:52 PM | Reply

The first gun control laws aimed at African-Americans were enacted in the Colonies in 1680

LOL

You're not really making the point you think you are.

#234 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-06-23 04:55 PM | Reply

But thanks for the MTV link...

I'm sure world-renowned gun case law gurus Martha Quinn and Alan Hunter have thoughts...

#235 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-06-23 04:58 PM | Reply

"They're into the same ---- as everyone else---thermal optics, custom lower receivers, etc."

Tacticool?
No, Blacticool!

#236 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-23 05:01 PM | Reply

I still do not see why firearms cannot be regulated in the same manner as both a matter of public safety and to insure that their users have the proficiency to wield their weapons should the need for militia-use arise - as the amendment plainly states in its original form and understanding.

#200 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

I completely agree with and support that. I am not anti-gun at all. For hunting, target shooting, collecting, or personal protection. I also believe that with freedom comes responsibility. I am very pro-regulation. If people as a whole could be trusted to be responsible there would be no need for laws or regulations. Unfortunately, even though most people are relatively trustworthy and responsible, many are not. Enough so that the rest of us decide to put up with some restrictions to help curtail the bad actors. Speed limits, for example, or stop signs.

#237 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-06-23 05:33 PM | Reply

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

-Thomas Jefferson-

#238 | Posted by dibblda at 2022-06-23 05:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 7

Conservatives clinging to their guns and their religion. Just like Obama said that they do.

#239 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-06-23 05:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Conservatives clinging to their guns and their religion. Just like Obama said that they do.

#239 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Yeah, it's funny how they're always butthurt about accurate descriptions.

Like when they were called deplorables.

#240 | Posted by jpw at 2022-06-23 06:15 PM | Reply

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, noted the limits of the decision. States can still require people to get a license to carry a gun, Kavanaugh wrote, and condition that license on "fingerprinting, a background check, a mental health records check, and training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force, among other possible requirements."

STFU liberals.

#241 | Posted by boaz at 2022-06-23 06:35 PM | Reply

Didn't miss you one bit.

#242 | Posted by YAV at 2022-06-23 06:41 PM | Reply

"fingerprinting, a background check, a mental health records check, and training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force, among other possible requirements."

LOL.

Like they won't just decide all those things are unconstitutional, as soon as they get the chance.

#243 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-23 06:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Who wants to live in a society where everybody and their brother is carrying a gun in the public square? Who wants to visit such a country? I'm thinking a majority of people here and in Europe don't.

#244 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-06-23 06:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I don't like talking about icky guns. They scare me.

#197 | POSTED BY MAO_CONTENT

Right snowflake.

What really scares you (obviously) is legitimate political discourse and different points of views from your own.

#245 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-06-23 06:53 PM | Reply

STFU liberals.

#241 | POSTED BY BOAZ

As soon as you insurrectionists GFY we will.

#246 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-06-23 06:55 PM | Reply

guns. They scare me.
#197 | POSTED BY MAO_CONTENT

That's what your guns are for.

#247 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-23 06:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Gonna be very weird if Supreme Court ends a constitutional right to obtain an abortion next week, saying it should be left to the States to decide, right after it just imposed a constitutional right to concealed carry of firearms, saying it cannot be left to the States to decide" Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) June 23, 2022

#248 | Posted by qcp at 2022-06-23 07:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

One segment of the population in NYC who should be concerned are rotten little bastiches riding around on motor scooters stealing purses. 86 yr old woman getting dragged by an arm?
The People are getting gotdam sick and gotdam tired of criminal coddling.

#249 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2022-06-23 07:37 PM | Reply

Investment tip: Buy all the stock you can afford in companies that produce metal detection equipment and personal body scanning devices. Hopefully American companies can take advantage of this blood-golden opportunity instead of China filling the void. Then it will be Brandon's fault, I know the drill ...

All these gun bunnies forget that private business can and will ban firearms in their places of enterprise because most of us don't want to get shot by gun-wielding lunatics while we're out in public seeking entertainment, going shopping or choosing to dine!

And we might as well prepare for security screens for almost everywhere we go in response to this expansion of gun rights happening at the same time this nation struggles with trying to diminish gun violence and mass shootings. Our tree of liberty might actually die from all the additional blood it's likely to receive in the aftermath of this ruling. Overwatering kills just as effectively as drought.

#250 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-06-23 07:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Give AR-15s to every African-American and watch how fast white racists clamor for gun laws to ban them."

Anyone that can pass the NICS check, *should be allowed to buy a gun..
Remember:
The Instant FBI background check will be refused if any felony shows up.
There is a mental illness section to be answered.
The gun will be registered.

Lying on the background check can result in a five to eight year tour of prison.

#251 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2022-06-23 07:56 PM | Reply

Like they won't just decide all those things are unconstitutional, as soon as they get the chance.

No, we know what "what's not said in the constitution is left to the states", means, unlike liberals.

#252 | Posted by boaz at 2022-06-23 08:03 PM | Reply

"No, we know what "what's not said in the constitution is left to the states", means, unlike liberals."

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 the people

#253 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-23 08:57 PM | Reply

Anyone that can pass the NICS check, *should be allowed to buy a gun..
#251 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

For example, the Uvalde shooter. He should be allowed to buy a gun.
Thanks for making it very clear why we have a gun violence problem in this country.

Lying on the background check can result in a five to eight year tour of prison.
#251 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

Did the Uvalde shooter lie on the background check? I really don't know and don't much care.
Assuming the next school shooter would have to lie, do you think a five to eight year prison sentence for lying will stop them, when their intent is mass murder?

#254 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-23 09:01 PM | Reply

when their intent is mass murder?

#254 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Mass murder/suicide.

Put it on your discover card. Enjoy 0% Intro APR for 15 Months on Balance Transfers and No Annual Fees. See Terms.

What's in your wallet??

#255 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-06-23 09:34 PM | Reply

I'd like debate this, but you've proven that any discussion is akin to wiping my az with a hoop.

#256 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2022-06-23 09:37 PM | Reply

All these gun bunnies forget that private business can and will ban firearms in their places of enterprise because most of us don't want to get shot by gun-wielding lunatics while we're out in public seeking entertainment, going shopping or choosing to dine!
#250 | POSTED BY TONYROMA

Takes a lot of extra chromosomes to believe the Buffalo shooter would've been thwarted if only the grocery store had a little "no guns allowed" sticker on their door. Lol

#257 | Posted by LEGALLYDORKY at 2022-06-23 09:49 PM | Reply

No dancing bananas?

#258 | Posted by LEGALLYDORKY at 2022-06-23 09:49 PM | Reply

I'd like debate this, but you've proven that any discussion is akin to wiping my az with a hoop.
#256 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

What's to debate?
You said anyone who can pass the NICS check should be able to buy an AR-15.
Well, that's exactly what happened in Uvalde.

We could debate the deterrent effect you mentioned, 5-8 years for lying on a background check.
But you'll lose.

#259 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-23 10:22 PM | Reply

If they would just prosecute Hunter Biden it would show they mean business and no one is above the law .

#260 | Posted by visitor_ at 2022-06-23 10:33 PM | Reply

No dancing bananas?
#258 | POSTED BY LEGALLYDORKY

Okay, sock.

Who did you used to be?

#261 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2022-06-23 10:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advice for wary citizens:

Just going to weave "heightened awareness of where the USPS drop boxes are" into my daily life, no big deal

Yeah it would be good for people to take note of where to find cover in public spaces

twitter.com

#262 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-06-23 10:53 PM | Reply

Masks, too.

Wear a mask.

#WereAllInThisTogether

#263 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-06-23 11:06 PM | Reply

Thank God for the current Supreme court. The far left is going to have to suck it for the foreseeable future when it comes to gun rights.

#264 | Posted by Willowby at 2022-06-24 01:08 AM | Reply

By "suck it" you mean put up with school shootings, right?

#265 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-24 01:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

May Issue became Shall Issue.. to that tiny fraction of the population that wants them, and statistically commits crimes at a rate far lower than anybody that doesn't have one. Definitely not a big deal it's being made out to be.

Still far from going Full Texas where they took a perfectly good system and decided people don't need it anymore.

#266 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2022-06-24 08:24 AM | Reply

NY's governor is protecting her state from the Supreme Court

After the Supreme Court strikes down New York's century-old concealed-carry gun law, Governor Kathy Hochul (D-NY) prepares to convene the New York State legislature for a special session to address the ruling
www.msnbc.com

'New Yorkers and Americans are less safe' because of SCOTUS gun ruling: NYC Mayor
www.msnbc.com

#267 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-06-24 09:01 AM | Reply

At this juncture I just have difficulty believing that most women are going to support Republican candidates in the upcoming elections this November. That may be more than made up for by angry white men who will support Republicans. But it is obvious to anyone with intellectually honest that women as an entire gender have been relegated to second class citizen status by Alito's opinion.

#268 | Posted by moder8 at 2022-06-24 01:10 PM | Reply

Like they won't just decide all those things are unconstitutional, as soon as they get the chance.

No, we know what "what's not said in the constitution is left to the states", means, unlike liberals.

#252 | Posted by boaz

Guess we can all yell "FIRE!!!" in a theater now that anything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution isn't protected. Right, BOAZ?

#269 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2022-06-24 01:56 PM | Reply

Geez, the way many described this it gave the misleading impression that the court completely struck down the right of states and cities to regulate concealed and/or open carry. That's not the case at all.

The ruling will not bar states from imposing any licensing requirements, Kavanaugh contended. There are 43 states, he noted, that use licensing schemes that include requirements such as background checks, firearms training, a check of mental health records, and fingerprinting. Such schemes are objective, Kavanaugh explained, rather than granting "open-ended discretion to licensing officials" and requiring "a showing of some special need apart from self-defense."

I can see why some people got their dander up, especially if they believe only special needs people should be allowed to carry guns.

#270 | Posted by sentinel at 2022-06-24 03:27 PM | Reply

The New Jersey Attorney General just announced in a new directive that "justifiable need" is no longer required for carry permits, effective immediately.

Man, progress is breaking out all over....

#271 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2022-06-24 05:49 PM | Reply

No, we know what "what's not said in the constitution is left to the states", means, unlike liberals.

#252 | Posted by boaz

LOL ok princess :)

The original constitution or including amendments?

That makes a big difference for your poor little 3/5 self.

You're property temporarily given the opportunity to mouth off - until you get the US that you so desperately want.

Then you'll be out in the fields where you apparently think you belong :)

I'm actually OK with that, you deserve it.

#272 | Posted by billy_boy at 2022-06-24 08:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Left wing hyperventilation is all this is. Expanding rights is antithetical to the left when it comes to self protection.

#273 | Posted by willowby at 2022-06-24 09:56 PM | Reply

"Then you'll be out in the fields where you apparently think you belong :)

I'm actually OK with that, you deserve it."

You're an idiot, billy. Does your racist ass think he'd be the only one out there?

#274 | Posted by willowby at 2022-06-24 10:00 PM | Reply

"Expanding rights is antithetical to the left when it comes to self protection."

The whole reason, the objective of society is to obviate the need for self protection.

Don't you understand that?

Are you in a place where you think what I said is naive, because thugs have guns in your neighborhood?

You live in a failed society.

#275 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-24 10:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"If you're done counting your pubic hairs, you might have some 5 year old tell you the difference between Naples and... hahaha! Biloxi!"

About 500 miles as the crow flies. And it's literally named after the place in Europe it wants to be.

#276 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-25 05:05 AM | Reply

"But "gated community" was someone else's insertion; his family had a home in near the beach, and I had one on it, not a in any community, and not gated."

I lived in a gated community is Bossier City, Louisiana. Having it gated doesn't change the fact that it's still Bossier City, LA.

Oddly enough, my village is celebrating it's 800 year anniversary this weekend. At the party we ran into a woman who grew up here but now lives and works as a teacher in Melbourne Beach. She and her family can't wait to get out of that place and get back here.

#277 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-25 05:09 AM | Reply

"That's what makes comments like yours so funny."

That's what makes comments like theirs so racist.

Like saying that "people of color" can't figure out voting laws. White people though, they have no problem figuring out those same laws.

#278 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-25 05:11 AM | Reply

"Who wants to live in a society where everybody and their brother is carrying a gun in the public square? Who wants to visit such a country? I'm thinking a majority of people here and in Europe don't."

Not sure what you mean by the "public square," but in some place pretty much everyone is carrying a gun.

Ever been to Cooke City, Montana? It's very close to Yellowstone and draws in a smallish number of tourists. I always felt the the tourists were a bit apprehensive about everyone who wasn't a tourist having a holster. What they should have been apprehensive about is the Grizzly Bears.

#279 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-25 05:15 AM | Reply

"Assuming the next school shooter would have to lie, do you think a five to eight year prison sentence for lying will stop them, when their intent is mass murder?"

Do you think depriving them of a gun will stop them?

Please see #223

#280 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-25 05:17 AM | Reply

"The whole reason, the objective of society is to obviate the need for self protection."

You're delusional

#281 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-25 05:19 AM | Reply

I mean, technically, if the government of Ukraine decided to disarm the entire country, the outcome would likely be less violent death as the Russians would be able to take a country with virtually no ability to fight back. Kind of like Japan at the end of WWII. You can surrender or die.

#282 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-25 05:21 AM | Reply

"The whole reason, the objective of society is to obviate the need for self protection."
You're delusional
#281 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Take NATO as an example.

Who does Ukraine want to be in NATO so bad?

Do you think Russia would have invaded Ukraine were it part of NATO?

#283 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-25 08:43 AM | Reply

"Do you think depriving them of a gun will stop them?"

Of course I think depriving them of a gun will stop from using a gun.

"Please see #223"

#223
The number of people killed by trucks in Europe over six years?
It's on par with the number of Americans killed by guns in six days (just homicides).
#227 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

#284 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-25 08:51 AM | Reply

"I mean, technically, if the government of Ukraine decided to disarm the entire country, the outcome would likely be less violent death"

Ah yes.
If you're getting raped, might as well lay back and enjoy it.
Did you explain that to your daughters, or was that better received coming from mommy?

#285 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-25 08:53 AM | Reply

"Take NATO as an example."

The society of NATO?

I didn't know that was a thing.

Ukraine wanted to be part of NATO because NATO massively increases the number of guns available. By your logic, and in it's own way it is correct, a reduction in legal gun ownership would likely reduce violence. Because those with the guns could safely do whatever they wanted, and those without guns would effectively be committing suicide if they attempted to stand up to those with guns.

#286 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-25 08:56 AM | Reply

"It's on par with the number of Americans killed by guns in six days (just homicides)."

Statistically, how many of those are killed by CCW holders?

#287 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-25 09:04 AM | Reply

"If you're getting raped, might as well lay back and enjoy it."

You don't have to enjoy it, you just have to understand that not being able to defend yourself is the cost you pay for a safer, unarmed society.

Part of the "social contract," if you will.

"Did you explain that to your daughters, or was that better received coming from mommy?"

I'm not advocating for a society that is denied an inherent right to self-defense.

You are. You should be the one explaining how their nor being able to defend themselves makes society safer.

#288 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-25 09:07 AM | Reply

Only 20% of women get raped in their lifetime. Why put 100% of society at risk for such a small number, right?

#289 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-25 09:10 AM | Reply

"Statistically, how many of those are killed by CCW holders?"

You'd either have to ignore all the Constitutional Concealed Carry states.

Or, you could argue that anyone bearing arms in a state that doesn't require a permit to Concealed is by definition already a CCW holder.

Which is most of the Red states.

#290 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-25 09:13 AM | Reply

"You don't have to enjoy it, you just have to understand that not being able to defend yourself is the cost you pay for a safer, unarmed society."

LOL

Did you or the mommy explain this to them, when you moved to Germany?

Neither, because it's nonsense.

#291 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-25 09:15 AM | Reply

"Ukraine wanted to be part of NATO because NATO massively increases the number of guns available."

Nope.

LOL, but nope.

#292 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-25 09:16 AM | Reply

"I'm not advocating for a society that is denied an inherent right to self-defense."

Then why did you move to one?

You are laughably advocating that firearms are the only means by which a right to self defense is realized.

You're also ignoring that gun control makes societies safer, even as seen even in the limited gun control measures available to states in the union, but very evident in places like Germany.

#293 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-25 09:20 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Only 20% of women get raped in their lifetime."

If 20% of women are raped in their lifetime, where's there right to self defense?

Did they want to get raped?

#294 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-25 09:24 AM | Reply

"Neither, because it's nonsense."

What's nonsense?

#295 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-25 09:48 AM | Reply

"Did you or the mommy explain this to them, when you moved to Germany?"

Haha...no.

It was actually our neighbors who did that, knowing the area better than we do.

It's basically, don't go to these places or you will likely get assaulted.

#296 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-25 09:51 AM | Reply

"Then why did you move to one?"

Which time?

#297 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-25 09:53 AM | Reply

"You are laughably advocating that firearms are the only means by which a right to self defense is realized."

Not really. It's just than anything that can be used as a defensive weapon can be used as an offensive weapon.

#298 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-25 09:55 AM | Reply

"You're also ignoring that gun control makes societies safer, even as seen even in the limited gun control measures available to states in the union, but very evident in places like Germany."

How about Mexico?

#299 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-25 09:56 AM | Reply

"If 20% of women are raped in their lifetime, where's there right to self defense?"

Perhaps they chose not to defend themselves. At least now, in New York, they can make that decision for themselves, rather than having the state make the decision for them.

#300 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-25 09:57 AM | Reply

But you're sort of right about Germany. The government has pretty much stripped society of the right to defend itself. Honestly, guns are pretty much the only thing Germans have left to protect themselves with. In fact if you wanted to carry mace you would need to go through the same process you would if you wanted to get the German version of a CCW. Tasers are completely illegal, and my wife nearly got arrested at the airport for carrying this:

www.bing.com

Instead it was a 500 Euro fine.

You can carry animal deterrent spray in some cases, but it's legality in public places is somewhat dicey.

#301 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-06-25 10:06 AM | Reply

Left wing hyperventilation is all this is.

Sure liar. Still spouting that lie even after Friday?

Enjoy your Pyrrhic victory(s). Until the consequences (and the body bags) and destroyed lives start rolling in.

Thoughts and prayers.

#302 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-06-25 10:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

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