Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, November 27, 2022

WAPO Editorial Board: The mass shootings that plague this nation are a uniquely American jumble of contradictions.

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.

A mass shooting is defined as 4 or more children/adults are murdered in a short time. Think about that.

We're averaging 2 a day. Insane.

#1 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2022-11-28 04:52 AM | Reply

yep. The GOP lax gun laws spreading across the
nation, have turned the nation into the 'Wild West'
again. Just what the gun lobby and many 'gun enthusiasts'
want.

#2 | Posted by earthmuse at 2022-11-28 06:39 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

yep. The GOP lax gun laws spreading across the
nation, have turned the nation into the 'Wild West'
again. Just what the gun lobby and many 'gun enthusiasts'
want.

#2 | POSTED BY EARTHMUSE AT 2022-11-28 06:39 AM | FLAG:

For a group that's supposed to be slavering mysogynistic racists, the fastest growing ownership demographics are black people & all races of women.

#3 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2022-11-28 07:14 AM | Reply

Almost like they think there's somebody out to get them.

#4 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2022-11-28 07:14 AM | Reply

"The GOP lax gun laws spreading across the
nation"

Not to mention the trend of 2nd amendment "sanctuary cities and states" where law enforcement refuses to enforce the laws that ARE on the books.

#5 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-11-28 09:12 AM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

#1 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Not to be a nitpicker but there is no consensus on what makes a mass shooting. I personally stick to the Gun Violence Archives definition, which is what the article uses as well. That is an incident where at least four people are hit with gunfire not including the shooter, even if there are no fatalities.

But yes, it is insane how many of these happen in this country. 645 people killed and 2581 injured in mass shootings this year.

#6 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2022-11-28 09:48 AM | Reply

After more than 600 Mass Shootings this Year, let's be Honest about Men.

It's all men doing these shootings.

Women don't have this problem.

Now why is that?

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-28 10:12 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Yes let's be honest about guns.
When I went to school, we had a rifle team. With a range and *gasp real guns with ammo.
No one was shot. Not one.
The guns haven't changed, but taking them away seems to be the solution.
WHY?

Because the quick fix knee jerkers seem to think passing more gun laws is the easy solution.

#8 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2022-11-28 10:37 AM | Reply

"The guns haven't changed"

The gun advertising has changed.

Sandy Hook Families Settle for $73M With Gun Maker Remington
www.nbcconnecticut.com

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-28 10:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Because the quick fix knee jerkers seem to think passing more gun laws is the easy solution."

New laws? Hardly.

Repealing the Second Amendment is the only solution.

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-28 10:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"taking them away seems to be the solution.
WHY?"

Taking away guns is effective because then nobody has any guns to commit any mass shootings with.

I would have thought that would be intuitively obvious to anyone who is not a dummy.

The only solution that doesn't ever work, as we've seen in America, is not taking away the guns.

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-28 10:59 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

#11

Who is going to take them? Private ownership of guns in America far exceeds the number of people who would have the authority to confiscate them.

The only way this gets better is by education. And reducing the level of anger and violent rhetoric in America. But any practical reduction in those actual causes is unlikely at best.

#12 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2022-11-28 11:14 AM | Reply

#5 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY AT 2022-11-28 09:12 AM | FLAG: | FUNNY: 1

So i am curios ... is it funny that Republicans refuse to enforce gun laws???

Or is it funny that they are called "sanctuaries"?

#13 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-11-28 11:15 AM | Reply

"No one was shot. Not one."

In your school. Lucky you. (If true)

Let's be honest. You are not being honest.

People have been shot on firing ranges. Most were suicides.

seem to think passing more gun laws is the easy solution.

#8 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

Hell, we can't even get you maga maroons to enforce the ones on the books now much less pass new ones.

#14 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-11-28 11:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Hell, we can't even get you maga maroons to enforce the ones on the books now much less pass new ones."

Thank you!! They catch -------- with an illegal gun, ask them if they will cease their BS. The felon says, "yup, ah done seed the light".
Release.
Too bad its not the Conservatives doing this. Its the criminal loving left that cuts the criminal loose.
One dood in NYC was arrested 40 gotdam times and released 40 times.

#15 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2022-11-28 11:44 AM | Reply

They catch -------- with an illegal gun, ask them if they will cease their BS. The felon says, "yup, ah done seed the light".

Got a link for that little gem?

Because if we are being honest here everyone knows you ain't.

"Its the criminal loving left that cuts the criminal loose."

We are talking about enforcing actual gun laws already on the books here to prevent more gun violence not cashless bail. Which is a dishonest moving of the goal posts and another story altogether.

#16 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-11-28 11:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Who is going to take them?
#12 | POSTED BY WHATSLEFT

Nobody is going to take them.

Mass shootings will continue to be a feature of American life.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-28 11:53 AM | Reply

OK laws on the books.
In NYS there is a law ON THE BOOKS that says anyone caught with an unregistered handgun (no ccw permit) WILL get a mandatory one year in jail.
They catch people all the time for that and no one gets the *MANDATORY one year.
Sorry but you can howl all you want about the Conservatives not enforcing the laws.

#18 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2022-11-28 11:58 AM | Reply

"They catch -------- with an illegal gun"

^
Blaming the gun for being illegal
While not blaming the Second Amendment which confers upon us the legal right to bear arms
Is over the top stupid.

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-28 12:01 PM | Reply

"They catch people all the time for that and no one gets the *MANDATORY one year."

Our skilled weapons violation lawyers can devote the time and resources needed to craft a defense strategy or seek a favorable plea deal from the prosecution.
www.tilemlawfirm.com

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-28 12:07 PM | Reply

you can howl all you want about the Conservatives not enforcing the laws.

#18 | POSTED BY PHESTEROBOYLE

And I will continue to do so.

Still no actual link to your story that no one gets the *MANDATORY one year.

Must be a fixed news "special" alert that conveniently leaves out any important or inconvenient details.

#21 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-11-28 01:00 PM | Reply

Tell you what Snoofy, start your little crusade on repealing the second amendment. There's Zero point in saying it bc it WON'T happen

#22 | Posted by Bluewaffles at 2022-11-28 01:24 PM | Reply

"Tell you what Snoofy, start your little crusade on repealing the second amendment."

I've been doing that here for about fifteen years.

But most people can't tell the difference between "repeal the Second Amendment" and "ban guns."

Especially when they're Republicans they can't tell the difference.

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-28 02:16 PM | Reply

At the point in time when you value your right to own a gun more than the lives of other people in society (including children) you have lost all moral standing.

#24 | Posted by moder8 at 2022-11-28 03:18 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

How many of these were pot users?

#25 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-11-28 03:48 PM | Reply

How many of these were pot users?
#25 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

Not as many as were gun users.

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-28 03:53 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

There must be more than merely having a gun that motivates people to use them.

If I have a gun I'm going to be driven to use it?

There's more to the problem than the simple possession of guns.

Guns just aren't going away so instead we need to figure out why people are shooting each

I'm afraid we're not going to like the answer(s).

#29 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-11-28 04:27 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

We need at least one mental facility per every 100,000 people in this country.

#30 | Posted by Tor at 2022-11-28 04:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Here is a more accurate list-
mass-shootings.info
#26 | POSTED BY PUPPET16

Your list ends on April 9 and has 150 mass shootings, which extrapolates to 559 mass shootings for the year.

I guess since it's a mere 559 mass shootings, that means mass shootings isn't a problem and the liberal media is blowing it completely out of proportion by inflating it a whopping 7%.

(And these are the same people who say Ukraine should just give up 15% like it's nothing.)

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-28 04:33 PM | Reply

"There must be more than merely having a gun that motivates people to use them."

Yes they have hurt feelings and poor impulse control.

Like you feel about you, when you have gay sex.

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-28 04:34 PM | Reply

"There's more to the problem than the simple possession of guns."

Sure but the easiest fix is to dispossess the shooters of the guns.

Tell me why you think that's wrong.

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-28 04:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"There's more to the problem than the simple possession of guns."

Honestly, there really isn't anything more to it.

Allowing any Tom Dick and Harry to possess guns is why we keep having mass shootings.

I don't think you're so dumb you can't connect these dots.

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-28 04:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

There must be more than merely having a gun that motivates people to use them.
If I have a gun I'm going to be driven to use it?
There's more to the problem than the simple possession of guns.
Guns just aren't going away so instead we need to figure out why people are shooting each
I'm afraid we're not going to like the answer(s).

POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON AT 2022-11-28 04:27 PM | REPLY

God you're a Dummkopf.

#35 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-11-28 04:43 PM | Reply

#8 | Posted by phesterOBoyle

Funny you mention that... I seen there was a police officer shoot in my area just recently on the Gun Violence Archive. I dug into it. He was a cadet at the local police academy who, you guessed it, shot himself accidentally.

#36 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2022-11-28 04:49 PM | Reply

They should redefine "mass shooting" to mean 10 or more killed. Hell, it takes at least 25 just to get in the top ten.

#38 | Posted by REDIAL at 2022-11-28 05:24 PM | Reply

Replacement theory advocate pleads guilty to murder and hate crime charges. Tucker Fishsticks must be proud.

www.msn.com

#40 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2022-11-28 05:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"But nooo, we can't do that"

We can't do anything that will make a difference so long as the Second Amendment stands.

Everybody knows it. I'm the only one saying it.

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-28 05:51 PM | Reply

Actually a whole lot of you don't know it.

I doubt any Republicans know it. Zero. Unless Eberly wants to wow us or something. I won't hold my breath.

Republicans are still blaming video games and (scrolls up) pot smokers.

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-28 05:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Make the parole boards assume responsibility for the ones they release over and over again?"

Why not make gun manufacturers assume responsibility when their products are used as intended?

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-28 06:21 PM | Reply

Other interesting trends you can see on the GVA if you take the information graph it out and use trend lines.

- More police are getting shot year over year on average.
- More police are being killed by guns year over year on average.
- More people are being shot by police year over year on average.
- More people are being killed by police year over year on average.

Etc.

The more loose gun laws were supposed to make us a "civil" society again. Hogwash.
The more loose gun laws were supposed to make us "safer". Utter BS.

I can go on and on...

#47 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2022-11-28 06:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"When I went to school, we had a rifle team. " Adult supervised? Nobody supervises the rest of humanity this is why the guns can't be trusted by ALL people. You are thinking too small and with just your life.

#48 | Posted by Brennnn at 2022-11-28 06:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#49

You could bore them to death just as easily.

#50 | Posted by Corky at 2022-11-28 08:24 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

How else would you kill a Rottweiler or Pit Bull? Yes I've had to.

Stay out of their yard, porch pirate.

#51 | Posted by REDIAL at 2022-11-28 08:45 PM | Reply

Cars weren't designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible as the weapons most used in these massacres were designed to do.

And the people these weapons were designed for have military training on said weapons several times a year.... they aren't stupid kids who think since their Grampa is some Republican Bigot in Office that they should go buy one of these weapons and start killing people with it.

Funny how these things aren't obvious to some people.

#53 | Posted by Corky at 2022-11-28 08:53 PM | Reply

Neither can cars, ban cars.

Reminds me of RoboCop scrolling through the drop down menu of responses.

#54 | Posted by REDIAL at 2022-11-28 09:05 PM | Reply

Neither can cars, ban cars.

I'm not willing to go low-denominator

#52 | POSTED BY PUPPET16

Not willing to think either. Apparently.

Cars are not trusted to all people. For a reason.

#56 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-11-28 09:24 PM | Reply

I have livestock to protect

Of course you do. Pits and Rotties are a huge threat to livestock.

#57 | Posted by REDIAL at 2022-11-28 09:24 PM | Reply

"I have livestock to protect"

^
Perfect example of what I was explaining earlier.
Republicans cannot comprehend how "repeal the Second Amendment" is different from "ban all guns."
They really can't figure that out, and that's because they're stupid, either willfully or otherwise.

#58 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-28 09:31 PM | Reply

"If I have a gun I'm going to be driven to use it?"

...

From knowing your mental state (thru your posts) I would say you are much safer without one.

If you don't have a gun I guarangodamntee you can't be driven to use it.

If you do have a gun in the house it definitely increases of the odds of you or one of your family members dying from one.

Owning Guns Puts People in Your Home at Greater Risk of Being Killed, New Study Shows

time.com

#59 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-11-28 09:35 PM | Reply

"If I have a gun I'm going to be driven to use it?"

Certainly you're going to be driven to demonstrate your Alpha Male status when you've made your gun into an extension of your manhood.
Like those guys who open carry in the grocery store.
They're using a gun. They're not pulling the trigger but they're certainly using a gun.
It's their Emotional Support Weapon.

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-28 09:41 PM | Reply

Neither can cars, ban cars.
I'm not willing to go low-denominator
#52 | POSTED BY PUPPET16

Since there's no Second Amendment for Cars, the only remaining option is to Ban All Cars.
Another perfect example of how Conservatives are either unable or unwilling to understand the world we live in.

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-28 09:46 PM | Reply

#61 You don't seem capable of enlightenment. You really do seem just plan dumb.

#63 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-28 09:47 PM | Reply

It's their Emotional Support Weapon.

Depends upon where you live and what stores you frequent.

The government has abdicated its monopoly on the use of force, at this time you're on your own. I see nothing wrong with someone wanting to carry a weapon given this current state of Lumperism.

Its not their fault.

Republicans cannot comprehend how "repeal the Second Amendment" is different from "ban all guns."

Why don't you explain it, instead of just complaining, perhaps we will win some converts instead of insulting people.

Unless of course that's really your purpose.

#64 | Posted by oneironaut at 2022-11-28 09:48 PM | Reply

"Why don't you explain it"

Why don't you stop pretending you don't understand it.

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-28 09:51 PM | Reply

Needless to say, pretending you don't understand it is really your purpose.

#66 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-28 09:51 PM | Reply

"I see nothing wrong with someone wanting to carry a weapon given this current state of Lumperism."

^
It takes a special level of troll to look at Newtown and Uvalde and Parkland and Columbine and say they don't see anything wrong with someone wanting to carry a weapon.

#67 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-28 09:54 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

"Certainly you're going to be driven to demonstrate your Alpha Male status when you've made your gun into an extension of your manhood."

Is there just nothing you're an expert on?

#68 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-11-28 10:03 PM | Reply

Is there just nothing you're an expert on?

#68 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

Is there anything you know anything about?

(Besides who has a "real purty mouth" that is.)

#69 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-11-28 10:16 PM | Reply

#68 You don't think the guy open carrying in Starbucks is trying to prove a point while also begging for attention?

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-28 10:18 PM | Reply

#69 LOL

#71 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-28 10:19 PM | Reply

Donner,

"real purty mouth"

Is that your go to pick up line getting dates?

#72 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-11-28 10:26 PM | Reply

You need some pointers?

#73 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2022-11-28 11:05 PM | Reply

You need some pointers?

#73 | POSTED BY LEGALLYYOURDEAD AT 2022-11-28 11:05 PM | REPLY

You need some panties?

#74 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-11-28 11:35 PM | Reply

Republicans cannot comprehend how "repeal the Second Amendment" is different from "ban all guns."

A partisan hog found an acorn.

Repealing the Second Amendment would have the same effect as Dobbs; "it's up to the States." So, that ban all guns scenario b***s*** is just that, b***s***.

#75 | Posted by et_al at 2022-11-29 02:20 AM | Reply

"Repealing the Second Amendment would have the same effect as Dobbs"

The work it would take to repeal this would likely require the support of responsible gun owners in order to build sufficient consensus to ever come to pass.

The alternative is more of the same. More mass shootings and more Snoofy clucking about it every damn time.

See you next week!

#76 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-29 02:28 AM | Reply

what's your solution, et al?

#77 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2022-11-29 03:29 AM | Reply

I don't want the event that will convert gun rights supporters into a gun control advocate to rver happen to you gun rights supporters. I'd much rather admitting to being wrong van't cpst ypu anything more than pride but, if you gun rights aadvocates somehow, someday exprtirnce the loss of s loved one due to the action of a nut with a gun I want you to know that I take no satisfaction in that.
Being in favor of gun control is, I know, very unpopulae among some people but I sm still in favor of real gun control like a ban on military style weapons which do seem to be rge weapon of choice for mass shooters. I'm aware some ultra=conswrvatibe oppoments of any sensible laws ro slow rhe rate om mass shootings is a very emotional problem for some but, if you really hust want these weapons for target practice rhen why not keep them at the firing range where disturged, angry teenagers wpn't have access to them and thieves vwon't either . And let's all actually read the 2nd Amendment.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Let's not just convenienrly pretend that first sentence isn't there as our aold out Supreme Court has done. I wonder how they sleep at night with mass shootings occurring weekly in our country.

#78 | Posted by danni at 2022-11-29 06:54 AM | Reply

"The guns haven't changed, but taking them away seems to be the solution.
WHY?"

That is a stupid post even for you Phester.

Those guns are used under the supervision of an adult who has experience with weapons. They aren't just handing out guns anf then telling the young people to go play with them. Duh!

#80 | Posted by danni at 2022-11-29 09:53 AM | Reply

what's your solution, et al?
#77 | POSTED BY ALEXANDRITE

For there to be a solution, there must first be a problem.

As this thread demonstrates, there's a whole lot of people who work very hard to convince themselves that guns are not a problem.

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-29 10:33 AM | Reply

Taking guns away from Americans would be like taking the stars out of Old Glory. They are part and parcel of this nation. And we wonder why this is such a violent society?

#82 | Posted by moder8 at 2022-11-29 11:23 AM | Reply

"The chilling note the Walmart shooter left in his phone railing against his co-workers and claiming his phone was hacked suggests he was a deeply disturbed 31-year-old. "

Ok, so then all of those celebrities who post stupid, hurtful things and then claim their phones were hacked need to be put in mental facilities to protect society, right?

Guns are a problem. But they are only a problem when a living thing does something with them. But, just like free speech, the only solutions Dems can offer is to remove someone's rights. Such an old and tired conversation. I would say come up with new ideas but, when left to their own devices, Dems "new ideas" means bathroom problems and criminals being let free or let into the country without any care for society.

#83 | Posted by humtake at 2022-11-29 11:50 AM | Reply

"the only solutions Dems can offer is to remove someone's rights."

That's one more solution than Republicans have.

Normal people don't object to taking gun rights away from people who shouldn't have guns.

Republicans do.

#84 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-29 12:21 PM | Reply

Easy for WAPO to write this, but most American pro-gun people cannot admit that their reasons for owning weapons of mass destruction have nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

The inconsistencies are seen even here on this website; some of the fervent pro-weapon-of-mass-destruction folks here are not even honest with themselves about why such weapons are, in their eyes, desirable or necessary.

#85 | Posted by e1g1 at 2022-11-29 02:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Guns are a problem. But they are only a problem when a living thing does something with them.
-Humtake--

Probably the most inane and obviously headshaking comment you've posted recently.
The same could be said about atomic weapons. Or the aural creations of Miley Cyrus. Or cars. Or [insert noun here].

#86 | Posted by e1g1 at 2022-11-29 02:29 PM | Reply

Clambake's "posts" sound more and more like Mad Libs everyday.

#87 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2022-11-29 02:46 PM | Reply

Danni,

"I don't want the event that will convert gun rights supporters into a gun control advocate"

Are those mutually exclusive?

#88 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-11-29 02:54 PM | Reply

I'm a gun control advocate who believes in the right to bear arms.

However like most things I don't believe in absolutes.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say anything anywhere.

#89 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-11-29 03:01 PM | Reply

How do you advocate controlling a right, BillJohnson?

That is a contradiction.

#90 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-29 03:05 PM | Reply

Gun violence is a people problem first and foremost.

Bringing up family members being killed to influence people hints at sounding passive aggressive.

#91 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-11-29 03:06 PM | Reply

"Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say anything anywhere."

Holler back when someone takes out 20 students with a speech.

#92 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-29 03:07 PM | Reply

"Gun violence is a people problem first and foremost."

Especially for the victims!

You're not saying anything, but you make it sound like you said something that changes the way we should think about gun violence.

Notice it's called gun violence. Notice the "person with a" gun is implied. Great, now we're all caught up.

#93 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-29 03:10 PM | Reply

Freedom of speech means the government can't impede your speech, or punish you / imprison you for what you say.

That freedom has eroded over time, the borders are porous, be aware of what you're saying.

Freedom of speech doesn't protect you you from retaliation by private citizens or entities.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean people have to listen to you.

#94 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-11-29 03:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Freedom of speech doesn't mean people have to listen to you."

Unfortunately the same is not true for the Second Amendment.

"Jeremy spoke in class today."
--Pearl Jam

#95 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-29 03:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Snoofy,

Perhaps we need to be more cogniscent of people who threaten violence and start locking them up until they figure it out.

At a minimum they would get off whatever drugs or bad influence they're exposed and get some therapy.

We need to help people get more mentally healthy perhaps even against their will.

Freedoms aren't absolute.

You're a threat to society...well

#96 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-11-29 03:41 PM | Reply

#85 | POSTED BY E1G1

That's a really good point. The 2A uses the well regulated militia and security of the state as the reasons the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But how many people own, carry, or otherwise use personal firearms for those reasons? In reality I mean, not in some crazed power fantasy, or a Red Dawn scenario.

#97 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-11-29 03:44 PM | Reply

#98

I don't understand the point myself, but the 2A does not protect your right to go hunting, so that's not an excuse. It doesn't even protect your right to defend your home, although I would argue that falls under the natural right of self-defense, or the defense of others.

The 2A exists for one reason, and you got it wrong El Buscador. It's to defend the US constitution and the rights afforded the people under it. In fact, it was largely drafted with the intent of keeping the state at bay, should the violate the rights provided under the constitution.

It also did have a secondary effect of creating very well armed population that could hold other enemies at bay should the choose to invade the US. I think a foreign invasion of Idaho or Montana would look a lot like the US/Coalition invasion of Afghanistan. Only the mountain people here would be far better armed.

#98 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-11-29 03:53 PM | Reply

Liberals ultimate goal is to put people on the government dole for life and ban all guns.

Sounds like locking up children in a room and putting away the toys they could hurt themselves.

Only the Democratic leaders would have a key.

#99 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-11-29 03:53 PM | Reply

Clown,

"Freedom of speech doesn't mean people have to listen to you."

Listen and hear are 2 different things.

If you're in the same room you may not have any right to shut them up.

You don't have to listen but you may have to hear.

The courts deal with these conflicts all time.

#100 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-11-29 03:59 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

"Notice it's called gun violence."

Guns aren't violent.

People are violent.

#101 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2022-11-29 04:02 PM | Reply

#99

That would be hard to do under the current constitution. Although they appear to be conducting probing fires into regions such things might bear fruit.

#102 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-11-29 04:16 PM | Reply

#98 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

I got nothing wrong. You basically restated what I wrote, just different wording. The reason for the 2A if for the citizens, as a well-regulated militia, to be able to defend the United States, even from its own government. Hence the 'security of the state'. And E1G1's point, which I commented on, was that very few gun owners actually own their guns for those reasons. I sure don't. Most of mine are hunting weapons, with a couple intended more for home or self-defense. Several are just old family heirlooms that I don't even shoot anymore. I don't own weapons for the purpose of defending the country from a tyrannical government.

#103 | Posted by El_Buscador at 2022-11-29 04:21 PM | Reply

Guns aren't violent.
People are violent.
#101 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

Have you been hitting the gym extra?
Because have a firm grasp of the obvious.

Try this: Should violent people have the right to bear arms?

#104 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-29 04:26 PM | Reply

"The 2A exists for one reason, and you got it wrong El Buscador. It's to defend the US constitution and the rights afforded the people under it."

Got any examples where this happened?

Here's what you are overlooking:
A gun allows a person to "defend" all kinds of rights, including ones they don't have under the Constitution.
Like the rights to the money in the bank.
Or the right to kill a President they don't like, which has been done with a gun four times -- and never anything else.

#105 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-29 04:29 PM | Reply

"In fact, it was largely drafted with the intent of keeping the state at bay, should the violate the rights provided under the constitution."

Link?

#106 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-29 04:29 PM | Reply

"The 2A exists for one reason"

Supreme Court jurisprudence is that the reason doesn't matter.
The reason spelled out in the Second Amendment especially doesn't matter.

#107 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-29 04:31 PM | Reply

After more than 600 Mass Shootings this Year, let's be Honest about Guns

Republicans aren't capable of that; they're too cucked by a Russian money laundering outfit.

#108 | Posted by JOE at 2022-11-29 04:39 PM | Reply

Guns aren't violent.
People are violent.
POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON AT 2022-11-29 04:02 PM | REPLY

God you're so dumb. Yes guns are violent.

#109 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-11-29 04:41 PM | Reply

Guns aren't violent.
People are violent.
#101 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

Great, so how do we keep violent and/or mentally unstable people from getting guns and shooting people?

#110 | Posted by Sycophant at 2022-11-29 05:09 PM | Reply

Yes, let's be honest about guns. It's more important now more than ever that law abiding citizens carry guns to defend themselves and others against the lawless rabble that is already in this countryn not to mention streaming across the border in record numbers.

#111 | Posted by TheMajorKong at 2022-11-29 06:02 PM | Reply

"It's more important now more than ever that law abiding citizens carry guns to defend themselves"

That's not an effective defense.

Signed,
Uvalde PD

#112 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-29 06:35 PM | Reply

But that's just my opinion.

You -- and millions like you -- hold the opinion that 20 dead children is a good trade for one dead gunman.

There's no amount of dead children which would change your minds on the Second Amendment.

#113 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-29 06:42 PM | Reply

The 2A exists for one reason ...

I disagree. The expression of a purpose in the preamble is not an expression of the purpose to the exclusion of others. If natural rights are accepted as a foundation of the Bill of Rights then survival is surely included. Firearms for both hunting and self defense can also be a purpose of the Second Amendment. It was certainly thought to be in the founding era.

It also did have a secondary effect ...

Yes, survival of a natural right of consensual self governance is a purpose just not the purpose.

Side note, wasn't there a Japanese General that opined on a potential invasion of the US West Coast along the lines, you will be met with a rifle behind every blade of grass.

#114 | Posted by et_al at 2022-11-30 01:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

@#98 ... The 2A exists for one reason, and you got it wrong El Buscador. It's to defend the US constitution and the rights afforded the people under it. ...

Please, stand face to face with the families of those killed by guns and explain that, in detail.


The 2a has been abused.


#115 | Posted by LampLighter at 2022-11-30 01:49 AM | Reply

I am a big 2A fan. Guns mostly kill their owner.
Without easy access to guns a lot of vets would not off themselves.
That would reduce the supply of grieving widows with fat pensions that I prey on.
Gun deaths are a small price to pay for my grifting.

#116 | Posted by bored at 2022-11-30 02:23 AM | Reply

"Got any examples where this happened?"

Got any examples of where it needed to? Maybe because of an armed population?

"A gun allows a person to "defend" all kinds of rights, including ones they don't have under the Constitution."

Technically, defense is considered a natural right. Not something that you must ask permission to do. And technically, if you need the government's permission to defend yourself, you're by designed denied the right.

"Like the rights to the money in the bank. Or the right to kill a President they don't like, which has been done with a gun four times -- and never anything else."

And they have the right to defend themselves against you...you being the aggressor. Your position appears to be one that a bank should not be able to defend itself by using guns, but rather rely on some other party for that defense.

#117 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-11-30 02:44 PM | Reply

#106

Do you really need a link for that?

#118 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-11-30 02:47 PM | Reply

"Got any examples of where it needed to?"

How about slavery?

Guns defended the armed population of slave owners' rights to possess their property.

#119 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-30 02:58 PM | Reply

Do you really need a link for that?
#118 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

It's more about the concept.

How can a state that's being kept at bay also secure my rights and other blessings of liberty?

#120 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-30 03:02 PM | Reply

"Please, stand face to face with the families of those killed by guns and explain that, in detail."

This is a very shallow statement given who is doing the speaking.

First off, I would gladly do it, pointing out that a gun has never killed a person any more than a knife, or a car, or an airplane, or even a bare fist. What is different about a gun is that the right to own it is protected under the constitution. And if you ignore that, out of grief, or fear, or anger, or whatever, what's to say that you wouldn't ignore (or support the government ignoring) anything in the constitution.

The language of the second amendment is clear. The right to keep and bear arms is there to allow for an armed populace. Don't like it? Cool. There are mechanisms to legally change it. Or anything else in the constitution for that matter. But you don't just get to ignore it. That's not a thing.

Is there any trade space here? I think so. Et Al obviously is the lawyer round these parts, but I think that if the US were to adopt models similar to those used under similar justification in European countries, particularly Switzerland, it would be pretty difficult to claim that the restrictions were not compliant with the second amendment. Most European "Home Guard" members keep a weapon and ammunition at home. Some countries even subsidize the cost of ammunition for training.

This, of course, would really just address the "well-regulated militia" part. Guns for hunting or personal self-defense could still be banned, as hunting and self-defense are not explicitly covered in the constitution.

#121 | Posted by madbomber at 2022-11-30 03:02 PM | Reply

"And technically, if you need the government's permission to defend yourself, you're by designed denied the right."

Is the Second Amendment government given permission to defend ourselves?

#122 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-30 03:03 PM | Reply

"The language of the second amendment is clear. The right to keep and bear arms is there to allow for an armed populace. Don't like it? Cool. There are mechanisms to legally change it. Or anything else in the constitution for that matter. But you don't just get to ignore it. That's not a thing."

You seem to be arguing that we should ignore the death to from guns.

That it's not a problem.

#123 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-30 03:07 PM | Reply

"I think that if the US were to adopt models similar to those used under similar justification in European countries, particularly Switzerland, it would be pretty difficult to claim that the restrictions were not compliant with the second amendment."

LOL!!!
We can't even have a registry of gun owners.
Despite that not being illegal under the Second Amendment.

#124 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-30 03:09 PM | Reply

I think that if the US were to adopt models similar to those used under similar justification in European countries, particularly Switzerland, it would be pretty difficult to claim that the restrictions were not compliant with the second amendment.

This is the most ignorant ---- i've read in months. The fake rightwing majority on SCOTUS just invalidated New York's heightened standards to receive a concealed carry permit, a permit that is extremely difficult to get in Switzerland. Additionally, that it is "difficult to claim" their restrictions would not violate the 2A does not mean the FedSoc political operatives controlling SCOTUS would not adopt such an argument anyways. In fact it is virtually guaranteed that they would.

But aside from all of that, Americans have proven themselves far too reckless and violent to be afforded the kind of lenient gun access found in Switzerland, so your focus on that particular country's gun laws is both bizarre and inept.

#125 | Posted by JOE at 2022-11-30 03:25 PM | Reply

"This is the most ignorant ---- i've read in months."

Gun threads deliver the full dose of how crazy and stupid you have to be to think the Second Amendment is a net positive in American life.

And they still can't figure out how people in other countries legally possess firearms without a Second Amendment giving them the right.

They really just can't figure that out. Even as they scroll the DR on their phone that the government has not given them a right to bear, they can't figure it out.

#126 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-11-30 03:30 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2023 World Readable

Drudge Retort