Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, August 25, 2024

A federal judge has dismissed charges against a Kansas man for possessing a machine gun, saying prosecutors failed to establish that a federal ban on owning such weapons is constitutional.

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.

I want a personal Atomic Bomb. How longg until this SCOTUS rules that individuals have a constitutional right to WMD?

It just gets Stupider and more unbelievable every year. Even the most reasonable restraints on weapons ownership nare routinely gutted on 2nd amendment grounds.

Somehow the same SCOTUS majority keeps finding reasons to limit other equally or more important rights, 1st and 4th amendment rights keep eroding, but the 2nd amendment is absolute and utterly all encompassing, preventing states and local governments from passing even the most obvious and sensible regulations of Arms.

WTF?

#1 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2024-08-24 10:57 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Nobody asked you, Russian stooge.

#2 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-08-24 11:39 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

This is dumb and just an attempt to put a test case in front of SCOTUS.

A SCOTUS who has already stated in multiple decisions that certain restrictions are constitutional and will remain in place.

I'm willing to bet money that will remain inclusive of automatic weapons.

#3 | Posted by jpw at 2024-08-24 02:58 PM | Reply

Another bastard offspring from the Roberts Court and a paean to wackdoodle "originalism."

To get around Heller's conclusion that the government may regulate dangerous and unusual weapons like fully automatic firearms, Broomes primarily argues that there were no laws similar to the modern-day ban on machine guns either in 18th century England or during the period around America's founding.

Of course, there's a really obvious reason why no actual machine gun ban existed in the 1700s: The machine gun wasn't invented until 1884.
www.vox.com

#4 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2024-08-24 05:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Another bastard offspring from the Roberts Court and a paean to wackdoodle "originalism."

To get around Heller's conclusion that the government may regulate dangerous and unusual weapons like fully automatic firearms, Broomes primarily argues that there were no laws similar to the modern-day ban on machine guns either in 18th century England or during the period around America's founding.

Of course, there's a really obvious reason why no actual machine gun ban existed in the 1700s: The machine gun wasn't invented until 1884.
www.vox.com

#5 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2024-08-24 05:03 PM | Reply

You just know this is WPS.

#6 | Posted by fresno500 at 2024-08-24 09:55 PM | Reply

@#6 ... You just know this is WPS. ...

Wisconsin Public Service?

I do not see that connection.


#7 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-08-24 10:21 PM | Reply

WiFi Protected Setup?

#8 | Posted by YAV at 2024-08-24 10:26 PM | Reply

(helping with the "connection" for you in #7)

#9 | Posted by YAV at 2024-08-24 10:26 PM | Reply

@#9

Yeah.

Sometimes I have to ponder whether the TLAs (three letter acronyms) posed by some here are more of a deflection attempt, than any real contribution to the conversation.

The #6 post is a prime example of that.

imo, it just shows the lamesness of their position on the matter.

Deflection, rather than discussion.



#10 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-08-24 10:42 PM | Reply

A SCOTUS who has already stated in multiple decisions that certain restrictions are constitutional and will remain in place.

#3 | Posted by jpw at 2024-08-24 02:58 PM | Reply

If they were not specific, don't hold your breath.

#11 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-08-25 03:41 PM | Reply

They were specific.

Even citing the historical analogs supporting their constitutionality under their new rules.

#12 | Posted by jpw at 2024-08-25 06:45 PM | Reply

When I began my USN career, a career that would continue for 30+ years, I took an oath to support and defend the US Constitution. Within a few years, I enrolled in a top tier university's Constitutional Law course, which opened my eyes to the fact that what is written in the Constitution has been interpreted and reinterpreted variously over the years by courts, with the Federal Courts and Supreme Court making finer and finer interpretations over time.

Not too remarkably, with fellow patriots in service from all over the US and its territories and even from other parts of the globe, even military members have differing opinions on what the Constitution means. One of the perpetual debates is over the 2nd Amendment.

Massachusetts's Lexington & Concord National Historic Sites are a stark lesson on what, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ... " meant to our Constitution's authors and their fellow citizens. Had machine guns been part of colonies's militia arsenals, the only citizens who would be allowed to touch such a weapon would be a member of their colony's (later, state's) official militia, and only in compliance with orders and regulations.

Personally, I would like to have a small stock off hunting and defensive weapons safely locked up in my domicile, primarily to retain my marksmanship skills. But I know with 100% certainty that not everyone is capable of safely possessing ANY deadly weapon, let alone combat weapons or, God forbid, machine guns! I also think that in civil society, when the nation is not under attack by a hostile military opponent, the idea of "open carry" by droves of random, unregulated, gun-crazy civilians is very disturbing.

Unfortunately, over many decades various iterations of the SCOTUS has all but invalidated the "well regulated Militia" part of the Constitution, and a crazy sympathy has evolved with radical "shall not be infringed" advocates. God help America if we follow trend down the rabbit hole to calamity.

#13 | Posted by Augustine at 2024-08-26 04:00 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

More militia nonsense. People privately owned cannons. The only barrier to owning the maximum amount of firepower available, including warships, was personal wealth.

#14 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-08-26 07:31 AM | Reply

#13 | Posted by Augustine

And you are so spot on with exactly that interpretation.

#15 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2024-08-26 09:58 AM | Reply

#14 | Posted by sitzkrieg

And people own cannons today they personally own fighter jets too. What's your point? Everything is fair game?

#16 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2024-08-26 10:02 AM | Reply

#5

Cool story, but incorrect.

The machine gun is MUCH older than 1884, and in fact existed prior to the US being a country.

www.youtube.com

It wasn't considered legally different from any other kind of gun until 1934.

#17 | Posted by DarkVader at 2024-08-26 10:17 AM | Reply

Everything is fair game?

#16 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2024-08-26 10:02 AM | Reply

When the 2A was written, everything was fair game for The People the privately own. Cannon armed warships, towed cannons with grape shot that shredded people by the dozen, semi-automatic flintlock rifles, multi-barrel nock guns, having a bucket full of loaded pistols, triangular bayonets (which are currently against the geneva convention. The only barrier to entry was money.

#18 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-08-26 01:31 PM | Reply

or royal connections. Very large cannon were monopolized by the royal governments, so absent friends at a court, if you wanted one you'd have to get a Letter of Marque, and successfully commit piracy against increasingly larger ships... until you run into a Royal Navy 6th rate and they run you down, capture and hang you all.

#19 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-08-26 01:33 PM | Reply

but if you managed to pirate it, it's legally yours to own now as an American. Park a 32 pound carronade in your living room if you could come up with enough rope and draft animals to move it.

#20 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-08-26 01:35 PM | Reply

America, where the right to own any weapon outweighs the common-sense right to live without being killed by them

#21 | Posted by e1g1 at 2024-08-26 04:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Pretty sad that we live in a country where guns have more rights than people.
The Right is a party of would-be butchers and sociopaths.

p.s. Righties...'Yeah tell that to the dead children of Sandy Hook and Uvalde Elementaries'...

#22 | Posted by earthmuse at 2024-08-26 09:09 PM | Reply

Pretty sad that we live in a country were people are just begging the government to come take away their rights and baby sit them.

#23 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2024-08-27 10:10 AM | Reply

"Trump Says We Gotta' Restrict the First Amendment"

#24 | Posted by YAV at 2024-08-27 10:17 AM | Reply

"Trump Says We Gotta' Restrict the First Amendment"

#24 | POSTED BY YAV

By using the Second Amendment.

Apparently.

Too bad, so sad.

This is the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave ... where Nothing can be Done ... to save us from ourselves.

#25 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-08-27 12:05 PM | Reply

Trump did something that Bush and Obama wouldn't, directly attack the second amendment with an Executive Order, to ban items the ATF had clarified the legality of many times.

#26 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-08-27 02:04 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 2024 World Readable

Drudge Retort