Most Dangerous Sentence in the Constitution | Drudge Retort

Advertisement

Thursday, August 21, 2025

Most Dangerous Sentence in the Constitution

David French: Many of the Constitution's flaws remain hidden when America is governed by decent men, but that become obvious and dangerous when it is not. Poor character creates a constitutional stress test, and it can reveal fatal defects in much the same way that a physical stress test can expose flaws in your heart.

Posted by retort at 10:06 AM | 41 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, stating that this right shall not be infringed.

#1 | Posted by fresno500 at 2025-08-21 11:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, stating that this right shall not be infringed.

#1 | Posted by fresno500

The founders specifically tied those arms to being in a militia.

#2 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2025-08-21 12:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary"

Karl Marx

#3 | Posted by DarkVader at 2025-08-21 12:59 PM | Reply

The founders specifically tied those arms to being in a militia.

#2 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2025-08-21 12:53 PM | FLAG:

We are the militia.

#4 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2025-08-21 01:17 PM | Reply

"We" who?

Clearly you mean white folks.

#5 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-08-21 01:25 PM | Reply

We are the militia.

#4 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

I doubt there is anything about you that is "well regulated" except maybe your bowl movements.

When is the last time you drilled ?

#6 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-08-21 01:40 PM | Reply

Free White Persons, specifically, also the only people eligible for citizenship via immigration per the constitution..
No one then or now agrees with the policy of arming the people who cause the great majority of the problems.
THEN the problem would not have developed; NOW the solution, according to those who caused the problem, would be to strip the rights of everyone en masse just to be 'fair'. It's a race to the lowest demon-inator.

#7 | Posted by easy_meat at 2025-08-21 01:41 PM | Reply

#6 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

Pathetic understanding.

The phrase is a commentary on the reasoning behind allowing the people to bear arms.

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

"Well regulated militia" means a process for activating, training, and deploying the militia in official service should be efficient.

If everyone has a weapon and knows how to use it, it would be an efficient way to form Militia's in fact that is what happened in the civil war.

It's a race to the lowest demon-inator.
#7 | POSTED BY EASY_MEAT

This is how Lumpers govern.

#8 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-08-21 02:11 PM | Reply

The founders specifically tied those arms to being in a militia.

No they didn't, isn't English your first language?

#9 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-08-21 02:12 PM | Reply

#8 | POSTED BY ONEIRONAUT

Pathetic attempt at misinformation from a hostile foreign agitator.

Well regulated militia" means a process for activating, training, and deploying the militia in official service should be efficient.

Which requires training. Or drills. Practice. With other militia members.

Again. When is the last time any of you drilled?

AI overview:

Well-regulated militia" in the context of the Second Amendment refers to a well-organized, disciplined, and capable body of armed citizens, not simply a group of individuals with guns. It emphasizes the importance of a structured and effective militia for the security of a free state, rather than individual gun ownership for personal reasons.

The Founding Fathers believed a well-regulated militia was necessary to protect against both external threats and potential government overreach. They saw it as a civic obligation, not just an individual right.

They were apparently wrong about the 2nd amendment being able to prevent government overreach. And with the advent of AI and cyber warfare and social media probably wrong about protecting against external threats, too.

#10 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-08-21 02:22 PM | Reply

they put the right into the constitution in order to have the people be able to form a militia should one be needed...

it's pretty simple, we need a militia so grab your gun and let's go.

The only way to interpret the 2nd amendment differently is if you have an anti gun agenda.

#11 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2025-08-21 02:24 PM | Reply

Again. When is the last time any of you drilled?

-Please, I'm trying to not take that, it's too easy.

#12 | Posted by easy_meat at 2025-08-21 02:31 PM | Reply

We are the militia.

#4 | Posted by lfthndthrds

The army is the militia. Since we had no standing army when the 2A was written.

#13 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2025-08-21 02:33 PM | Reply

The only way to interpret the 2nd amendment differently is if you have an anti gun agenda.

#11 | Posted by kwrx25

The only way to interpret the 2A as it is currently used is to pretend the founders wrote WELL REGULATED MILITIA for no reason.

#14 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2025-08-21 02:34 PM | Reply

TRY to 'organize' a 'militia' right now. I dare you. TRY.

What would be the point of a popular check on tyranny, if it's only allowed by permission of the central tyrant?

#15 | Posted by easy_meat at 2025-08-21 02:35 PM | Reply

"A fraud on the American public."

That's how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun.

When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum."

www.politico.com

#16 | Posted by Corky at 2025-08-21 02:37 PM | Reply

WELL REGULATED MILITIA for no reason.

#14 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

-You use that word (REGULATED) a lot, but I don't think you know what it means (meant)
I'm pretty sure it had nothing to do with permissions established by appointed central government agencies or 'independent' authorities empowered by authoritarian-minded 'representatives' who spend the bulk of their time soliciting funds to perpetuate their respective personal power schemes.

#17 | Posted by easy_meat at 2025-08-21 02:43 PM | Reply

TRY to 'organize' a 'militia' right now. I dare you. TRY.

What would be the point of a popular check on tyranny, if it's only allowed by permission of the central tyrant?

#15 | Posted by easy_meat

If you're white and your militia is pro christofascism, you'll be fine.

#18 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2025-08-21 02:50 PM | Reply

-You use that word (REGULATED) a lot, but I don't think you know what it means (meant)

#17 | Posted by easy_meat

So the founders put it in there for no reason?

#19 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2025-08-21 02:51 PM | Reply

The 2nd amendment will disappear the minute it threatens shitler

#20 | Posted by truthhurts at 2025-08-21 02:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#16 | Posted by Corky
I agree, some people should not be trusted with guns.
Of course you're going to have trouble if you assign advanced personal rights to those that are unable to properly regulate their behavior responsibly - those who "have neither the intellectual, mental, or emotional abilities to equate or share equally with ... any function of our civilization."

#21 | Posted by easy_meat at 2025-08-21 02:58 PM | Reply

I agree, some people should not be trusted with guns.

Black people?

#22 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-08-21 02:59 PM | Reply

2.bp.blogspot.com

#23 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2025-08-21 03:00 PM | Reply

If you're white and your militia is pro christofascism, you'll be fine.

#18 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

Really?
Sep 5, 2023 " (((Top US law enforcement officials))) say those extremist movements are the biggest domestic terrorism threat facing the country.

#24 | Posted by easy_meat at 2025-08-21 03:01 PM | Reply

I agree, some people should not be trusted with guns.

#21 | Posted by easy_meat

What about people who are so dumb and deluded that they swallowed the lies of an obvious con man and attempted to overthrow democracy?

#25 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2025-08-21 03:02 PM | Reply

Black people?

#22 | Posted by ClownShack

"those who "have neither the intellectual, mental, or emotional abilities to equate or share equally with ... any function of our civilization.""

*automatically thinks "blacks"...

#26 | Posted by easy_meat at 2025-08-21 03:05 PM | Reply

Sep 5, 2023 " (((Top US law enforcement officials))) say those extremist movements are the biggest domestic terrorism threat facing the country.
#24 | Posted by easy_meat

That was under Biden

Under Trump, top US law enforcement officials are the biggest domestic terrorism threat.

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-08-21 03:06 PM | Reply

The only way to interpret the 2nd amendment differently is if you have an anti gun agenda.
#11 | Posted by kwrx25

How is it an anti gun agenda to say a crazy person shouldn't have the right to bear arms?

In yourind, an anti murder agenda and an anti gun agenda are the same thing.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-08-21 03:07 PM | Reply

automatically thinks "blacks"...
#26 | POSTED BY EASY_MEAT

"blacks"?

Why not call them what you do when you're hanging out with your MAGA incel buddies.

#29 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-08-21 03:08 PM | Reply

#21

Laughable yet again... 'some people should not be trusted with guns' isn't the point.

Try actually reading the article in #16 for the history of the Amendment starting in the Constitutional Convention where Madison never mentioned any such thing.

And to 2008 when the NRA gun lobby bought themselves a new spin on the commas in the Amendment.

#30 | Posted by Corky at 2025-08-21 03:08 PM | Reply

How is it an anti gun agenda to say a crazy person shouldn't have the right to bear arms?

Because then most Trump supporters would have to give up their firearms.

#31 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-08-21 03:09 PM | Reply

"Stupid black and migrant gun owners!"

#32 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2025-08-21 03:13 PM | Reply

Violent rwing white nationalists have been the largest threat of Domestic Terrorism in this country for several decades now. But that's only according to Homeland Security, the FBI, and every US agency that's ever reported on it.

Of course, Trump has the Propaganda Unit werking on that as we speak. It will turn out that pregnant women, gays, and trans are actually the real National Threats.

#33 | Posted by Corky at 2025-08-21 03:17 PM | Reply

#32 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS

cool it with the anti semitism.

#34 | Posted by easy_meat at 2025-08-21 03:19 PM | Reply

Violent rwing white nationalists have been the largest threat of Domestic Terrorism in this country for several decades now. But that's only according to (((Homeland Security))), the (((FBI))), and (((every US agency))) that's ever reported on it.

-This is why I avoid white neighborhoods.

#35 | Posted by easy_meat at 2025-08-21 03:22 PM | Reply

This is why I avoid white neighborhoods.
#35 | Posted by easy_meat

Whites who aren't Democrats aren't at risk from White right-wing domestic terrorism, so you'll be fine.

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-08-21 03:24 PM | Reply

The most misunderstood words in the constitution are, "We the People."

When it actually meant White Christian heterosexual landowning Europeans and their descendants.

But, not the Irish, Italians weren't considered White at the time. The Spanish and French weren't part of the nation yet, the Dutch were, but who knows what happened to them. And Germans were too busy attacking the rest of Europe to care about America yet.

So. Mainly just British people.

The constitution only applies to British men and their sons. As long as their sons weren't gay, remained Christian and continued to own property.

#37 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-08-21 03:25 PM | Reply

www.cdc.gov
provided without comment

#38 | Posted by easy_meat at 2025-08-21 03:33 PM | Reply

#8

Firearm related homicide is not defined as Domestic Terrorism... no matter your obvious obfuscations to race.

#39 | Posted by Corky at 2025-08-21 03:38 PM | Reply

Why not provide the summary?

In 2021, among males, Black or African American (Black) males had the highest age-adjusted rate of firearm-related homicide (52.9 deaths per 100,000 standard population), and Asian males had the lowest rate (1.5). Among females, Black females had the highest rate (7.5), and Asian females had the lowest rate (0.5). Males had higher rates than females across all race and Hispanic origin groups.

100x the chance to be killed with a gun for a Black man compared to an Asian woman.

2x the chance to be killed with a gun is you're an Asian man compared to an Asian woman.

#40 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-08-21 03:39 PM | Reply

Firearm related homicide is not defined as Domestic Terrorism.

For example, ethnic cleansing by Dylan Roof or that Wal*Mart ethnic cleansing in El Paso.

Not terrorism.

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-08-21 03:41 PM | Reply

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