Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, August 21, 2025

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.

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.

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 -------

#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.-------------

#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!"

https://quixote.org/files/field/image/massshooter-e1565623432940.jpg

#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 | Funny: 1

#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

images.guns.com

#42 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2025-08-21 03:52 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 2nd amendment the way it is interpreted now by the Supreme Court is to be mentally incompetent possibly criminally insane and have a Death wish for America.

#43 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-08-21 03:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

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

That would be a rag tag group of individuals with guns.

Not a "well regulated" militia.

#44 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-08-21 04:05 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."
--Corky
-----------------------------------------------------------
Violent right-wingers are of course extremely dangerous...but they weren't always considered the number one threat. Of course extremists of any group can be dangerous, whether right-wing, left-wing or chicken-wing. (Because most violent people of these groups, in my opinion, are a bunch of wimpy-azzed chickens looking for a way to wear a black mask and blow up stuff for their mentally deranged entertainment.)

In the 2000's eco-terrorists were considered to be the greatest domestic threat, according to the FBI.

"In 2006 the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) announced that it considered ecoterrorism by animal rights activists to be the greatest domestic security threat facing the United States. In 2009 an American animal rights activist, Daniel Andreas San Diego, became the first "domestic terrorist" to be placed on the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorists list."

www.britannica.com

And from 60 minutes:

"This story originally aired on Nov. 13, 2005.

When they first emerged in the mid-1990s, the environmental extremists calling themselves the "Earth Liberation Front" announced they were "the burning rage of a dying planet."

Ever since, the ELF, along with its sister group, the Animal Liberation Front, has been burning everything from SUV dealerships to research labs to housing developments.

In the last decade, these so-called "eco-terrorists" have been responsible for more than $100 million in damages. And their tactics are beginning to escalate.

Some splinter groups have set off homemade bombs and threatened to kill people. As correspondent Ed Bradley first reported last November, things have gotten so bad, the FBI now considers them the country's biggest domestic terrorist threat."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/burning-rage/

#45 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2025-08-21 08:19 PM | Reply

Nice whataboutism... if the point is supposed to be calling out some claimed hypocrisy.

As for what people have conducted the most acts of Domestic Terrorism in this this country, that would still be violent rwing white nationalist groups and individuals.

#46 | Posted by Corky at 2025-08-21 08:25 PM | Reply

#10 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 elephant in the room regarding that theorem is what the founding era legislators actually did regarding what AI posits.

With the two Militia Act of 1792, the Act of 1795 and the Act of 1808 the militias were not established as "well-organized, disciplined and capable body of armed citizens." Instead, the Acts simply defined a "group of individuals" and mandated that the group arm themselves with guns, ammunition and knives. en.wikipedia.org

That is the irrefutable evidence of the Founders intent regarding a "well regulated militia."

#47 | Posted by et_al at 2025-08-21 08:27 PM | Reply

Instead, the Acts simply defined a "group of individuals" and mandated that the group arm themselves with guns, ammunition and knives.

So, who defines the "group of individuals" in 2025?

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

#48

The NRA bought and paid for that 'Right' in 2008.

see #16

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

That is the irrefutable evidence of the Founders intent regarding a "well regulated militia."
#47 | Posted by et_al

Sounds like you're saying there was not a "well-regulated militia" until one was created by an Act of Congress.

So just a bunch of people with guns etc is not a militia. A militia as a legal entity is what Congress defines to be a militia, which in your example required men ages 18 to 45 to be conscripted into said militia.

Tell me what I'm not seeing.

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-08-21 08:35 PM | Reply

@#46 Corky... No no no, you misunderstand. (One thing about conversations in text, is you can't get across tone of voice, body language..etc..so easy to misinterpret.) I am NOT disagreeing with you at all. I was only adding to what you were saying....sure, right wing extremists maybe be the largest one overall, but to me I don't want to ignore those in 2nd place either...To me it's not an all or nothing thing. Extremists are extremists. They are made up of people who have violent tendancies, and many of them don't care about their "cause" (though they think they do)...their "cause" just provides them an outlet for their need to be violent. Just my opinion on that last part...

Anyways, you had stated that right winger extremists had always been the largest threat, and I was remembering that for about a decade, that the eco terrorists were pretty bad...that's all.

And I apologize, I wasn't meaning to make a whataboutism. Again, I'm not disagreeing with you, nor denying anything you were saying...just adding to it.

#51 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2025-08-21 08:37 PM | Reply

#16 Chief Justice Warren Burger's personal opinion, again trotted out. It was expressed in a media interview some 4 years after he retired following a legal career of about 55 years during which he never wrote a legal memorandum, scholarly legal article or a judicial opinion on the Second Amendment.

You stick with the Chief Justice's personal opinion. I'll stick with what the Founders actually did when drafting legislation.

#52 | Posted by et_al at 2025-08-21 08:37 PM | Reply

"I'll stick with what the Founders actually did when drafting legislation."

The Founders ensured the North couldn't do a rug pull on Slave states by federally banning guns, and further bolstered the political power of the South by counting slaves as 3/5 of a person for representation purposes.

Nearly every Founding Father owned slaves, and fourteen of our first sixteen Presidents owned slaves.

Slavery was the premier reason for American economic success.

One of the keys to that success is enshrined in the Second Amendment. The right to bear arms, to perpetuate keeping humans as slaves, and to facilitate hunting down the escapees, which is what the early militias did.

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-08-21 08:48 PM | Reply

#48 www.law.cornell.edu

#50 If you would read instead of being the obtuse little b***h that you are, you would learn militias existed in the states as a legacy of English common law. The Founders saw a need to regulate them and that's what they did.

#54 | Posted by et_al at 2025-08-21 08:51 PM | Reply

The cited article is behind a paywall, and I'm not paying for a subscription. That being said, I'm see a lot of discussion about "well regulated militia."

What do y'all think about the use of the word "right" instead of the word "power" in the 2nd amendment?

Those are the two strong words used throughout the constitution.

Curious what y'all think...

#55 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2025-08-21 08:55 PM | Reply

#52 |

It's not just his personal opinion; he cites the facts of past supporting decisions for most of our history. It's also the opinion of many people, including the article author:

"Michael Waldman is president of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. He is the author of The Second Amendment: A Biography.".

And he makes a good case in the article as well.

#56 | Posted by Corky at 2025-08-21 08:57 PM | Reply

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. Today, millions believe they did. Here's how it happened.

www.brennancenter.org

here it is with no paywall, if that's the article you meant... and I prolly shouldn't have used the Whataboutism word, lol.

#57 | Posted by Corky at 2025-08-21 09:00 PM | Reply

*From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun.

The first to argue otherwise, written by a William and Mary law student named Stuart R. Hays, appeared in 1960. He began by citing an article in the NRA's American Rifleman magazine and argued that the amendment enforced a "right of revolution," of which the Southern states availed themselves during what the author called "The War Between the States."

"'

"There is not a single word about an individual's right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison's notes from the Constitutional Convention.

Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights.

In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. "A well regulated militia," it explained, "composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Though state militias eventually dissolved, for two centuries we had guns (plenty!) and we had gun laws in towns and states, governing everything from where gunpowder could be stored to who could carry a weapon"and courts overwhelmingly upheld these restrictions. Gun rights and gun control were seen as going hand in hand.

Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia.

As the Tennessee Supreme Court put it in 1840, "A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane."

from the article in #57

#58 | Posted by Corky at 2025-08-21 09:10 PM | Reply

@#57 Corky... Thanks for the article. I'll have to take a look. Is that the same article as the one that this post was made from? "Most Dangerous Sentence In The Constitution" posted by Retort at the very top... that one points to a New York Times article. Is that the same as in your #57?

No worries about Whataboutism...I just know it's SO easy to be misinterpreted via typed messaging.

#59 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2025-08-21 09:17 PM | Reply

#53 Revisionist history that I think was first posited by a journalist, I think Thomas Hartman.

Here's a scholarly article on the history of the Second Amendment. You didn't read it the first fifty times I posted it but hope springs eternal. That and some new to this discussion might benefit. scholar.valpo.edu

#60 | Posted by et_al at 2025-08-21 09:30 PM | Reply

57 is the exact same article as 16, the Politico article, the author runs the Brennan Center for Justice for the NYU School of Law

#61 | Posted by Corky at 2025-08-21 09:35 PM | Reply

#53 Revisionist history that I think was first posited by a journalist, I think Thomas Hartman.

How so?
That fourteen of sixteen first Presidents were slave owners is clearly not at odds with history.
Nor is slavery's economic value to the early Republic.
Nor is the use of militia to round up runaways; part of a legacy of oppression by force that winds its way forward in history to the police forces of today.

You seem to be the one revising things. You seem to be suggesting the Founding Fathers conceptualization and imagination of the use of firearms was somehow wholly independent of their own economic plight, and own status as slavers, and how firearms might play a rule in security their blessings of liberty.

But I don't think you're actually such a snake in the grass that you'd try to do that, so let's talk about it.

Tell me briefly, what history do you claim is being "revised" here.

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-08-21 09:37 PM | Reply

#60.... see #61

The point being that this isn't just about Justice Brennan's personal opinion as you claimed;

Michael Waldman is president of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. He is the author of The Second Amendment: A Biography.

he pretty much wrote the book on it

#63 | Posted by Corky at 2025-08-21 09:39 PM | Reply

I have read your screed. It is a screed just like the one you pooh-pooh allegedly from Hartmann, which I have also read.

The Second Amendment has a context. That's not a revision of history. That's literally just history.

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-08-21 09:39 PM | Reply

and no, I'm not downloading that book at #60... even if you get a commission on it!

#65 | Posted by Corky at 2025-08-21 09:41 PM | Reply

If we take the Second Amendment to provide for a man's ability to make his home his castle, it naturally follows that protecting your property includes protecting your ownership of your slaves.

By that same token, Protecting yourself from a tyrannical government, as is often mythologized, includes under its penumbra of protection a defense against seizure of one's property, e.g. slaves.

And this too, in both mythology and fact, is born out in our history, when our heroes of The Alamo died protecting Texas from Santa Ana, who promised to free the slaves.

So, I'm not "revising" anything here. Revising this is when you simply omit these facts from what you teach kids in school, and then when they never ask about as adults, and they learn about it for the first time, they claim you're revising history. No, you're ignorant of history.

#66 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-08-21 09:47 PM | Reply

It's not just his personal opinion ...

No it's Burger's personal opinion set out in a media interview not a legal argument or document. As for the Politico article it's just a regurgitation of mainstream journalism about the Second Amendment that's refuted by what the Founders actually did with the Militia Acts and the History of the Second Amendment linked at 60.

#67 | Posted by et_al at 2025-08-21 09:49 PM | Reply

#65 It's not a book, it's a 35 page law review article.

#68 | Posted by et_al at 2025-08-21 09:51 PM | Reply

None of the quote from #58 had been refuted.

And the articles in 16 and 57 are the same... but your credentials on this subject may be better than those of

Michael Waldman is president of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. He is the author of The Second Amendment: A Biography.

#69 | Posted by Corky at 2025-08-21 09:53 PM | Reply

#68

and what did you think of Waldman's book on the subject

www.goodreads.com

#70 | Posted by Corky at 2025-08-21 09:56 PM | Reply

"The Founders saw a need to regulate them and that's what they did."

Well, in the Act I cited, they defined who's in the militia through conscription to said militia.

So what regulation are you referring to here? How can any of the Militia Acts regulate a militia, when a militia is simultaneously any able bodied man of fighting age who can bear arms? Do they only regulate some militia? But not, say the Michigan Militia which started us on this path of right-wing takeover during the Clinton era? Or is perhaps the Michigan Militia a private volunteer militia somehow under Federal regulation more than the sum of its individual parts by calling itself a militia, and I'm so ignorant of the law that I just don't know that. Or somewhere in the middle.

What exactly did the Founders regulate vis a vis Militia that exists in the world today. Are you referring to how they gave the President the ability to command the militia in times of emergency, and how the militia of back then eventually grew into the state National Guards of today? Is that the regulation of the militias you're referring to, or is there other salient parts of it with respect to this discussion about the Second Amendment?

#71 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-08-21 09:56 PM | Reply

"it's a 35 page law review article."

It's not a bad read. It has some real gems like this:

In addition to Blackstone, the views of other seventeenth- and eighteenth century English political theorists clearly influenced the political views of the colonists who ultimately would revolt and establish a new nation. American political thought was strongly linked to "republican" thought in England."' The essence of republican thought was that a citizenry could rule itself without the paternal guiding hand of a monarch.

It's funny because,
That's the opposite of how today's Republicans view Trump.

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-08-21 10:05 PM | Reply

"Harrington also believed that the actual independence attained would be a function of the citizen's ability to bear arms and use them to defend his rights"

Which dovetails nicely into why the Founding Fathers thought it wise to guarantee a slave owner could always defend his rights to own slaves.

Your link doesn't disagree with anything I'm saying, Et_Al. At times it contextualizes it nicely.

I'll ask again, where is the revision in the history that I recounted?

"Both the Federalists, those promoting a strong central government, and the Antifederal-ists, those believing that liberties including the right of self-rule would be protected best by preservation of local autonomy, agreed that arms and liberty were inextricably linked.""

That supports what I'm telling you, how arms were used to preserve the liberty of owning slaves.

#73 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-08-21 10:09 PM | Reply

#70 Haven't read it. Don't need to. I've read more than enough mainstream journalism and scholarship to have a good idea what it says. I simply disagree with most of it. Does Waldman tell you that Miller was a set up to get a SC ruling upholding the constitutionality of the Gun Control Act of 1934? The Peculiar Story of United States v. Miller, uknowledge.uky.edu a 34 page law review.

#71 FO POS troll.

#74 | Posted by et_al at 2025-08-21 10:18 PM | Reply


Here's a scholarly article on the history of the Second Amendment. You didn't read it the first fifty times I posted it but hope springs eternal. That and some new to this discussion might benefit. scholar.valpo.edu
#60 | POSTED BY ET_AL

Excellent document fun to read, but its just a backgrounder on what I stated.

To all these great facts of stopping tyranny, Snoofy can only add

But slaves......
~ Snoofy

Hypothetical Snoofy, would you want to live in tyranny with slaves, or NO tyranny for 70years of slavery?

#75 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-08-21 10:20 PM | Reply

#73 Snoofy,

Do you think that preserving the liberty of owning slaves was virtually the only reason arms were used, or was it one of several big reasons, or just a few reasons with preserving the liberty of owning slaves being the biggest?

I'm not being argumentative...just am genuinely curious......

------------------
Here's a funny, since you brought up Santa Anna...

From www.history.com

He staged a state funeral for his amputated leg.

Two years after the 1836 Battle of the Alamo, Santa Anna led a makeshift army against French forces who had invaded Veracruz, Mexico, in what has been called the "Pastry War." After the general was severely wounded by grapeshot fired from a French cannon, doctors were forced to amputate his leg, which Santa Anna buried at his Veracruz hacienda.

After he once again assumed the presidency in 1842, Santa Anna exhumed his shriveled leg, paraded it to Mexico City in an ornate coach and buried it beneath a cemetery monument in an elaborate state funeral that included cannon salvos, poetry and lofty orations. Santa Anna's severed leg did not remain in the ground for long, however.

In 1844, public opinion turned on the president, and rioters tore down his statues and dug up his leg. A mob tied the severed appendage to a rope and dragged it through the streets of Mexico City while shouting, "Death to the cripple!"

Santa Anna's prosthetic leg was captured as a battlefield trophy.

During the 1847 Battle of Cerro Gordo in the Mexican-American War, the 4th Illinois Infantry surprised Santa Anna, who fled without something quite important"his prosthetic cork and a wooden leg. The Illinois soldiers seized the leg as a trophy piece that they brought back to their home state, where it toured at country fairs before falling into the possession of the Illinois State Military Museum. The Mexican government's repeated requests to repatriate Santa Anna's fake limb have been denied.

#76 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2025-08-21 10:29 PM | Reply

So, I personally find it interesting the use of the word "rights" and "power" in the Constitution. It's also interesting that the word "power" wasn't used in the 2nd Amendment, although "well regulated" was. "Rights" usually referred to the people, and "power" referred to things the government did.

I've always been fascinated by this but never really see any discussion on it.

#77 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2025-08-21 10:38 PM | Reply

#69 Does Waldman tell you about the 35 other SC case on the Second Amendment or does he just talk about the two from the 1800's and Miller? The Supreme Court's Thirty-Five Other Gun Cases: What the Supreme Court Has Said About the Second Amendment, scholarship.law.slu.edu a 90 page law review including 371 footnotes.

#78 | Posted by et_al at 2025-08-21 10:47 PM | Reply

militia membership: you're a member when you say you are

#79 | Posted by ichiro at 2025-08-22 03:15 AM | Reply

The American government is an honor system. King Dotard and MAGA have no honor.

#80 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2025-08-22 07:13 AM | Reply

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

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

Drudge Retort