Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, May 06, 2026

Less than 24 hours after Denver Mayor Mike Johnston publicly pushed back on a U.S. Department of Justice demand to repeal the city's longstanding ban on assault weapons, the DOJ followed through with its threat to take the matter to court.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The U.S. Department of Justice sued Denver on Tuesday over the city's longstanding ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, making good on its threat to do so if city officials did not end the ban voluntarily.

[image or embed]

-- The Denver Post (@denverpost.com) May 5, 2026 at 4:06 PM

Comments

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

$1 Billion for a ballroom?

Maybe there should be no restrictions on automatic weapons.

#1 | Posted by Zed at 2026-05-05 03:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms in common use for lawful purposes,"

POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

Prevention of theft seems right.

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2026-05-05 03:24 PM | Reply

"But that's not necessarily the case, according to Janet Carter, a Second Amendment litigator with Everytown Law.

"The Second Amendment is not a blank check for gun rights advocates," Carter said. "It has always allowed for the regulation of particularly dangerous weapons and for weapons that are not in common use for self-defense.

That's why efforts to challenge these laws have failed all across the country.

Courts applying the new history and tradition test that was established in the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen decision have overwhelmingly agreed that banning assault weapons is constitutional."

from the article

#3 | Posted by Corky at 2026-05-05 03:27 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

And there's this bit of history:

"Expert Brief
How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

"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.brennancenter.org

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2026-05-05 03:29 PM | Reply

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2026-05-05 03:29 PM | Reply | Flag

The 2nd Amendment states explicitly "the right to keep and bear arms" This means all arms, including firearms, bayonets, knives, swords, bows&arrows etc...

The 2nd was written because governments tend to become overbearing at times, not for hunting or simply self defense.

Besides all of that, it's a U.S. constitutional right, guaranteed to anyone no matter what state they live in.

#5 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2026-05-05 03:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"We need guns to protect us from fascism!"
-Fascists

#6 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-05-05 04:07 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 2

5 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

Why does a dictator have use for the 2nd Amendment?

#7 | Posted by Zed at 2026-05-05 04:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"weapons of war" *facepalm*

In any case, SCOTUS has reused to take cases challenging state level bans and have in dicta to several 2A decisions indicated that they would uphold certain types of restrictions.

The key issue that isn't clear to me is whether they would still consider AR-15s to be unusual and dangerous weapons.

#8 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-05 04:17 PM | Reply

#5 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Even the current standard test (Bruin) from SCOTUS doesn't give all inclusive, unrestricted rights to bear arms. To say 2A gives "an unfettered individual right to a gun" is not aligned with current case law.

#9 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-05 04:19 PM | Reply

#9

NW

I just don't know who to believe, Rwing Justice and Nixon Appointee Warren Burger or LeftHoldingTurds....

#10 | Posted by Corky at 2026-05-05 05:14 PM | Reply

6947!

-lfthandturds

#11 | Posted by alexandrite at 2026-05-05 05:25 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

"Don't take your guns to town" - Johnny Cash

#12 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2026-05-06 09:52 AM | Reply

is not aligned with current case law.

#9 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-05 04:19 PM | Reply | Flag

Show me in the constitution where "current case law" applies to any of that you just vomited up.

#13 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2026-05-06 11:44 AM | Reply

#11 | Posted by alexandrite at 2026-05-05 05:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Bless your heart... Did you actually come up with something humorous, or did you steal that from the BlueCry app?

#14 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2026-05-06 11:45 AM | Reply

Party of Small Government doing authoritarian things. What a surprise.

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-06 01:23 PM | Reply

The 2nd Amendment states explicitly "the right to keep and bear arms" This means all arms, including firearms, bayonets, knives, swords, bows&arrows etc...

The 2nd was written because governments tend to become overbearing at times, not for hunting or simply self defense.

Besides all of that, it's a U.S. constitutional right, guaranteed to anyone no matter what state they live in.

#5 | Posted by lfthndthrds

So that means i can have a tank, RPG, and thermonuclear missile?

I love how when repubs hate something, like education, they want it to be a state issue. When they love something, like guns, they want the feds to force it on the states.

#16 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2026-05-06 02:47 PM | Reply

You left yourself open the stupid argument that the right to bear arms is in the constitution but the right to an education isn't.

#17 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-05-06 02:57 PM | Reply

You left yourself open the stupid argument that the right to bear arms is in the constitution but the right to an education isn't.

#17 | Posted by ClownShack

The constitution says that an insurrectionist can't run for president so clearly we can just ignore it when we want to.

#18 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2026-05-06 02:58 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

One thing Trump has proven is when you're rich enough, laws do not apply to you.

Especially when 1/3 of the nation openly supports his criminality and corruption.

#19 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-05-06 03:00 PM | Reply

"The 2nd Amendment states explicitly "the right to keep and bear arms" This means all arms"

No, it does not, as court after court after court has confirmed.

Do they forbid the sale of history books where you're from?

#20 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-05-06 03:49 PM | Reply

So that means i can have a tank, RPG, and thermonuclear missile?

#16 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2026-05-06 02:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

I love it when the idiots out themselves like this...

bUh mY nUcLeAr mIsSiLe!!!!

#21 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2026-05-06 03:50 PM | Reply

No, it does not, as court after court after court has confirmed.

Do they forbid the sale of history books where you're from?

#20 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-05-06 03:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Where's that part in the constitution? Is it over there next the amendment that guarantees women the right to have an abortion?

#22 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2026-05-06 03:52 PM | Reply

I love it when the idiots out themselves like this...

bUh mY nUcLeAr mIsSiLe!!!!

#21 | Posted by lfthndthrds

So you agree there is a level of destructive power that people can't be allowed to own? Where is your threshold? People can't have the power to destroy a million people at once, but thirty people at once is allowed?

#23 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2026-05-06 04:00 PM | Reply

The 2nd was written because governments tend to become overbearing at times.
#5 | Posted by lfthndthrds

For example, an overbearing Government with a majority Congress of of Northern Abolitionists could ban firearms, making it easier for Slaves to escape, threatening our Southern Way of Life.

Not that you'd ever agree with that. Even though it tracks perfectly with what you just said.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-06 04:06 PM | Reply

"Where's that part in the constitution?"

In the courts' repeated rulings.

Did you miss the part in the Constitution about THAT branch of government?!?

#25 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-05-06 04:08 PM | Reply

" I love it when the idiots out themselves like this..."

Um ... you posted idiocy.

Folks pointed out the idiocy.

Does your translation app have problems with words like "all" ... ?

Because that word has an inclusive aspect to it. "All" arms would include machine guns, shoulder-to-air missiles, and yes, dirty bombs.

Did you mean to use the word ALL?

#26 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-05-06 04:16 PM | Reply

Besides all of that, it's a U.S. constitutional right, guaranteed to anyone no matter what state they live in.

#5 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Not when the Constitution was written.

When the US Constitution was written, it applied ONLY to the federal government.

Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state, governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments.

Wikipedia

So, by originalism, all gun control at the state or local level would be very obviously constitutional.

But we all already knew that Conservative judges do not have any actual values, they only appropriate "values" when it is convenient to achieve their ends.

#27 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2026-05-06 05:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"We need guns to protect us from fascism!"
-Fascists

#6 | Posted by ClownShack

"I call people fascists because other people do but I don't have a clue

what that means.....duh "

-clownshirt.

#28 | Posted by shrimptacodan at 2026-05-06 06:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#27 | Posted by gtbritishskull

good for you. since you apparently are a constitutional historian tell us

what people at that time meant by the word "well regulated"/

#29 | Posted by shrimptacodan at 2026-05-06 06:43 PM | Reply

they sue to get this leftist anti constitutional BS to the supreme court.

dumb wads...

#30 | Posted by shrimptacodan at 2026-05-06 06:44 PM | Reply

what people at that time meant by the word "well regulated"/

#29 | Posted by shrimptacodan

Regulated by the states, not the federal government.

I thought that would be pretty obvious.

#31 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2026-05-06 06:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I also do not claim to be an originalist.

Conservatives on the Supreme Court do, though. Claim at least. They obviously do not live it.

#32 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2026-05-06 07:00 PM | Reply

#27 | Posted by gtBRITISHskull at 2026-05-06 05:26 PM | Reply | Flag

yeah, WTF ever... We sent you gaylords packing 2 and a half centuries ago...

#33 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2026-05-06 07:30 PM | Reply

I thought that would be pretty obvious.

#31 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2026-05-06 06:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's what you get for "thinking", dumbass.

#34 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2026-05-06 07:34 PM | Reply

Nice the Red Coats have showed up to dictate what the constitution really means. How 'bout it Snoofy, Syco, JPW.... You fckkers going to turncoat?

#35 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2026-05-06 07:41 PM | Reply

Regulated by the states, not the federal government.

I thought that would be pretty obvious.

#31 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2026-05-06 06:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

LMAO

#36 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2026-05-06 07:44 PM | Reply

I don't have a clue
#28 | POSTED BY SHRIMPedo

Hope you found that to be a cathartic moment in your wasted life.

#37 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-05-06 07:44 PM | Reply

good for you. since you apparently are a constitutional historian tell us

what people at that time meant by the word "well regulated"/

#29 | Posted by shrimptacodan at 2026-05-06 06:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

That ---- is British, He rolls his prayer mat out 5 times a day to keep from blowing his cover and getting abused.

#38 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2026-05-06 07:45 PM | Reply

LMAO
#36 | POSTED BY LFTHNDURDS

Just stick to funny flagging what you're unable to comprehend or respond to.

Save us all the time.

#39 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-05-06 07:46 PM | Reply

Just stick to funny flagging what you're unable to comprehend or respond to.

Save us all the time.

#39 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-05-06 07:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Go get that cucumber from your mom and quit projecting hate for women on me... Your dad did enough damage, and you're lucky your anchor-ass ended up here or he'd have had you exterminated. greasy persian

#40 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2026-05-06 07:48 PM | Reply

Luvsorangeturds, did your sister get mesothelioma after your dad raped her?

#41 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2026-05-06 07:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

what people at that time meant by the word "well regulated"/
#29 | POSTED BY SHRIMPedo

"Well regulated" is two words, it's a concept meaning properly armed, trained, disciplined and organized.

#42 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-05-06 07:51 PM | Reply

#40 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTURDS

Way to further demonstrate how pointless your contribution to the discussion is.

There's a commonality between Trump supporters, they're all dumb and angry.

#43 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-05-06 07:54 PM | Reply

Left Hind Turds, did your sister get mesothelioma after your dad raped her?

#44 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-06 08:03 PM | Reply

Nice the Red Coats have showed up to dictate what the constitution really means. How 'bout it Snoofy, Syco, JPW.... You fckkers going to turncoat?

#35 | Posted by lfthndthrds

The turncoats are the ones who supported trump's coup attempt.

#45 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2026-05-06 08:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

" Nice the Red Coats have showed up to dictate what the constitution really means."

What a riot. Dumfuq misrepresents the Constitution, then dogs folks correcting his mistakes.

Tell us again how 2A covers "all" arms, dumfuq.

#46 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-05-06 08:22 PM | Reply

Lol. Little snowflake got triggered.

Though, I would enjoy it if someone could refute my understanding of the original scope of the Constitution and second amendment. You know... some intelligent conversation.

#47 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2026-05-06 08:23 PM | Reply

This is an ignorant question, but what kind of standing does the Federal Government need to provide when suing a State?

Has the Federal Government suffered an injury at the hands of Denver?

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-06 08:36 PM | Reply

"Well regulated" is two words, it's a concept meaning properly armed, trained, disciplined and organized.

#42 | Posted by ClownShack at 2026-05-06 07:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

No ----, and it has nothing to do with the physical weapons. Now, go get that cucumber from your mom before your dad beats her ass.

#49 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2026-05-06 08:41 PM | Reply

Though, I would enjoy it if someone could refute my understanding of the original scope of the Constitution and second amendment. You know... some intelligent conversation.

#47 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2026-05-06 08:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Your people got their asses handed to them many years ago because they tried to interfere here. Maybe go take a hard look at what the illegal immigration is doing to the --------- you currently live in.

#50 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2026-05-06 08:43 PM | Reply

Has the Federal Government suffered an injury at the hands of Denver?

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-06 08:36 PM | Reply | Flag

No but the constitution has... Hang around long enough and you will too.

#51 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2026-05-06 08:45 PM | Reply

#51 Flag:

#52 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-06 08:46 PM | Reply

#52 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-06 08:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Go spam another clownshack thread, loser...

#53 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2026-05-06 08:50 PM | Reply

#52 Not my problem you can't defend ---, Left Hind Turds.

But your impotence is noted...

... for all to see.

#54 | Posted by A_Friend at 2026-05-06 08:55 PM | Reply

"it has nothing to do with the physical weapons."

What you can't say is what 'well regulated militia' actually mean. Or maybe you can! But even if you could, the Courts have decided it doesn't matter what well-regulated militia means.

I've never heard anyone even attempt to address the core concept of the prefatory clause"

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state."

Anyone want to tell me what that means in today's English? Does the "free state" here mean the Untied States of America, one of the Colonies, all of the above, or something else entirely?

As a practical matter, Costa Rica doesn't even have an army. They seem significantly more secure than any other Central American state, all of which have armies. Maybe an army and a well regulated mlitia are two completely different things. I bet it meant somethign a lot like an army, though, at a time when we did not have the de facto standing army that we have today, and clearly were never meant to have in the Founder's vision of our Republic.

So, that's another reason it's a myth: Nobody can actually tell you what that means.

And that should be a problem, but it isn't. Because belief in guns isn't question. It's a dogma for the believers. The karma, what happened to Charlie Kirk, most of them take Charlie Kirk's words to mean it's okay if the Democrat Plantation gangs kill each other, as long as it doesn't spill over into civilized society, where the biggest problem you have is when the pilot is black.

Guns is pretty much a proxy measure for racism these days. As in, the hardest supporters of more guns everywhere are also racist white nationalists. Which is buttressed by the valid and valuable American history lesson, which is that you can get rid of your problems by ethnically cleansing them.

We carved the faces of our Top Four Ethnic Cleansers into the side of their sacred mountain, then again what isn't sacred to those peace pipe smoking hippies, left behind a huge pile of rubble, and made it a National Park.

The huge pile of rubble still being there after all these years, like the rug burn scars a middle age woman bears today when Trump held her down as a child is the *chefs kiss* of the genocide. It makes its own Holocaust Museum.

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-06 09:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"it has nothing to do with the physical weapons."

What you can't say is what 'well regulated militia' actually mean. Or maybe you can! But even if you could, the Courts have decided it doesn't matter what well-regulated militia means.

I've never heard anyone even attempt to address the core concept of the prefatory clause"

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state."

Anyone want to tell me what that means in today's English? Does the "free state" here mean the Untied States of America, one of the Colonies, all of the above, or something else entirely?

As a practical matter, Costa Rica doesn't even have an army. They seem significantly more secure than any other Central American state, all of which have armies. Maybe an army and a well regulated mlitia are two completely different things. I bet it meant somethign a lot like an army, though, at a time when we did not have the de facto standing army that we have today, and clearly were never meant to have in the Founder's vision of our Republic.

So, that's another reason it's a myth: Nobody can actually tell you what that means.

And that should be a problem, but it isn't. Because belief in guns isn't question. It's a dogma for the believers. The karma, what happened to Charlie Kirk, most of them take Charlie Kirk's words to mean it's okay if the Democrat Plantation gangs kill each other, as long as it doesn't spill over into civilized society, where the biggest problem you have is when the pilot is black.

Guns is pretty much a proxy measure for racism these days. As in, the hardest supporters of more guns everywhere are also racist white nationalists. Which is buttressed by the valid and valuable American history lesson, which is that you can get rid of your problems by ethnically cleansing them.

We carved the faces of our Top Four Ethnic Cleansers into the side of their sacred mountain, then again what isn't sacred to those peace pipe smoking hippies, left behind a huge pile of rubble, and made it a National Park.

The huge pile of rubble still being there after all these years, like the rug burn scars a middle age woman bears today when Trump held her down as a child is the *chefs kiss* of the genocide. It makes its own Holocaust Museum.

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-06 09:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Damn.

What's really on your mind, Snoofy?

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-06 09:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

" Your people got their asses handed to them many years ago because they tried to interfere here. Maybe go take a hard look at what the illegal immigration is doing to the --------- you currently live in."

Translation: No, I can't refute, so I'll barf ad hominem.

#58 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-05-06 09:02 PM | Reply

"Some say that's prefatory, but I say it's mandatory"
--Kid Rock, probably

#59 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-06 09:04 PM | Reply

via GOOGLE:

Second Amendment rights are not unlimited, and the Supreme Court has clarified that the government can prohibit "dangerous and unusual weapons" not in common use for lawful purposes. Generally, fully automatic machine guns, short-barreled shotguns, and destructive devices (e.g., explosives) are heavily regulated or banned. While self-defense arms like handguns are protected, states may restrict specific types of firearms, such as assault weapons, and high-capacity magazines.Weapons Commonly Restricted or BannedMachine Guns: Specifically M-16s and similar, which are considered dangerous and unusual.Short-barreled shotguns/rifles: Regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934."Assault Weapons": Certain semi-automatic rifles with specific military-style features.Large Capacity Magazines: Magazines holding more than a certain number of rounds.Destructive Devices: Bombs, grenades, and similar explosive weapons.Other Devices: Silencers/suppressors are heavily regulated, and some jurisdictions restrict stun guns or other items.Legal Standards for Restrictions"Dangerous and Unusual": The Heller decision (2008) established that weapons failing the "common use" test (i.e., not commonly used for lawful purposes like self-defense) can be banned."Common Use": Weapons in common use for lawful purposes, such as handguns, are protected.Military Equipment: While the amendment mentions a militia, modern, purely military-grade, or highly dangerous weaponry can be restricted.Key Court Cases Limiting WeaponsDistrict of Columbia v. Heller (2008): Confirmed an individual right to bear arms but permitted bans on dangerous/unusual weapons.United States v. Miller (1939): Upheld regulations on weapons not having a reasonable relationship to the efficiency of a militia.Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016): Clarified that the Second Amendment extends to bearable arms not in existence at the time of the founding, such as stun guns.

#60 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2026-05-06 09:07 PM | 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