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 3

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: 4

"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 | Newsworthy 1

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 | Newsworthy 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 | Funny: 1

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 | Newsworthy 1

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 | Funny: 1

"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

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

#13 | Posted by lfthndthrds

LOL you're really dumb enough to think it's that simple, aren't you?

#61 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-06 11:18 PM | Reply

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

#33 | Posted by lfthndthrds

We?

How sad of a life do you lead that you have to claim accomplishments from two centuries ago?

#62 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-06 11:25 PM | Reply

No ----, and it has nothing to do with the physical weapons.

#49 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Beyond requirements for what each militiaman was supposed to have.

I deleted the rest because you have an unhealthy fascination with sexual violence. Might want to get that check out.

#63 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-06 11:29 PM | Reply

#36

Another guffaw from an ignorant twit that rattles of "show me in the Constitution" this or that can or can't ... A twit that doesn't comprehend the Constitution is written to formulate a functioning government not to formulate governance. That doesn't understand that American governance it informed by the history and traditions of English common law we brought with us. That the lack of comprehension and understanding displayed reveals the twit has never read the text of Article III, that grants judicial power of "precedent" nor English common law governance of court precedence.

BTW, I generally agree with you about the scope of "arms" encompassed by the Second Amendment. We may diverge at concepts of "dangerous and unusual," which covers the idiots bringing up cannons, missiles and nukes. See also "dangerous persons" and "sensitive places."

#64 | Posted by et_al at 2026-05-06 11:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

gtbritishskull, hope I typed that right.

Your general take that the Second Amendment originally applied to the feds is correct. However the text of the Reconstruction Amendments changed that. It took court precedent a while to come to grips, incorporation, with that change. You don't have to be and originalist, interpretive, it took a while, to conclude text changes s**t.

#65 | Posted by et_al at 2026-05-06 11:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

While in an executive board meeting for a national Union, regarding an interpretation of our organization's rules, I asked our lawyer (present at every meeting) what fealty was required to the wording, specifically of the word "shall".

Her response stunned me.

Basically, she said It's whatever the current board decides it means.

#66 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-05-07 12:15 AM | Reply

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

I have no doubt there's at least a scholar or two of history or the 2A who could give you an entire lecture on that.

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.

You're preaching about a world you don't have any experience in.

I live in a s*&^hole red state and go to a range regularly. It's anything but what you describe. The range I frequented when I lived in Houston was anything but what you describe.

Although I'm sure the last statement drives some of the minority participation. I've seen several documentary/investigative journalism pieces on the increased ownership of firearms by women, African Americans, trans folks ect because they feel they NEED to protect themselves in today's climate. The people I've seen at ranges I've frequented match that reporting.

#67 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-07 12:18 AM | Reply

I'm at a loss to describe my childhood Second Amendment experience. It did not exist. There were guns around us but it wasn't big deal. It just was. We handled and shot guns. It was nothing. No one gave it second thought.

#68 | Posted by et_al at 2026-05-07 01:27 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Please ignore the unintentionally clicked FF.

For clarification, you mean you didn't have a 2A childhood experience because guns simply existed in your life experience, they weren't a personality or lifestyle?

#69 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-07 01:36 AM | Reply

you mean you didn't have a 2A childhood experience because guns simply existed in your life experience, they weren't a personality or lifestyle?

#69 | Posted by jpw

That would be true of me. It was Texas. I saw long guns constantly displayed in the backs of trucks.

I can't think of a single discussion, or even mention, much less bragging about guns until decades later.

Suddenly, young couples decided to get married in camo, and the families of congressmen began sending out Merry Christmas photos of their children holding arsenals.

#70 | Posted by Zed at 2026-05-07 08:40 AM | Reply

I've seen several documentary/investigative journalism pieces on the increased ownership of firearms by women, African Americans, trans folks ect because they feel they NEED to protect themselves in today's climate. The people I've seen at ranges I've frequented match that reporting.

#67 | Posted by jpw

But are those people also the ones who want "more guns everywhere"?

Just because someone goes to a range, or owns a gun, does not mean they are also opposed to gun control regulations.

#71 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2026-05-07 10:57 AM | Reply

However the text of the Reconstruction Amendments changed that.

#65 | Posted by et_al

But, was that the intent if the reconstruction amendments when they were passed? Did they intend for that to be used to ban states from regulating guns?

I am fine with a living constitution interpretation. As I said, I am not an originalist. The problem that I have is the picking and choosing. The conservatives on the Supreme Court want to on the one hand use originalism as a justification for banning gun control regulations. But on the other, they want to take an interpretive view of the 14th amendment so that they can apply the second amendment to states as well.

#72 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2026-05-07 11:10 AM | Reply

... they weren't a personality or lifestyle?

No, they just were. It just wasn't a topic of conversation other than safety and proper use.

At 6 I received my first Red Rider. At 10 my first shotgun, a 410. At 12 a 20 gauge. At 15 my friend rode behind me on my Yamaha 80 with my 20 gauge hung over his shoulder. No one ever said a word. Later, I drove around town with that shot gun and a Marlin 30-30 hanging on the gun rack of my truck. No one ever said a word. Guns just exist in my life. The only place they are a topic of discussion for me is here.

#73 | Posted by et_al at 2026-05-07 11:18 AM | Reply

#72 gtbritishskull

Seems to me the intent of the Reconstruction Amendments was to give all persons the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Originalism is an interpretive tool tied to text and history. Text and history do not change with the living of our lives. "Living" constitutionalism is the exemplar of "I know it when I see it." IOW, I'll just make it up as I go along. At least, originalism is tied to some kind of principle and it cuts both ways.

#74 | Posted by et_al at 2026-05-07 11:31 AM | Reply

We sent you gaylords packing 2 and a half centuries ago...

#33 | Posted by lfthndthrds

And now here you are everyday fighting to have a king again

#75 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2026-05-07 12:35 PM | Reply

As in, the hardest supporters of more guns everywhere are also racist white nationalists.
--Snoofy

You're preaching about a world you don't have any experience in.
--JPW

Oh? I don't think my insight is lacking.

Are you a supporter of making guns more available than they already are?

Has there ever been any gun control law that you didn't knee-jeek oppose?

Do you think background checks and red flag laws are an infringement on our rights?

Do you think it should be optional for states to upload data to NICS?

Should teachers be free to be armed in schools?

Do you think violent felons should be able to easily restore their Second Amendment rights?

Add up your Yes's, JPW.
And I'll tell you how much of a gun nut you are.

#76 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-07 02:06 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

There they go again; the right wing is always whining about a state's right to shut down abortion and installing no real gun controls for the public just until a blue state uses that against them to save women's rights by keeping access to abortion and having sane gun laws that keep people from getting blasted by weapons in the hands of criminals and nutcases and they immediately go into hypocritical overdrive with lawsuits to keep them from using their own states laws. Gawd these righties are just so ugly in their only "do as I say and not as I do" BS.

#77 | Posted by Wildman62 at 2026-05-07 02:09 PM | Reply

Originalism is an interpretive tool tied to text and history.
#74 | Posted by et_al

That's true.

It's also true that Originalism is only ever invoked by right-wingers, when they know the outcome they want, but they need to invent a legal rationale from whole cloth.

If there's ever been a Justice that isn't an arch-Conservative who built a legal opinion base on Originalism, please rub my face in it!

Originalism's Age of Ironies
Guns, abortion, religious establishments, presidential power: While today's Supreme Court identifies as originalist, it has settled constitutional questions on these and many other issues using history and tradition, not just original meaning.
harvardlawreview.org

#78 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-07 02:17 PM | Reply

Ginsburg originalism. www.google.com

Kagan, "We are all originalists now." www.google.com

Now, stfu and go back to the kid's table.

#79 | Posted by et_al at 2026-05-07 02:31 PM | Reply

Kagan, "We are all originalists now." www.google.com

Justice Elena Kagan has argued that "we are all originalists" in the sense that judges must apply what the Framers meant, whether they laid down specific rules or broad principles. However, she critiques the modern conservative application of originalism, noting it often forces judges to act as amateur historians and can be used to advance personal policy preferences.

Which is the same thing I said.

#80 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-07 02:47 PM | Reply

Oh? I don't think my insight is lacking.

Of course, you don't. Doesn't change the fact that you're speaking from a place of ignorance and/or inexperience.

#81 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-07 02:56 PM | Reply

Add up your Yes's, JPW.
And I'll tell you how much of a gun nut you are.

#76 | Posted by snoofy

Why don't you just tell me how many yes answers I have because you're going to argue that no matter what reality is.

#82 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-07 02:57 PM | Reply

Originalism is Dead, Long Live Originalism
Habib Olapade
February 25, 2017
"any attempt to paint Neil Gorsuch as a modern-day segregationist is pure applesauce."
stanfordreview.org

Not ten years later, the Voting Rights Act is dead.
How you like them apples?

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-07 03:12 PM | Reply

Why don't you just tell me how many yes answers I have because you're going to argue that no matter what reality is.
#82 | Posted by jpw

The questions aren't hard.
Don't be scared of them.

#84 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-07 03:12 PM | Reply

Doesn't change the fact that you're speaking from a place of ignorance and/or inexperience.
#81 | Posted by jpw

I cited a half dozen relevant real world examples.
It sounds like you're the one who is ignorant.

#85 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-07 03:13 PM | Reply

Happiness is a Warm Gun

www.youtube.com

#86 | Posted by Corky at 2026-05-07 03:29 PM | Reply

You posted examples of what extreme 2A people think.

That's it.

I know the questions are easy. Issue is you'll continue on arguing the same thing no matter what my answers are, so I want to just let you answer for me and make it easier.

#87 | Posted by jpw at 2026-05-07 04:09 PM | Reply

"You posted examples of what extreme 2A people think."

Those are mainstream Republican values, when it comes to guns.

#88 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-07 04:49 PM | Reply

"Issue is you'll continue on arguing the same thing no matter what my answers are"

The issue used to be that I was "speaking from a place of ignorance and/or inexperience."
But now, you're correctly identified I'm speaking from a place of knowledge and experience on what extreme 2A people think.

I didn't change.
Your "issue" did.

#89 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-05-07 04:53 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

Only one yes, the "didn't oppose" is kind of confusing in your tally.

I would say no weapons until 25(hormones) unless ex-military, feel the same way about trans surgery. I believe a mag max is fine, but no laws on the number of mags you can carry.


It's also true that Originalism is only ever invoked by right-wingers, when they know the outcome they want, but they need to invent a legal rationale from whole cloth.

idk but it would seem to me having this as a "standard" is a good thing, even though you can search for your opinion in historical documents, in that it requires the court to go back and make an argument for their "rational" give some pre-post certification evidence as to why the opinion isn't just made out of whole cloth".

Kagan complains they are amateur historians, but really isn't that what a supreme court judge should do? Look up historical; text, opinions, rulings and interpret it to the context; the difference being the top court, there is no "stare decisis" that the lower courts could used to the satisfaction of the SC.

So they must look at history in some way.
The article you linked to clearly doesn't say any judge invents a legal rational from "whole cloth" .. ie a lie, but vary from traditionalist, or originalism, liquidation.

Also are you saying left-wingers are just making legal rational from "whole cloth"?

If not history, what should in your opinion be the "standard" the judges should use for their opinions? Their feelings? Marxism? Nazism? Or ?? what exactly should they base their opinions on?
Its really not a system of government if you base rights on "feelings" without some reference/argument someone in the past has used or made. "Originalism" encompassing "traditionalism", and "liquidation" seems reasonable for a stable society.

#90 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-05-07 05:16 PM | Reply

The 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791. The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, only 77 years later. The 2nd amendment was "incorporated" (finally had the 14th Amendment applied to it) in 2008, 140 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified. Less than 20 years ago. And that is justified by "originalism"?

For over 90% of our nation's history the consensus was that states and localities could regulate guns.

Claiming it is a right that the states have to respect is a VERY modern occurrence. Which seems like the exact opposite of originalism.

#91 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2026-05-07 06:00 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