Right Wing Freaks Out as Former Supreme Court Justice Argues to Repeal the Second Amendment

Law • Views: 27,948

When I signed in to Twitter this morning, it wasn’t long before I came across dozens of angry wingnuts ranting that “THE LIBS ARE COMING TO TAKE MAH GUNZ!!1 IT BEGINS!”

What are they losing their alleged minds over today, you ask? Well, it’s this op-ed in the New York Times by retired Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens, arguing to repeal the Second Amendment.

The crux of his argument is that the NRA has insidiously distorted the intent of the Second Amendment with a decades-long propaganda campaign, and the best way to fight them is to use the Constitution itself to take away their main weapon, through a constitutional amendment.

During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

I’m under no illusion that this will actually happen, of course, but a United States with sane gun laws not determined by far right propaganda organizations is a lovely dream, isn’t it?

Jump to bottom

188 comments

1
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 11:43:33am

I honestly disagree with Justice Stevens on this but the right are hypocrites given a lot of them are talking about taking away the right to vote for 18-21 year olds, the attempts to modify the 14th for their liking, and repealing federal income tax. It’s an amendment. Not set in stone. That said despite my disagreement with Stevens, I do think the 2nd needs a 2018 set of eyes on it.

2
BlueGrl21  Mar 27, 2018 • 11:52:01am

I don’t believe in repealing it but I believe in restricting the hell out of it.

Guns are tools, not a lifestyle choice.

3
Belafon  Mar 27, 2018 • 11:52:37am

re: #1 HappyWarrior

I honestly disagree with Justice Stevens on this but the right are hypocrites given a lot of them are talking about taking away the right to vote for 18-21 year olds, the attempts to modify the 14th for their liking, and repealing federal income tax. It’s an amendment. Not set in stone. That said despite my disagreement with Stevens, I do think the 2nd needs a 2018 set of eyes on it.

I think, from how I read that, that he would agree with an amendment that replaces it with “People have a right to guns for hunting.” Maybe an argument for self defense, but you have to watch that, because then people would just argue you need an AR-15 for home protection.

4
lawhawk  Mar 27, 2018 • 11:53:08am

re: #1 HappyWarrior

I think a lot of people would settle for a literal word for word approach to the 2a.

You know, the part that starts with … “A well regulated militia”

What we have now is in no way a well regulated anything. The GOP/NRA has turned it into a free-for-all and the state with the most lax gun laws is the one shaping gun violence for the states around it (feeding iron pipelines despite best efforts of the strong gun law states - which still have lower per capita gun death rates thanks to the laws they have in place).

In the past thread, I noted that the average cost for a gunshot wound tops $154,000 per gunshot survivor. There are more than 134,000 people injured by guns annually. That’s a huge cost. The GOP thinks all that is acceptable so long as government isn’t paying for it.

Narrator: The government is paying the price for all of it.

5
freetoken  Mar 27, 2018 • 11:53:13am

Without radically amending the 2A, because of the long history of rulings on this issue it simply isn’t possible to regulate the dangers of firearms as they ought to be, like all the other human inventions (and natural hazards) that are controlled for society’s well being.

That is where we are today. We were in this position starting decades ago, and I’d say pretty much since the Civil War, but it took time for population density to demonstrate teh underlying problem with so many guns.

6
Mattand  Mar 27, 2018 • 11:53:42am

It needs to be repealed and rewritten. The goddamn thing was created when someone who could get off three shots in a minute was the fucking Terminator. The Founders could never have envisioned a society where the average slob could walk into a local store and arm themselves with firepower greater than their local police department.

Quite frankly, they’d most likely be horrified at the prospect.

As practiced now, it is an archaic death pact whose only purpose at this point is to highlight how Americans value firearms over human life. It needs to fucking go away.

7
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 11:57:32am

re: #3 Belafon

I think, from how I read that, that he would agree with an amendment that replaces it with “People have a right to guns for hunting.” Maybe an argument for self defense, but you have to watch that, because then people would just argue you need an AR-15 for home protection.

Oh, I don’t doubt it at all. I think he’s being more reasonable than the gun nuts say he is but the word repeal is going to scare a lot of people.

8
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 11:58:11am

re: #4 lawhawk

I think a lot of people would settle for a literal word for word approach to the 2a.

You know, the part that starts with … “A well regulated militia”

What we have now is in no way a well regulated anything. The GOP/NRA has turned it into a free-for-all and the state with the most lax gun laws is the one shaping gun violence for the states around it (feeding iron pipelines despite best efforts of the strong gun law states - which still have lower per capita gun death rates thanks to the laws they have in place).

In the past thread, I noted that the average cost for a gunshot wound tops $154,000 per gunshot survivor. There are more than 134,000 people injured by guns annually. That’s a huge cost. The GOP thinks all that is acceptable so long as government isn’t paying for it.

Narrator: The government is paying the price for all of it.

That absolutely is something I’ve brought up with my brother since he’s unfortunately taken an absolutist approach to the 2nd.

9
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 11:59:03am

I really do wish we would consider that the time and circumstances of the 2nd amendment’s writing. But you can’t say that without people getting too wound up.

10
ObserverArt  Mar 27, 2018 • 11:59:20am

re: #1 HappyWarrior

I honestly disagree with Justice Stevens on this but the right are hypocrites given a lot of them are talking about taking away the right to vote for 18-21 year olds, the attempts to modify the 14th for their liking, and repealing federal income tax. It’s an amendment. Not set in stone. That said despite my disagreement with Stevens, I do think the 2nd needs a 2018 set of eyes on it.

Isn’t the only way you can make a new set of eyes is through an amendment? I think that is what Justice Stevens is saying. It is permanently now made blind to any other thinking.

11
The Ghost of a Flea  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:00:33pm

re: #4 lawhawk

I think a thing that needs to be addressed—culturally and legally—is that the “right to bear arms” has become synonymous with “the right to use lethal force” and in turn the NRA and the GOP have been manipulating the paradigm of who gets to kill when and how.

The NRA’s back end is the way it has turned the basic concept of self-defense into a cultural manifesto in which there are not-really-American others that deserve contempt and are inherently suspicious…and thus fall into the category of deserving harm, because they’re inherently “provoking.”

12
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:00:45pm

re: #10 ObserverArt

Isn’t the only way you can make a new set of eyes is through an amendment? I think that is what Justice Stevens is saying. It is permanently now made blind to any other thinking.

Well in regards to how to interpret it. I don’t think we need to repeal the 1st because of the rise of digital media. You do make a fair point though.

13
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:01:27pm

re: #11 The Ghost of a Flea

I think a thing that needs to be addressed—culturally and legally—is that the “right to bear arms” has become synonymous with “the right to use lethal force” and in turn the NRA and the GOP have been manipulating the paradigm of who gets to kill when and how.

The NRA’s back end is the way it has turned the basic concept of self-defense into a cultural manifesto in which there are not-really-American others that deserve contempt and are inherently suspicious…and thus fall into the category of deserving harm, because they’re inherently “provoking.”

Now, this is absolutely a great point especially with the rise of stand your ground laws that have passed with the help of GOP, NRA, and ALEC.

14
Hecuba's daughter  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:02:44pm

A different Supreme Court would have ruled differently in the Heller decision — and if we survive the Orange Turd and get a decent government again, we may get a different decision. My brother owns many guns including an AR15 and joyfully describes how much fun it is to shoot this weapon. These gun owners need to be deprogrammed.

15
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:03:15pm

One of the best signs I saw this weekend at the rallies was a poster showing how many bullet holes would be in the sign in the amount of time it would take to read it. It’s why I have a big, big issue with those who say “Well why don’t you liberals ban knives then.” TBH if a knife could kill that many people in that short of time, hell fucking yeah I’d want them out of civilian hands.

16
ObserverArt  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:03:24pm

re: #7 HappyWarrior

Oh, I don’t doubt it at all. I think he’s being more reasonable than the gun nuts say he is but the word repeal is going to scare a lot of people.

Giving rights to minorities scared a lot of people too. Many haven’t and will never change.

Pardon me. Fuck ‘em.

I always go to the preamble. Always. I want my basic rights to insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

Guns as allowed now nick many of those real “God Given” rights.

17
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:04:03pm

re: #14 Hecuba’s daughter

A different Supreme Court would have ruled differently in the Heller decision — and if we survive the Orange Turd and get a decent government again, we may get a different decision. My brother owns many guns including an AR15 and joyfully describes how much fun it is to shoot this weapon. These gun owners need to be deprogrammed.

The thing that disturbs me not so much is enjoying shooting, it’s the derision of those who don’t. I can’t tell you how many stupid gun memes suggest non gun owners are wusses or cowards.

18
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:04:44pm

re: #16 ObserverArt

Giving rights to minorities scared a lot of people too. Many haven’t and will never change.

Pardon me. Fuck ‘em.

I always go to the preamble. Always. I want my basic rights to insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

Guns as allowed now nick many of those real “God Given” rights.

We agree.

19
Smith25's Liberal Thighs  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:04:45pm

re: #16 ObserverArt

Giving rights to minorities scared a lot of people too. Many haven’t and will never change.

Pardon me. Fuck ‘em.

I always go to the preamble. Always. I want my basic rights to insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

Guns as allowed now nick many of those real “God Given” rights.

And notice when Conservatives were/are in favor of Gun Control:

When minorities carry guns

20
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:05:19pm

re: #19 Smith25’s Liberal Thighs

And notice when Conservatives were/are in favor of Gun Control:

When minorities carry guns

*Cough Reagan*. good to see you btw dude.

21
Citizen K  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:06:00pm

re: #16 ObserverArt

Giving rights to minorities scared a lot of people too. Many haven’t and will never change.

Pardon me. Fuck ‘em.

I always go to the preamble. Always. I want my basic rights to insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

Guns as allowed now nick many of those real “God Given” rights.

Unfortunately those people scared about giving minorities rights have enough power to make good on undoing that really fucking quickly now. Case in point:

22
Smith25's Liberal Thighs  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:06:11pm

re: #20 HappyWarrior

*Cough Reagan*. good to see you btw dude.

Winding down. Spring Break from school is next week. Get to relax, and hang out here a bit more.

23
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:08:30pm

Things I want:

Universal background checks: Consequences for those who don’t follow that.

Bans on weapons with more than 30 magazines.

No one with a history of violence being able to purchase:

Waiting periods.

Bans on open carry: One thing to want one at home for home protection but I don’t want your damn guns in our stores, restaurants, etc.

De-militarization of the police.

24
Renaissance_Man  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:08:56pm

The Constitution is not a suicide pact. I am aware that it is worshipped as holy writ in the United States, but it is a document made by men that serves as the defining manifesto of the nation.

As currently interpreted, the US Constitution defines America as a nation that practices human sacrifice. This is morally monstrous and unconscionable. Yet, as it stands, that is part of America’s definition.

It matters not whether we change the words or the practice. Changing the words would make perfect sense, but if Americans weirdly choose to consider those words too sacred to alter, changing the practical effects of those words would also be morally acceptable. But human sacrifice cannot be allowed to stand in the 21st century.

25
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:10:33pm

re: #21 Citizen K

Unfortunately those people scared about giving minorities rights have enough power to make good on undoing that really fucking quickly now. Case in point:

[Embedded content]

I’ve told you guys about my cousin Mike before. The Iwo Jima hero. When he got here from Slovakia. He didn’t speak any English. These people constantly bitch about how immigrants don’t assimilate and yet they don’t want to give the kids a chance to assimilate in Oklahoma’s case. Oklahoma could save money by actually being able to raise taxes and provide a decent school system so people would want to stay there byt nah easier to scapegoat.

26
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:11:25pm

re: #22 Smith25’s Liberal Thighs

Winding down. Spring Break from school is next week. Get to relax, and hang out here a bit more.

Cool. Spring break is this week here. Was last week for the college kids so I was busy at work.

27
electrotek  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:11:27pm

Have you noticed the ones who shout the loudest about the Constitution being pure and infallible are the same ones who argue that Islam needs to reform?

28
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:12:36pm

re: #27 electrotek

Have you noticed the ones who shout the loudest about the Constitution being pure and infallible are the same ones who argue that Islam needs to reform?

Christianity and the Constitution are perfect as their founders intended. // But yeah. Honestly, I think everything should be in constant evolution including the self.

29
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:13:30pm

TBH I think we need to push back on the gun control being elitist thing and point out that the gun nuts are the real elitists here.

30
electrotek  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:13:40pm

re: #28 HappyWarrior

Christianity and the Constitution are perfect as their founders intended. // But yeah. Honestly, I think everything should be in constant evolution including the self.

Or at least a reinterpretation.

31
The Ghost of a Flea  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:14:01pm

re: #27 electrotek

The Constitution is inviolable.

Except the amendments they like.

And the Heller precedent.

32
lawhawk  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:15:36pm
33
Belafon  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:16:59pm

re: #21 Citizen K

And when it costs their economy $250M, they’ll scratch their heads and cut teachers pay.

34
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:17:01pm

re: #30 electrotek

Or at least a reinterpretation.

Definitely.

35
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:17:30pm

re: #33 Belafon

And when it costs their economy $250M, they’ll scratch their heads and cut teachers pay.

And then blame teachers for poor quality of schools. It’s a typical conservative chicken shit strategy.

36
Citizen K  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:18:05pm

re: #29 HappyWarrior

TBH I think we need to push back on the gun control being elitist thing and point out that the gun nuts are the real elitists here.

Wonderfully idealistic, yet unrealistic. Our political environment will forever assume the worst of liberal thoughts and statements and treat us as ‘elitist’ by default. The very fact that Trump got to take the mantle of ‘populist’ is proof in concept and practice.

37
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:19:08pm

re: #36 Citizen K

Wonderfully idealistic, yet unrealistic. Our political environment will forever assume the worst of liberal thoughts and statements and treat us as ‘elitist’ by default. The very fact that Trump got to take the mantle of ‘populist’ is proof in concept and practice.

So true, the gold toilet guy got treated as an everyman hero and the woman who actually worked her way to the top was treated like an elite.

38
Dr. Matt  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:19:24pm

re: #2 BlueGrl21

I don’t believe in repealing it but I believe in restricting the hell out of it.

Guns are tools, not a lifestyle choice.

Tools handed down from God directly to the hands of patriots!

39
dangerman  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:19:55pm

the worst part of this whole thing is there can’t even be rational debate

not on the 2a - not even broaching the subject

and not on any of the lesser measures we and everyone else has been talking about for years.

i read steven’s book a while back and it is interesting. sort of

still a constitutional amendment, in this environment is a super steep high climb that still would be met with monumental resistance and cheating just like prohibition

Personally, I wrote off arguing the 2A long ago. Most of the following is from that article.

I want action. Positive, forward progress. Tangible results. Less deaths, less shootings.

Shiplord Kirel once wrote “Any attempt at gun control, no matter how modest or reasonable, will fail because of the pervasive nature of the conspiracy theory that underlies practically all right wing thinking on the issue - anything is the first step in them coming for our guns”

I think the pro gun/nra side has gotten too “unrestricted gun access” and defends the 2A with tortured logic to the point of absurdity. Twisted interpretations of what the 2A really means, militias, well regulated, competency, forced buy backs / Australia, the purpose of a gun, why I want a gun, why you need a gun, why no one needs a gun, or any other ‘justification’ - all the comparisons to cars, registrations, insurance, etc. Special manufacturer protection laws, databases, permits, buy limits, waiting periods, ammo taxes, bans, training, “guns make you safer”, “no they don’t.”

And I think the regulate side will never win or even make significant progress with the goals it has chosen to pursue; lists, checks, bans, limits, training, other “behavior” requirements, etc. There is far too much opposition.

Conveniently for my argument, the pro 2A community already claims, in general that “we’re responsible - it’s other people who aren’t.” Good, we agree. You and everyone you know act responsibly.

And so, laws of consequence that should be severe for after someone screws up. Everyone, especially every pro 2A responsible gun owner should be screaming for robust, even draconian laws that affix responsibility on the demonstrably irresponsible. Good gun owners should want this. It’s not them, and so it wouldn’t affect them.

Move in that direction by rendering the arguments on all sides no longer relevant. Not with coercion, persuasion, no changing minds, winning hearts / pulling heartstrings, shaming, begging. By calling the NRA side’s bluff.

Ignore everything. All the rhetoric, the lobbying, the sacrosanct constitutional arguments, all the never gonna happen databases, confiscation, restrictions, bans. No constitutional ‘violations’ or infringements, and no requirements to do anything specific. No one has to do anything.

Promote basic, unambiguous laws that affix strict and severe responsibility / liability and enforcement where everyone says it already is.

If the gop/nra won’t even go that far, then what they’re really after is a 2A without any personal accountability for anyone at all.

If so, that’s untenable and then we will come for your guns.

40
Belafon  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:19:59pm

re: #36 Citizen K

Wonderfully idealistic, yet unrealistic. Our political environment will forever assume the worst of liberal thoughts and statements and treat us as ‘elitist’ by default. The very fact that Trump got to take the mantle of ‘populist’ is proof in concept and practice.

Which is why this Children’s Crusade is working so well: They’re victims that can speak for themselves, and aren’t letting the subject being changed. It’s all about the deaths.

41
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:21:53pm

re: #40 Belafon

Which is why this Children’s Crusade is working so well: They’re victims that can speak for themselves, and aren’t letting the subject being changed. It’s all about the deaths.

They’re doing great and driving the wingnuts crazy. The more false shit and pathetic attacks I see on them from the wingnuts the more I know the wingnuts are on the defensive.

42
Aucun pays pour les vieux ennemis  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:22:19pm

re: #1 HappyWarrior

I honestly disagree with Justice Stevens on this but the right are hypocrites given a lot of them are talking about taking away the right to vote for 18-21 year olds, the attempts to modify the 14th for their liking, and repealing federal income tax. It’s an amendment. Not set in stone. That said despite my disagreement with Stevens, I do think the 2nd needs a 2018 set of eyes on it.

So does columnist Steve Chapman, who I haven’t encountered in about a decade.
chicagotribune.com

43
Belafon  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:22:22pm

re: #38 Dr. Matt

Tools handed down from God directly to the hands of patriots!

That episode of American Gods didn’t end so well for Vulcan.

44
Citizen K  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:22:42pm

re: #35 HappyWarrior

And then blame teachers for poor quality of schools. It’s a typical conservative chicken shit strategy.

And they haven’t really paid for it yet. Brownback individually did, but the GOP as a whole continues to chug on toward their journey to libertarian capitalist utopia unabated for the most part.

45
dangerman  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:22:55pm

re: #15 HappyWarrior

One of the best signs I saw this weekend at the rallies was a poster showing how many bullet holes would be in the sign in the amount of time it would take to read it. It’s why I have a big, big issue with those who say “Well why don’t you liberals ban knives then.” TBH if a knife could kill that many people in that short of time, hell fucking yeah I’d want them out of civilian hands.

i saw a sign that read “if you already own knives, cars and hammers that are just as deadly, why do you need a gun?”

46
Patricia Kayden  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:24:29pm
47
Quoth the raven, Covfefe.  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:25:05pm

re: #45 dangerman

i saw a sign that read “if you already own knives, cars and hammers that are just as deadly, why do you need a gun?”

They continually bring up the China knife attack, but wasn’t that perpetrated by multiple people? In contrast, Las Vegas was one asshole with a small arsenal and bump stocks.

48
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:26:30pm

re: #46 Patricia Kayden

[Embedded content]

I’ll give her credit for that. Thanks Representative Ros Lehiten. Oh and Ted and especially Marco, your silence is telling.

49
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:27:11pm

re: #47 Quoth the raven, Covfefe.

They continually bring up the China knife attack, but wasn’t that perpetrated by multiple people? In contrast, Las Vegas was one asshole with a small arsenal and bump stocks.

Are you talking about the one that happened right after Sandy Hook? As I recall, that had no fatalities. Certainly an awful event.

50
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:27:23pm

re: #45 dangerman

i saw a sign that read “if you already own knives, cars and hammers that are just as deadly, why do you need a gun?”

I like that too!

51
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:27:41pm

re: #42 Aucun pays pour les vieux ennemis

So does columnist Steve Chapman, who I haven’t encountered in about a decade.
chicagotribune.com

I agree with his take.

52
The Ghost of a Flea  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:27:43pm

re: #47 Quoth the raven, Covfefe.

There have been several knife attacks in China.

Thing they don’t talk about is the comparative rate of survivors from them.

53
Belafon  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:27:56pm

re: #47 Quoth the raven, Covfefe.

They continually bring up the China knife attack, but wasn’t that perpetrated by multiple people? In contrast, Las Vegas was one asshole with a small arsenal and bump stocks.

IIRC, no one died in that attack.

54
Patricia Kayden  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:28:32pm
55
Citizen K  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:28:46pm

re: #45 dangerman

i saw a sign that read “if you already own knives, cars and hammers that are just as deadly, why do you need a gun?”

Knives are already even more regulated than guns.

Switchblades and other concealable knives have had state laws in most states restricting or outright banning them, precisely because they were easily hidden and were exclusively used as lethal weapons. That was the justification behind the laws.

And I’ve yet to see any NRA types argue 2nd Amendment against those.

56
Quoth the raven, Covfefe.  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:29:03pm

re: #52 The Ghost of a Flea

There have been several knife attacks in China.

Thing they don’t talk about is the comparative rate of survivors from them.

I don’t know which specific one, only that the gun-fuckers always refer to a singular event and mention that hundreds of people were wounded. If it’s the one I’m thinking of, the last time they brought it up, someone mentioned that there were like 8 attackers.

57
Patricia Kayden  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:31:13pm

re: #1 HappyWarrior

I honestly disagree with Justice Stevens on this but the right are hypocrites given a lot of them are talking about taking away the right to vote for 18-21 year olds, the attempts to modify the 14th for their liking, and repealing federal income tax. It’s an amendment. Not set in stone. That said despite my disagreement with Stevens, I do think the 2nd needs a 2018 set of eyes on it.

The 2 Amendment should be translated as allowing a well regulated militia (such as the National Guard) to own guns. No one else should be allowed to own guns except police officers and some security forces. Every Tom, Dick and Harry doesn’t need to own guns — and especially weapons of war such as AR-15s. But that’s just me.

58
dangerman  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:31:30pm

re: #32 lawhawk

So, what Trump’s saying is that the budget was bloated and we can skimp on national defense (funding the military) to build a wall by taking billions to do his boondoggle?

Yeah, that’s exactly what he’s getting at.

a budgetary surplus!!!

I want my money back. I’ll decided how to spend my own money thank you.
(h/t Mr. Rush Limbaugh)

59
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:32:19pm

re: #57 Patricia Kayden

The 2 Amendment should be translated as allowing a well regulated militia (such as the National Guard) to own guns. No one else should be allowed to own guns except police officers and some security forces. Every Tom, Dick and Harry doesn’t need to own guns — and especially weapons of war such as AR-15s. But that’s just me.

I honestly have no problem with someone wanting to own a pistol, rifle, or shotgun for protection or if they enjoy hunting or target shooting. I do agree on the weapons of war though. And I definitely agree that pro gun jurists ignore the well regulated miltiia part at their own peril.

60
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:37:20pm

re: #55 Citizen K

Knives are already even more regulated than guns.

Switchblades and other concealable knives have had state laws in most states restricting or outright banning them, precisely because they were easily hidden and were exclusively used as lethal weapons. That was the justification behind the laws.

And I’ve yet to see any NRA types argue 2nd Amendment against those.

Nope. The NRA are two faced as I said. And I’ll never respect them at all for how they blamed Castile for his own death. They don’t care about gun owners. They care about gun makers. The sooner gun owners realize this and stop giving them money, the better off we’ll be in this discussion.

61
Unshaken Defiance  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:40:12pm

I guess I’m late to Page this…
littlegreenfootballs.com

62
dangerman  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:40:28pm

re: #46 Patricia Kayden

Folks should learn about our community before criticizing a high school student opening their mouths and spouting stupidity

63
dangerman  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:42:07pm

re: #47 Quoth the raven, Covfefe.

They continually bring up the China knife attack, but wasn’t that perpetrated by multiple people? In contrast, Las Vegas was one asshole with a small arsenal and bump stocks.

according to wiki, 8 people

64
Aucun pays pour les vieux ennemis  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:42:30pm

re: #14 Hecuba’s daughter

A different Supreme Court would have ruled differently in the Heller decision — and if we survive the Orange Turd and get a decent government again, we may get a different decision. My brother owns many guns including an AR15 and joyfully describes how much fun it is to shoot this weapon. These gun owners need to be deprogrammed.

I don’t see how it would be fun, unless you’re dealing with hard to hit targets and can feel your skill building.

Take their mass-murder guns, and give them Virtual Reality systems where they can play with guns, rocket-launchers, and even tanks. Battling enemy in VR is much more fun than shooting at targets, and it doesn’t annoy other people.

65
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:44:36pm

re: #61 Unshaken Defiance

I guess I’m late to Page this…
littlegreenfootballs.com

Nah.

66
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:45:18pm

re: #64 Aucun pays pour les vieux ennemis

I don’t see how it would be fun, unless you’re dealing with hard to hit targets and can feel your skill building.

Take their mass-murder guns, and give them Virtual Reality systems where they can play with guns, rocket-launchers, and even tanks. Battling enemy in VR is much more fun than shooting at targets, and it doesn’t annoy other people.

You mean the same video games they deride. //

67
dangerman  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:45:27pm

re: #56 Quoth the raven, Covfefe.

I don’t know which specific one, only that the gun-fuckers always refer to a singular event and mention that hundreds of people were wounded. If it’s the one I’m thinking of, the last time they brought it up, someone mentioned that there were like 8 attackers.

i assumed this one at Kunming station

The assailants killed 31 people and injured 143 (including seven policemen).

68
Aucun pays pour les vieux ennemis  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:47:40pm

re: #17 HappyWarrior

The thing that disturbs me not so much is enjoying shooting, it’s the derision of those who don’t. I can’t tell you how many stupid gun memes suggest non gun owners are wusses or cowards.

Which is absurd. Being strong enough to function without a gun is much more manly than being a gun nut.

69
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:48:22pm

Where they lose me is they insist it’s about their rights but then want to take away gamers, music fans, movie goers’ rights or blame secularism or single moms too. My wingnut friend is trying to push this as funny because they’re asking for their rights to be taken away from them. I feel like reminding him that he supports bathroom laws on the perceived idea that transgendered people might commit sexual assaults on children but I’m not in the mood to argue with stupidity.

70
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:49:13pm

re: #68 Aucun pays pour les vieux ennemis

Which is absurd. Being strong enough to function without a gun is much more manly than being a gun nut.

It is. I’ve only fired a gun once my whole life and you know what, while it was a neat experience, I didn’t feel like I was more of a man. I get more enjoyment out of intellectually stimulating myself.

71
Quoth the raven, Covfefe.  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:49:22pm

re: #67 dangerman

i assumed this one at Kunming station

That is the one, I think.

72
dangerman  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:50:37pm

re: #42 Aucun pays pour les vieux ennemis

So does columnist Steve Chapman, who I haven’t encountered in about a decade.
chicagotribune.com

chapman is probably right
except for the first line. stevens didn’t “just do the NRA a great favor”

he wrote this about the 2A in his book in 2014

73
Unshaken Defiance  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:51:50pm

re: #4 lawhawk

It’s time to address it post Heller. It’s an individual right. Until / if overturned. But that does not stop AR type restrictions in any way.

74
Patricia Kayden  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:52:58pm
75
Hecuba's daughter  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:55:09pm

re: #72 dangerman

chapman is probably right
except for the first line. stevens didn’t “just do the NRA a great favor”

he wrote this about the 2A in his book in 2014

I don’t always agree with Chapman but he usually has a thoughtful take on the issues. He leans more toward libertarian views but a sane perspective.

76
Unshaken Defiance  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:56:25pm

Well that Page included a deleted paragraph and is missin a point I’ll make here.

Since AR style guns were regulated under the Brady bill, and in states like California, why do we think we need to repeal the 2nd to do the same again?

77
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:59:02pm

I wouldn’t say he did them a favor either. He’s a retired judge and if you really listen to the kids, I mean really listen to them instead of getting your news from right wing bullshit, you’d know they don’t favor repealing the 2nd at all.

78
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 12:59:54pm

re: #76 Unshaken Defiance

Well that Page included a deleted paragraph and is missin a point I’ll make here.

Since AR style guns were regulated under the Brady bill, and in states like California, why do we think we need to repeal the 2nd to do the same again?

That’s why I disagree with Stevens. Plus repeal is a very time consuming process. I’d rather get practical solutions passed that will stand up in court.

79
Hecuba's daughter  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:00:39pm

re: #76 Unshaken Defiance

Well that Page included a deleted paragraph and is missin a point I’ll make here.

Since AR style guns were regulated under the Brady bill, and in states like California, why do we think we need to repeal the 2nd to do the same again?

I don’t know what effect Heller has on certain legislation. After all the Brady bill preceded Heller.

80
gocart mozart  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:01:37pm

re: #46 Patricia Kayden

81
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:02:33pm

It’s all going to come down to how this is argued out in the public debate. So far, I think the kids are winning that argument but we’ll see at the polls. I did talk to a voter the other day who said gun control was an important issue to him and he liked hearing my candidate was supportive of such measures that the kids have talked about.

82
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:03:21pm

re: #80 gocart mozart

[Embedded content]

The author should really consider making the Rep a character in one of his stories.

83
dangerman  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:04:15pm

re: #75 Hecuba’s daughter

I don’t always agree with Chapman but he usually has a thoughtful take on the issues. He leans more toward libertarian views but a sane perspective.

and i agree.
as i wrote up in re: #39 taking on the 2A is a huge undertaking.

post hoc consequence laws are the low hanging fruit and easiest to argue (imo)

84
Unshaken Defiance  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:05:52pm

re: #79 Hecuba’s daughter

I don’t know what effect Heller has on certain legislation. After all the Brady bill preceded Heller.

Very little impact apart from that particular gun ban. What Heller did was undermine outright gun bans, and bans by category like handgun. It does this by affirming the 2nd as an individuals right to bear arms. arms as regulated at the city state and federal level.

85
Belafon  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:06:15pm

re: #76 Unshaken Defiance

Well that Page included a deleted paragraph and is missin a point I’ll make here.

Since AR style guns were regulated under the Brady bill, and in states like California, why do we think we need to repeal the 2nd to do the same again?

Why aren’t they regulated now? That’s the answer to your question.

86
Aucun pays pour les vieux ennemis  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:06:48pm

re: #83 dangerman

and i agree.
as i wrote up in taking on the 2A is a huge undertaking.

post hoc consequence laws are the low hanging fruit and easiest to argue (imo)

And no one who isn’t a fuckup who shouldn’t have a gun can complain about punishing people who allow their gun to be used to kill innocent people. It punishes the irresponsible, which Republicans claim to be for.

88
Dr. Matt  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:09:22pm

Dow at this moment: -344.89 (-1.43%)

89
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:09:40pm

re: #87 Dr. Matt

Sarah Sanders Pressed on Reports That Trump Wants Military to Fund Wall: So Mexico’s ‘Not Going to Pay?’

When their taxes go up for the wall, Trump and the GOP will just blame the Dems for not forcing Mexico to pay, ignoring that the Dems never wanted the stupid wall.

90
goddamnedfrank  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:12:13pm

[Can’t find this tweet right now: twitter.com ]

re: #76 Unshaken Defiance

Well that Page included a deleted paragraph and is missin a point I’ll make here.

Since AR style guns were regulated under the Brady bill, and in states like California, why do we think we need to repeal the 2nd to do the same again?

You’re thinking of the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban. The Brady Bill created a five day waiting period for all FFL gun sales, and was mostly obviated by the NICS check system which returns instant background check results 92% of the time. Under current federal law if the NICS check doesn’t come back in 3 days the sale can proceed, though States like California have longer mandatory waiting periods.

91
ObserverArt  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:12:40pm

re: #46 Patricia Kayden

[Embedded content]

I still like to see and fly the United States of America flag, even though we are under control of a radical political party right now.

Throw the bums out…keep the flag.

Works for Emma…works for me.

92
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:14:37pm

re: #91 ObserverArt

I still like to see and fly the United States of America flag, even though we are under control of a radical political party right now.

Throw the bums out…keep the flag.

Works for Emma…works for me.

It was nice that the Rep defended her. I think it really says a lot that Emma’s Senator hasn’t said a damn thing.

93
Kragar  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:14:45pm
94
Shiplord Kirel, Friend of Moose and Squirrel  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:15:09pm

“You know, I think we should repeal the Second Amendment.”

“LIBTURD COMMUNIST MARX-MONSTER WANTS TO TAKE OUR GUNZ!”

“Ok, calm down. Maybe we can just require licensing and registration like we do with airplanes and cars and some guns.”

“LIBTURD COMMUNIST MARX-MONSTER WANTS TO TAKE OUR GUNZ!”

“Sheesh! How about we just tidy up some loopholes and raise the minimum age to 21.”

“LIBTURD COMMUNIST MARX-MONSTER WANTS TO TAKE OUR GUNZ!”

Conclusion: May as well go for full-on repeal. It won’t make the ammosexuals any crazier.

95
Unshaken Defiance  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:15:27pm

re: #85 Belafon

Why aren’t they regulated now? That’s the answer to your question.

Because of legislative issues.

California is effectively banning AR rifles. And each and every model of handgun not submitted for a laughably expensive and excessive “safety test” regime lately. The 2nd A has not caused a single California gun law to be overturned ever.

The 2nd is a scapegoat.

96
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:15:49pm

re: #93 Kragar

[Embedded content]

Lock them up and turn the NRA building into a building for gun dismantling.

97
ObserverArt  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:16:14pm

re: #55 Citizen K

Knives are already even more regulated than guns.

Switchblades and other concealable knives have had state laws in most states restricting or outright banning them, precisely because they were easily hidden and were exclusively used as lethal weapons. That was the justification behind the laws.

And I’ve yet to see any NRA types argue 2nd Amendment against those.

Probably need to go to the NKA* for that. NRA is busy protecting guns.

*(There is no National Knives Association lobbying group. Knives get no love!)

98
FormerDirtDart 🍕🐀  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:16:52pm

re: #88 Dr. Matt

Dow at this moment: -344.89 (-1.43%)

LOL

99
Big Beautiful Door  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:17:07pm

We know the Second Amendment isn’t going to be repealed anytime soon, and SCOTUS’ decison that it grants an individual right to self-defense isn’t going to be reversed either. However neither of those facts prevent sensible gun control laws; its only in gun nut fantasies that the 2nd grants an absolute right to own and openly carry any kind of weapon you want.

100
EPR-radar  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:17:30pm

re: #84 Unshaken Defiance

Very little impact apart from that particular gun ban. What Heller did was undermine outright gun bans, and bans by category like handgun. It does this by affirming the 2nd as an individuals right to bear arms. arms as regulated at the city state and federal level.

But Clarence Thomas is already agitating for strict scrutiny to be applied in second amendment cases. So far, the other justices on the court aren’t agreeing with this madness.

If that change in interpretation ever comes to pass, nothing resembling gun control in the US will survive, including the federal laws that presently have machine guns under tight control. The only kind of gun control that would be possible under Heller + strict scrutiny would be tiny things like taking away someone’s guns after they are convicted of a felony.

101
Dr. Matt  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:18:07pm

re: #98 FormerDirtDart 🍕🐀

LOL

The Dow is dropping faster than Dotard drops his pants to get spanked by a porn star.

102
ObserverArt  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:19:31pm

re: #70 HappyWarrior

It is. I’ve only fired a gun once my whole life and you know what, while it was a neat experience, I didn’t feel like I was more of a man. I get more enjoyment out of intellectually stimulating myself.

Is that what they call it now? : )

103
EPR-radar  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:19:50pm

re: #93 Kragar

The GOP has consistently been screaming that money is fungible in regard to federal funding of planned parenthood ‘supporting abortions’. They don’t get to pretend that money comes in separate buckets when it’s politically convenient to do so.

104
Unshaken Defiance  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:19:52pm

re: #90 goddamnedfrank

[Can’t find this tweet right now: twitter.com ]

You’re thinking of the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban. The Brady Bill created a five day waiting period for all FFL gun sales, and was mostly obviated by the NICS check system which returns instant background check results 92% of the time. Under current federal law if the NICS check doesn’t come back in 3 days the sale can proceed, though States like California have longer mandatory waiting periods.

Ah yes I was. But again has no tie to the 2nd.

105
Belafon  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:20:05pm

re: #102 ObserverArt

Is that what they call it now? : )

It’s what happens when you read the articles.

106
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:20:25pm

You know what I’m sick of seeing. The “I’m not going to listen to people who eat tide pods” stupidity. Oh? I forget how older generations never did anything stupid and the Parkland kids eating Tideoods.

107
dangerman  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:20:26pm

re: #86 Aucun pays pour les vieux ennemis

And no one who isn’t a fuckup who shouldn’t have a gun can complain about punishing people who allow their gun to be used to kill innocent people. It punishes the irresponsible, which Republicans claim to be for.

yes. that’s the sweet part.
since it doesnt affect you at all, how could you possibly be against it?
that it could be you?
then dont screw up - control your weapons at all times
what if you do mess up - well that’s what personal responsibility is all about
but but but
— so we’re back to “i want the right without any responsibility for my own negligence”

108
Aucun pays pour les vieux ennemis  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:21:28pm

re: #100 EPR-radar

But Clarence Thomas is already agitating for strict scrutiny to be applied in second amendment cases. So far, the other justices on the court aren’t agreeing with this madness.

If that change in interpretation ever comes to pass, nothing resembling gun control in the US will survive, including the federal laws that presently have machine guns under tight control. The only kind of gun control that would be possible under Heller + strict scrutiny would be tiny things like taking away someone’s guns after they are convicted of a felony.

Then we get the bloody wild-west the right-wing extremists long for.
They won’t like it when they starve to death when the economy falls apart because anyone can clean out a bank with machine guns, and they starve to death when they run out of game to hunt.

I picture an ecological disaster as desperate people hunt everything to extinction.
We depend on civilization and factory-farming continuing.

109
EPR-radar  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:21:40pm

re: #94 Shiplord Kirel, Friend of Moose and Squirrel

“You know, I think we should repeal the Second Amendment.”

“LIBTURD COMMUNIST MARX-MONSTER WANTS TO TAKE OUR GUNZ!”

“Ok, calm down. Maybe we can just require licensing and registration like we do with airplanes and cars and some guns.”

“LIBTURD COMMUNIST MARX-MONSTER WANTS TO TAKE OUR GUNZ!”

“Sheesh! How about we just tidy up some loopholes and raise the minimum age to 21.”

“LIBTURD COMMUNIST MARX-MONSTER WANTS TO TAKE OUR GUNZ!”

Conclusion: May as well go for full-on repeal. It won’t make the ammosexuals any crazier.

That’s certainly the position I’ve come to. If nothing else, polling that shows a growing fraction of people who want the second amendment repealed is about the only thing I can think of that might oblige the gun nuts to start compromising.

110
Patricia Kayden  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:21:55pm
111
ObserverArt  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:22:26pm

re: #75 Hecuba’s daughter

I don’t always agree with Chapman but he usually has a thoughtful take on the issues. He leans more toward libertarian views but a sane perspective.

I think it is simply to make it clear there are restrictions on guns. It codifies it in Constitutional language and would hopefully end some of the loose ends aspect of the 2nd amendment.

112
goddamnedfrank  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:22:33pm

re: #95 Unshaken Defiance

Because of legislative issues.

California is effectively banning AR rifles. And each and every model of handgun not submitted for a laughably expensive and excessive “safety test” regime lately. The 2nd A has not caused a single California gun law to be overturned ever.

The 2nd is a scapegoat.

Technically, but not really “effectively.” You can still buy “featureless” ARs and AR receivers here and nothing prevents people from buying the parts needed to convert them into a banned configuration. Most popular work arounds are stocks that technically eliminate the pistol grip and that replace the so-called “patriot pin” that replaces the takedown pin with a push button and assembly that drops the magazine when the upper receiver is pivoted upwards just a hair.

The only “effective” solution would be to ban semi automatic firearms entirely.

113
Unshaken Defiance  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:23:31pm

re: #100 EPR-radar

But Clarence Thomas is already agitating for strict scrutiny to be applied in second amendment cases. So far, the other justices on the court aren’t agreeing with this madness.

If that change in interpretation ever comes to pass, nothing resembling gun control in the US will survive, including the federal laws that presently have machine guns under tight control. The only kind of gun control that would be possible under Heller + strict scrutiny would be tiny things like taking away someone’s guns after they are convicted of a felony.

Too many ifs in a row to be reasonably argued. Clarence Thomas also points out congress can regulate the allowable arms as they wish. What felony justifies a gun ban is as legitimate a discussion as about the vote, another protected right. Violent felony? No guns. Smoked pot when that was a felony? What then?

114
dangerman  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:23:40pm
115
Patricia Kayden  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:24:39pm
116
dangerman  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:25:39pm

re: #93 Kragar

NRA: “We got foreign money, but it didn’t go to the election.”

Except that the funding allowed them to shift funds from other programs to the election. It was basically textbook money laundering.

117
Unshaken Defiance  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:26:17pm

re: #112 goddamnedfrank

Technically, but not really “effectively.” You can still buy “featureless” ARs and AR receivers here and nothing prevents people from buying the parts needed to convert them into a banned configuration. Most popular work arounds are stocks that technically eliminate the pistol grip and that replace the so-called “patriot pin” that replaces the takedown pin with a push button and assembly that drops the magazine when the upper receiver is pivoted upwards just a hair.

The only “effective” solution would be to ban semi automatic firearms entirely.

Why not just ban the removable mag? Otherwise ban the M1 A1 as semi auto? Okay but hardly seems nearly as threatening in a mass shoot scenario as compared to fast changing 30 rd mags.

edit-Changing the gun to add prohibited features breaks the law, state and probably federal too. So that’s not physical prevention, but the NFA does not prevent making a full auto modification either.

118
Belafon  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:26:33pm

re: #95 Unshaken Defiance

Because of legislative issues.

California is effectively banning AR rifles. And each and every model of handgun not submitted for a laughably expensive and excessive “safety test” regime lately. The 2nd A has not caused a single California gun law to be overturned ever.

The 2nd is a scapegoat.

Copied from Wikipedia:

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock” violated this guarantee.

Very much like Citizens United, these types of decisions, which removed the state and federal government’s ability to regulate, require either the SCOTUS to reverse itself, or an amendment. And the inability for DC to require guns to be locked means that CA cannot require that either.

119
EPR-radar  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:27:03pm

re: #113 Unshaken Defiance

Too many ifs in a row to be reasonably argued. Clarence Thomas also points out congress can regulate the allowable arms as they wish. What felony justifies a gun ban is as legitimate a discussion as about the vote, another protected right. Violent felony? No guns. Smoked pot when that was a felony? What then?

There is only one ‘if’ there — replacing rational basis with strict scrutiny. Thomas is actually correct when he says that using rational basis is what SCOTUS does when they don’t want to take a constitutional right seriously.

The reason the court is doing this is that Heller has to be caged with rational basis review to prevent a total disaster. But get enough Heritage foundation judges on the court and that bit of reason will be history.

120
Amory Blaine  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:27:48pm

I’d be perfectly fine with a total ban on firearms. Hunters can rent their gear from the government.

121
Patricia Kayden  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:27:57pm

re: #114 dangerman

An evil orange clown is already is the White House so what’s the difference?

122
Aucun pays pour les vieux ennemis  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:28:05pm

re: #114 dangerman

this is outstanding!

A clown is running for Congress

website: Aim High! Vote Lough!

Most people running for Congress seem to be clowns, just without the makeup and shoes.

123
Renaissance_Man  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:29:27pm

There was an article recently by one of the many identical forgettables on the right about how the point of all of this is to make it socially unacceptable to be a gun owner.

I’m in the minority on this, but I certainly hope so. I think that nothing short of social pressure and shame will work on America’s cult of human sacrifice. Laws are nice and necessary, but gun fetishists feel no shame about worshipping at the altar of human sacrifice. They feel no shame about rushing to worship more every time there’s a mass sacrifice. They feel no shame about publicly blaming victims for being murdered.

They need to. And ordinary Americans need to as well, to put that pressure on all of us. And while shame for being a gun owner is too much, people definitely need to feel shame and social embarrassment at being a gun fetishist. Carrying a weapon in public needs to be as repulsive as lighting up a cigarette in a day care centre.

So much of the current media climate is about excusing white people from feeling shame for anything. Unless and until that changes, improving American society, whether that involves sacrificing less people or electing less dictators, is going to be nigh impossible.

124
Unshaken Defiance  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:30:44pm

re: #118 Belafon

Copied from Wikipedia:

Very much like Citizens United, these types of decisions, which removed the state and federal government’s ability to regulate, require either the SCOTUS to reverse itself, or an amendment. And the inability for DC to require guns to be locked means that CA cannot require that either.

This did not overturn and is not preventing whole chapters of gun law from existing, being enforced or legislated. Heller has very limited scope in actual impact. There is nothing in the 2nd or Heller to prevent any state from regulating as strongly as California or NY. California does have a storage law that held up.

125
FormerDirtDart 🍕🐀  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:32:12pm
126
Patricia Kayden  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:32:48pm

re: #120 Amory Blaine

Or we could do what they do down in Australia:

“It’s actually not that hard to own a gun. But you do have to have a genuine reason. You have to be a member of a target shooting club or a hunter and you have to prove it. For hunting, you can get written permission from a landowner who says you are hunting on his land. Or you can join a hunting club. Pistols [handguns], on the other hand, are heavily restricted. All applicants undergo a background check by the police and there is a mandatory 30 day cooling off period for all license applications, both long arms and pistols. Firearms safety training courses are mandatory as well.”

time.com

127
EPR-radar  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:34:14pm

re: #123 Renaissance_Man

There was an article recently by one of the many identical forgettables on the right about how the point of all of this is to make it socially unacceptable to be a gun owner.

I’m in the minority on this, but I certainly hope so. I think that nothing short of social pressure and shame will work on America’s cult of human sacrifice. Laws are nice and necessary, but gun fetishists feel no shame about worshipping at the altar of human sacrifice. They feel no shame about rushing to worship more every time there’s a mass sacrifice. They feel no shame about publicly blaming victims for being murdered.

They need to. And ordinary Americans need to as well, to put that pressure on all of us. And while shame for being a gun owner is too much, people definitely need to feel shame and social embarrassment at being a gun fetishist. Carrying a weapon in public needs to be as repulsive as lighting up a cigarette in a day care centre.

So much of the current media climate is about excusing white people from feeling shame for anything. Unless and until that changes, improving American society, whether that involves sacrificing less people or electing less dictators, is going to be nigh impossible.

Precisely. When I think of repealing the second amendment, I think of that as the culmination of decades of showing the NRA/GOP death cult for what it is significantly changing public perceptions of this issue. Without success in that PR enterprise, any attempt at a repeal of the second amendment is simply doomed.

128
dangerman  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:35:16pm

re: #121 Patricia Kayden

An evil orange clown is already is the White House so what’s the difference?

i think we’re safe, colorwise

129
Amory Blaine  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:36:20pm

We can ban firearms and keep the second amendment. There is no individual right to possess a gun, period. This is the compromise.

130
Interesting Times  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:37:36pm

re: #127 EPR-radar

Precisely. When I think of repealing the second amendment, I think of that as the culmination of decades of showing the NRA/GOP death cult for what it is significantly changing public perceptions of this issue.

Exactly. At first, I thought, arrrrgh Stevens just gave the ammosexuals more ammocough with the “repeal the 2nd” argument…but now, I’m thinking that yes, maybe we DO need more people to say this if only to drag the Overton Window back from the GOPer/NRA-induced brink.

131
Unshaken Defiance  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:37:45pm

re: #119 EPR-radar

There is only one ‘if’ there — replacing rational basis with strict scrutiny. Thomas is actually correct when he says that using rational basis is what SCOTUS does when they don’t want to take a constitutional right seriously.

The reason the court is doing this is that Heller has to be caged with rational basis review to prevent a total disaster. But get enough Heritage foundation judges on the court and that bit of reason will be history.

There are quite a few ifs between Clarence Thomas musings and settled law. Legislation, signing and lower court review to name the pertinent ones.

“Thomas is actually correct when he says that using rational basis is what SCOTUS does when they don’t want to take a constitutional right seriously.”

I just don’t understand this point. Not parsing right maybe.

132
EPR-radar  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:37:51pm

re: #124 Unshaken Defiance

This did not overturn and is not preventing whole chapters of gun law from existing, being enforced or legislated. Heller has very limited scope in actual impact. There is nothing in the 2nd or Heller to prevent any state from regulating as strongly as California or NY.

For now. Surely you have to admit that SCOTUS in the future could more or less completely sweep away all existing gun control, federal state and local, dependent entirely on the ideological makeup of the court at the time relevant cases are decided.

That’s what happens when SCOTUS has no respect for its own precedents.

133
Belafon  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:37:53pm

re: #125 FormerDirtDart 🍕🐀

Wow, that’s some serious level BS right there.

134
Amory Blaine  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:38:23pm

Possessing guns will not save anyone from tyranny. If america wasn’t failing in its duties to its people, the dummies that live here would know that.

135
Belafon  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:38:30pm

re: #129 Amory Blaine

We can ban firearms and keep the second amendment. There is no individual right to possess a gun, period. This is the compromise.

Not right now we can’t. That’s was the effect of Heller.

136
Amory Blaine  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:40:13pm

Heller is a right wing nutjob interpretation. It is invalid to moral people and cherished by selfish morons.

137
lawhawk  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:40:45pm

re: #132 EPR-radar

For now. Surely you have to admit that SCOTUS in the future could more or less completely sweep away all existing gun control, federal state and local, dependent entirely on the ideological makeup of the court at the time relevant cases are decided.

That’s what happens when SCOTUS has no respect for its own precedents.

That’s also how we got from Dred Scot to Brown v. Board of Education.

The court can and has overturned prior decisions, whether it is around civil rights or reproductive health or even voting rights.

In recent years, the court has taken to narrowly construing decisions so that they have limited effect, rather than overturn outright prior decisions.

138
Amory Blaine  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:42:07pm

re: #136 Amory Blaine

As morally reprehensible as Dred Scott IMHO.

139
EPR-radar  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:42:45pm

re: #131 Unshaken Defiance

There are quite a few ifs between Clarence Thomas musings and settled law. Legislation, signing and lower court review to name the pertinent ones.

“Thomas is actually correct when he says that using rational basis is what SCOTUS does when they don’t want to take a constitutional right seriously.”

I just don’t understand this point. Not parsing right maybe.

There are several standards of review a court can use to determine if a law is constitutional or not. The easiest standard to meet is ‘rational basis’ — the government simply needs to show the law has some basis in reason or fact, and is not purely intended to be a constitutional violation.

The hardest standard to meet is ‘strict scrutiny’. Here the law will be unconstitutional if it infringes on the relevant constitutional right more than is absolutely necessary to meet some compelling objective.

Real lawyers would be more precise with the terminology, but the basic point stands. Gun control can survive under Heller + rational basis, and it cannot survive under Heller + strict scrutiny.

140
Unshaken Defiance  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:42:49pm

re: #132 EPR-radar

For now. Surely you have to admit that SCOTUS in the future could more or less completely sweep away all existing gun control, federal state and local, dependent entirely on the ideological makeup of the court at the time relevant cases are decided.

That’s what happens when SCOTUS has no respect for its own precedents.

I do admit a future court could do that, Heller, Roe V Wade, and Brown Vs. are all at this same risk. But I don’t take that as reason to repeal an individuals right as ruled. A future court (Strict Scrutiny as you point out) could swing the other way just as far. There is no militia because we nationalized the state guards. So no right to own any kind of firearm including a 1776 musket.

141
Jay C  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:43:56pm

re: #115 Patricia Kayden

These figures are nice to see, of course (and are in line with other polling I’ve seen on gun issues) - the only problem that too many of the Legislative Branches on the State and Federal are under the control of today’s Republican Party: a Party which has shown itself supremely indifferent to public opinion. Or rather, respectful of the opinions of just two constituencies:
1. Their donors.
2. The most hardcore (i.e. extremist) of their “base”.

And barring a severe electoral drubbing (along 1932, or 1964 lines), little will change.

142
gocart mozart  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:45:55pm
143
EPR-radar  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:46:27pm

re: #137 lawhawk

That’s also how we got from Dred Scot to Brown v. Board of Education.

The court can and has overturned prior decisions, whether it is around civil rights or reproductive health or even voting rights.

In recent years, the court has taken to narrowly construing decisions so that they have limited effect, rather than overturn outright prior decisions.

Or from Bowers to Lawrence. However, it is incumbent on justices who overturn precedent radically to explain their reasoning in satisfactory ways in their ruling.

I submit this challenge has been met in cases like Brown and Lawrence, and it has not been met in cases like Heller and Citizens United.

144
Amory Blaine  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:46:37pm

I would love to see some serious money push for a total ban. Nibbling around the edges is for cucks.

145
Belafon  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:47:19pm

re: #141 Jay C

These figures are nice to see, of course (and are in line with other polling I’ve seen on gun issues) - the only problem that too many of the Legislative Branches on the State and Federal are under the control of today’s Republican Party: a Party which has shown itself supremely indifferent to public opinion. Or rather, respectful of the opinions of just two constituencies:
1. Their donors.
2. The most hardcore (i.e. extremist) of their “base”.

And barring a severe electoral drubbing (along 1932, or 1964 lines), little will change.

Our job this year is to take control of the House, which will allow us to investigate Trump and propose some regular budgets, which I know won’t get passed. We will also need to try to take the Senate, though it’s a far smaller possibility. Returning as many state legislatures to Democratic control is also a target. 2020, we take the presidency, and then wipe a whole lot of GOP senators.

146
lawhawk  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:47:52pm

Want to maintain an individual right?

Then there are responsibilities:

1) mandatory background checks - including domestic violence, criminal background, and mental health.
2) 30 day waiting period - you don’t need a people blaster today. You can wait.
3) Mandatory training for new owners that must be certified within 30 days of purchase or else the sale ceases.
4) Proof of training for other sales thereafter. 7 day waiting period if you already have a training certificate.
5) Annual recertification.

I’d also throw in there insurance requirements, and proper storage in the home. Concealed carry allowed only in state of origin, and you must have a need.

147
BlueSpotinAL  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:48:57pm

re: #144 Amory Blaine

I would love to see some serious money push for a total ban. Nibbling around the edges is for cucks.

If only Soros hadn’t wasted his money on paying protestors.

148
Charles Johnson  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:49:29pm

JFC

149
EPR-radar  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:49:49pm

re: #140 Unshaken Defiance

I do admit a future court could do that, Heller, Roe V Wade, and Brown Vs. are all at this same risk. But I don’t take that as reason to repeal an individuals right as ruled. A future court (Strict Scrutiny as you point out) could swing the other way just as far. There is no militia because we nationalized the state guards. So no right to own any kind of firearm including a 1776 musket.

My view is to repeal the second amendment and replace it with nothing. That way federal, state and local lawmakers will be free to do what make the most sense according to the wills of their voters without having the courts second-guessing everything.

150
ObserverArt  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:50:53pm

Interesting conversation on Nicole Wallace’s show on MSNBC I just came into without all the details at the start. She brought up an article (WaPo?) and a tweet regarding some comments from Supreme Court Lawyer Neal Katyal.

Katyal is theorizing the reason the lawyer that represents Mark Corallo turned Trump down may be Mueller letting the lawyers know that Trump may in fact be a main target of his investigation and by having Trump and another client (Corallo) in the same mess could be a bad conflict of interest.

151
Unshaken Defiance  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:51:16pm

re: #146 lawhawk

What if we had the right to fly? But keep the FAA training etc.
New pilot guy-Little plane, no commercial flights.
Not so new-Fly a twin for hire if you can pass all the tests etc.
Master class-Fly the concorde. In the clouds.

New shooter-Smaller lower capacity guns allowed.
Not so new-Bigger better gun for bigger sport or hunt.
Master class-Get the biggest baddest permitted under law

152
Amory Blaine  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:52:01pm

Does Goldberg agree with hanging women taking care of themselves and their families?

153
Unshaken Defiance  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:54:13pm

re: #149 EPR-radar

Are you comfortable with a Constitutional convention at this time or the foreseeable? That’s the only way to do it.

154
lawhawk  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:54:24pm

re: #151 Unshaken Defiance

Ammosexual: I want the blam master 20000 now!

Authorities: You’re a newbie aren’t you, here - you’re allowed to use the pea shooter 3.0

Ammosexual: But I want the Blam Master 2000!

Authorities: You have to pass the basic mastery course, get certified in expert handling and the yearly insurance safety course, and then you can get it.

Ammosexual: WAAAAH!! I’m being oppressed!

155
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:55:02pm

re: #148 Charles Johnson

JFC

[Embedded content]

Oh.

156
ObserverArt  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:55:27pm

re: #148 Charles Johnson

JFC

[Embedded content]

There seems to be nothing a conservative cannot excuse away for their own. Excusing Williamson’s comments is so similar to the Evangelicals “forgiving” Trump’s slimy past.

157
Amory Blaine  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:55:40pm

re: #154 lawhawk

Imagine the money we could save if the answer was simply and clearly, no. No gun for you. Period.

158
Amory Blaine  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:56:37pm

Quite frankly I’m tired of my fucking tax money paying for the carnage that gun owners demand I pay.

159
Amory Blaine  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:59:09pm

Anyone believe the school shootings are over? The day to day slayings?

160
ObserverArt  Mar 27, 2018 • 1:59:44pm

re: #152 Amory Blaine

Does Goldberg agree with hanging women taking care of themselves and their families?

You know he will say no…it’s just those evil liberals goading him into revealing his thinking on women’s rights on that nasty Twitter platform. Better to keep that kind of thing on the down-low so people won’t get the wrong idea and it does hurt The Grand Old Party. A gentle scolding as it were.

161
KGxvi  Mar 27, 2018 • 2:00:49pm

re: #139 EPR-radar

There are several standards of review a court can use to determine if a law is constitutional or not. The easiest standard to meet is ‘rational basis’ — the government simply needs to show the law has some basis in reason or fact, and is not purely intended to be a constitutional violation.

The hardest standard to meet is ‘strict scrutiny’. Here the law will be unconstitutional if it infringes on the relevant constitutional right more than is absolutely necessary to meet some compelling objective.

Real lawyers would be more precise with the terminology, but the basic point stands. Gun control can survive under Heller + rational basis, and it cannot survive under Heller + strict scrutiny.

Typically, strict scrutiny applies to fundamental/constitutional rights (voting rights, civil rights, and a few other cases typically fall under this). It means that a law must be narrowly tailored to meet a compelling governmental interest, and it must be the least restrictive means of accomplishing that interest. Then there’s intermediate scrutiny, which typically applies to cases involving suspect classifications (basically sex/gender/sexuality based claims). This requires a showing that a law furthers an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest. Rational basis is the standard that is generally applied in all other scenarios. In that case, the law just must be rationally related to a government interest.

With respect to gun control laws, you could easily argue that “preventing murders” would be a compelling governmental interest. The question, then, is what would be the least restrictive means of doing so?

162
KingKenrod  Mar 27, 2018 • 2:00:58pm

re: #148 Charles Johnson

JFC

[Embedded content]

An actual “positive development” would be issuing a sincere apology and expression of regret, not destroying evidence and lamely blaming twitter for his lack of self-control.

163
Amory Blaine  Mar 27, 2018 • 2:01:42pm

re: #160 ObserverArt

Of course he’ll say no. I think that’s a lie. He either agrees with it or he’s so morally reprehensible that he’ll give that piece of shit a platform because he sees dollar signs.

164
Belafon  Mar 27, 2018 • 2:02:03pm

re: #151 Unshaken Defiance

What if we had the right to fly? But keep the FAA training etc.
New pilot guy-Little plane, no commercial flights.
Not so new-Fly a twin for hire if you can pass all the tests etc.
Master class-Fly the concorde. In the clouds.

New shooter-Smaller lower capacity guns allowed.
Not so new-Bigger better gun for bigger sport or hunt.
Master class-Get the biggest baddest permitted under law

Other than the fact that guns freakin’ kill, we already have something like that: Ham radio. You can’t use it without a license, and while I have my technicians license, I’m only allowed to use low power radios. And, guess what? I’m registered with the government. If you go digging hard enough, and knew either my call sign or my name, you can go find out where I live.

165
ObserverArt  Mar 27, 2018 • 2:02:04pm

re: #162 KingKenrod

An actual “positive development” would be issuing a sincere apology and expression of regret, not destroying evidence and lamely blaming twitter for his lack of self-control.

A Republican apologizing and being sincere.

You must be joking!

166
EPR-radar  Mar 27, 2018 • 2:02:11pm

re: #153 Unshaken Defiance

Are you comfortable with a Constitutional convention at this time or the foreseeable? That’s the only way to do it.

What’s this nonsense? There are two ways to do a constitutional amendment. Through Congress and then the states, or through a convention and then the states. Only the first path has ever been taken, and its the way I would expect a repeal of the second amendment to go as well.

Keep in mind that I’m not talking about trying to get this through congress tomorrow. That would be ridiculous. Second amendment repeal can only happen if public opinion shifts so massively on this issue that Congress wouldn’t dare get in the way of this reform, which would need decades of public opinion swinging steadily against the NRA and its cultists.

167
dangerman  Mar 27, 2018 • 2:03:44pm

re: #146 lawhawk

Want to maintain an individual right?

Then there are responsibilities:

1) mandatory background checks - including domestic violence, criminal background, and mental health.
2) 30 day waiting period - you don’t need a people blaster today. You can wait.
3) Mandatory training for new owners that must be certified within 30 days of purchase or else the sale ceases.
4) Proof of training for other sales thereafter. 7 day waiting period if you already have a training certificate.
5) Annual recertification.

I’d also throw in there insurance requirements, and proper storage in the home. Concealed carry allowed only in state of origin, and you must have a need.

background checks. absolutely. since it’s well established that some people may not own guns, then everyone should be able to vet a buyer and be required to prove he sold his gun responsibly. if only some people have to do bg checks, it’s no system at all.

im ok with a waiting period, especially if it’s not your first weapon. i would be ok with a first gun exception for a legitimate and somehow documentable personal protection need. (others may not agree)

as for training, i’d be happy with an FAA type of system - with training, then ratings and endorsements for different categories of guns.

insurance - if you want to risk your personal fortune and not carry insurance, im fine with that. when people start getting seriously sued for negligence, the voluntary participation rate will go way up. (yes i know, some people are gonna have guns who have limited or no assets.)

storage - the perfect after the fact law testing ground. facts and circumstances determine whether you controlled your weapon at all times and stored it reasonably and securely. dont want to get sued or go to jail? store your weapons responsibly.

168
Backwoods_Sleuth  Mar 27, 2018 • 2:04:37pm

re: #148 Charles Johnson

JFC

[Embedded content]

169
dangerman  Mar 27, 2018 • 2:05:36pm

re: #151 Unshaken Defiance

What if we had the right to fly? But keep the FAA training etc.
New pilot guy-Little plane, no commercial flights.
Not so new-Fly a twin for hire if you can pass all the tests etc.
Master class-Fly the concorde. In the clouds.

New shooter-Smaller lower capacity guns allowed.
Not so new-Bigger better gun for bigger sport or hunt.
Master class-Get the biggest baddest permitted under law

yes this
i type way too slow(ly)

170
KGxvi  Mar 27, 2018 • 2:06:34pm

re: #149 EPR-radar

My view is to repeal the second amendment and replace it with nothing. That way federal, state and local lawmakers will be free to do what make the most sense according to the wills of their voters without having the courts second-guessing everything.

The entire point of the courts is to second-guess everything the legislature does. Without the amendment the analysis might change, but if you still have a hundred other issues that the courts will have to hash out.

171
dangerman  Mar 27, 2018 • 2:09:08pm

this is all kinda fun and we know where it’s going

what part of “shall not be infringed”….

oh yeah? what part of “well regulated militia”

and then there’s that damned comma

“So ‘round and ‘round you go again, and it just ain’t easy.” - Gregg allman

172
Backwoods_Sleuth  Mar 27, 2018 • 2:09:50pm
173
Dave In Austin  Mar 27, 2018 • 2:10:53pm

This thread will have comic legs…….

174
KGxvi  Mar 27, 2018 • 2:11:07pm

re: #153 Unshaken Defiance

Are you comfortable with a Constitutional convention at this time or the foreseeable? That’s the only way to do it.

I’ll say about this idea what I try to remind my conservative friends who want (to varying degrees) a constitutional convention to address one or two issues: the convention of 1789 was only supposed to fix the Articles of Confederation, its first order of business was to threw them out and wrote a new constitution. 230 years of constitutional law, international law, and the development of society would lead to something none of us could even begin to suspect. It would also likely mean the end of the Union because I don’t think the necessary compromises would happen today and if a new constitution were put up for ratification more than a few states would have the option to vote for independence.

175
EPR-radar  Mar 27, 2018 • 2:12:02pm

re: #170 KGxvi

The entire point of the courts is to second-guess everything the legislature does. Without the amendment the analysis might change, but if you still have a hundred other issues that the courts will have to hash out.

Assuming the second amendment didn’t exist, are you saying that gun control legislation would still be subject to constitutional scrutiny for due process, unenumerated rights etc.? If so, that still seems like a big improvement relative to a situation where the only thing that really matters is what an activist court decides the intractably ambiguous second amendment means this week.

176
Dave In Austin  Mar 27, 2018 • 2:12:18pm
177
HappyWarrior  Mar 27, 2018 • 2:14:04pm

re: #172 Backwoods_Sleuth

[Embedded content]

Classy. I guess the Constitution and Cuba flag bs wasn’t working.

178
Dave In Austin  Mar 27, 2018 • 2:14:21pm

Oh! A Harbor Freight catalog in yesterdays mail! I must browse.

179
Amory Blaine  Mar 27, 2018 • 2:16:31pm

Rick Wilson is a fucking asshole.

180
EPR-radar  Mar 27, 2018 • 2:16:50pm

re: #177 HappyWarrior

Classy. I guess the Constitution and Cuba flag bs wasn’t working.

I remember when being ‘the party of ideas’ was a Republican talking point. Now it’s just the party of lies, and not very convincing lies at that.

181
FormerDirtDart 🍕🐀  Mar 27, 2018 • 2:17:45pm
182
KGxvi  Mar 27, 2018 • 2:19:40pm

re: #175 EPR-radar

Assuming the second amendment didn’t exist, are you saying that gun control legislation would still be subject to constitutional scrutiny for due process, unenumerated rights etc.? If so, that still seems like a big improvement relative to a situation where the only thing that really matters is what an activist court decides the intractably ambiguous second amendment means this week.

Depends on what you mean by “didn’t exist.” How the court would have ruled if there was never a Second Amendment is a fool’s game. How it would rule if it was repealed tomorrow is also a fool’s game. The court has relied on history, experience, and social expectations when recognizing unenumerated rights as protected by the constitution, the idea that they wouldn’t do the same with gun and the right to keep and bear arms or the right to self-defense is probably a bit naive.

183
Hecuba's daughter  Mar 27, 2018 • 2:24:17pm

re: #137 lawhawk

That’s also how we got from Dred Scot to Brown v. Board of Education.

The court can and has overturned prior decisions, whether it is around civil rights or reproductive health or even voting rights.

In recent years, the court has taken to narrowly construing decisions so that they have limited effect, rather than overturn outright prior decisions.

It took constitutional amendments to repeal Dred Scott. It was Plessy vs Ferguson that was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education

—ed to correct typo

184
ObserverArt  Mar 27, 2018 • 2:31:00pm

re: #179 Amory Blaine

Rick Wilson is a fucking asshole.

Wolf in sheep’s clothing. He gets mileage by busting Trump, but he is still a Republican.

185
Unshaken Defiance  Mar 27, 2018 • 2:40:33pm

re: #164 Belafon

Other than the fact that guns freakin’ kill, we already have something like that: Ham radio. You can’t use it without a license, and while I have my technicians license, I’m only allowed to use low power radios. And, guess what? I’m registered with the government. If you go digging hard enough, and knew either my call sign or my name, you can go find out where I live.

Planes, trucks, mining charges and all kinds of stuff can be deadly, and I totally agree that’s a regulation protocol I can get behind for guns. Every week they deliver enough hydrogen gas where I work to make a hell of a deadly bang. I don’t want some Tim McVeigh getting that either.

At it’s most simple-Goes bang when things go wrong? Needs a license and bg check for the operator.

186
Unshaken Defiance  Mar 27, 2018 • 2:48:37pm

re: #174 KGxvi

Unfortunately the only level the “repeal the 2nd A” works at is emotional. Fails the legality test, the necessity test and failing a convention, the practicality test. The smart play is look past this distraction and pass laws that pass muster in court.

The existence of the 2nd A really should not become a way to let congress or state legislators or gun regulation advocates off the hook for working for good laws. And that’s what happens when one points the finger of blame at any part of the Bill of Rights. One unintentionally lets congress have cover for inaction.

187
fern01  Mar 27, 2018 • 3:14:32pm

re: #172 Backwoods_Sleuth

Nothing like surviving a school shooting to be attacked by the RWNJ mob.

Any wonder women rarely report rape & abuse. This is how they are treated - again and again.

188
BeachDem  Mar 27, 2018 • 3:31:16pm

re: #168 Backwoods_Sleuth

[Embedded content]

In addition to his misogynist bullshit, his “road trip” sagas where he takes every chance to denigrate (what I suspect are made-up) minorities were equally obnoxious. (And he’s not even a good writer.)

National Review Flips ‘Days Since Last Racist Rant’ Sign Back to 0

nymag.com

We usually avoid the work of Kevin D. Williamson at National Review, partly because every piece is overwritten tripe with a point so far outside of reality we need a wormhole to reach it, and partly because we are creeped out by Williamson, who looks like the dandified love child of Ted Bundy and a deformed penis. He is also probably the most consistent race-baiter at NR since old John Derbyshire took his white sheets to VDARE

wonkette.com


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2016-01-01 10:29 am PST
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Square Cash Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh
NRA & Trump Treason: Maria Butina Pleads Guilty, Flips on Them All the shoes appear to be dropping now. Maria Butina, the Russian "sparrow" who infiltrated the NRA with the assistance of dimwitted, horny GOP operatives, has now plead guilty and is cooperating with the Mueller investigation. Prosecutors in their ...
Khal Wimpo (the extinguisher of tiki torches)
8 hours, 26 minutes ago
Views: 137 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 0 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Day After Neo-Nazi Is Convicted of Murder, Associates of a Violent Skinhead Group Charged With Hate Crimes Travis David Condor, a member of the band Birthrite and head of hate-music record label American Defense Records, was among nine people arrested at a bar in Lynwood, Washington, early Saturday morning. The Snohomish County Sheriff's Office said in ...
Thanos
1 day, 15 hours ago
Views: 231 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Embattled Washington Rep. Matt Shea Is Skirting State Law to Funnel Campaign Funds to Far-Right Groups Shea uses his office and campaign funds to spearhead a partitionist effort to split Washington into two states, and may have violated state laws by using surplus campaign funds to make at least $5,500 in contributions to far-right nonprofit ...
Thanos
1 day, 16 hours ago
Views: 145 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
The Outer Worlds - Official Announcement Trailer Watch the official announcement trailer for The Outer Worlds, a new single-player first-person sci-fi RPG from Obsidian Entertainment and Private Division. In The Outer Worlds, you awake from hibernation on a colonist ship that was lost in transit to ...
Thanos
2 days, 5 hours ago
Views: 146 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
The Umbrella Academy When it rains, it pours. Here's your first look at The Umbrella Academy. Coming to Netflix February 15. A dysfunctional family of superheroes comes together to solve the mystery of their father's death, the threat of the apocalypse and ...
Thanos
2 days, 6 hours ago
Views: 132 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 2 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Elvis Costello & the Imposters - Suspect My Tears The new deluxe album ‘Look Now’ out now, order here: elviscostello.lnk.to Explore more music from Elvis Costello: lnk.to Follow Elvis Costello:Facebook: facebook.comInstagram: instagram.comTwitter: twitter.comWebsite: elviscostello.com Director & Original Story - MustashrikExecutive Production - Whitney JacksonProduced by Partizan VFX Supervisor ...
Thanos
2 days, 7 hours ago
Views: 190 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
VULFPECK /// Half of the Way (Feat. Theo Katzman) VULFPECK /// Half of the Waybuy on bandcamp → vuuulf.com Theo Katzman — vocalsLarry Goldings — piano, composerRyan Lerman — guitar, composer, engineerJoey Dosik — saxWoody Goss — tambourineJack Stratton — drums, mixingJoe Dart — fender bassCory Wong — ...
Thanos
2 days, 7 hours ago
Views: 112 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Storyhill - Blazing Out of Sight (Live at Radio Heartland)Storyhill perform "Blazing Out of Sight," from their 2007 self-titled album as well from the 2018 compilation, "Stages," live at Radio Heartland.
Thanos
2 days, 7 hours ago
Views: 127 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
How Smooth Jazz Took Over the ’90s You should give smooth jazz a chance. Subscribe to our channel! goo.gl Smooth jazz has gotten a bad rap for decades. It’s often associated with background music for elevators or the soundtrack at the dentist office. Smooth jazz is ...
Thanos
3 days, 17 hours ago
Views: 152 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 1
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0
Feds Target Butina’s GOP Boyfriend as Foreign Agent Paul Erickson, a longtime Republican politico whose Russian girlfriend is in jail on charges she acted as a covert foreign agent, has been informed that he may face similar accusations. The Daily Beast reviewed a so-called “target letter” that ...
Thanos
5 days, 18 hours ago
Views: 229 • Comments: 1 • Rating: 0
Tweets: 1 • Share to Facebook
Shares: 0
Comments: 0
: 0